The dimensionality of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition in a clinical sample

Lace, John W.; Seitz, David E.; Austin, Tara; Kennedy, Erin; Ferguson, Bradley J.; Mohrland, Michael D

doi:10.1080/21622965.2021.1910950

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, chi-square differences can be affected by sample size. Compared with other studies that supported the two-factor model of the BRIEF and BRIEF2 ( (Lace et al 2021, Lyons Usher et al 2016, Slick et al 2006, the relatively larger sample size in the current study can result in higher chi-square differences between the models and consequently increase the chance to have a significant P-value. Thus, regarding small differences in other fit indices between the two-and three-factor models, and also the large correlation between BRI and ERI in the three-factor model, it is possible that the two-factor model theoretically explains the underlying structure of the BRIEF2 in this sample of youth with DS.…”

Section: Two-factor Model Versus Three-factor Modelcontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…In summary, there are inconsistent results regarding the factor structure of the BRIEF and BRIEF2 with mixed clinical samples. While some studies supported the three-factor structure of the BRIEF (Gioia & Isquith 2002;Lace et al 2019) and the BRIEF2 (Jacobson et al 2020;Parhoon et al 2022), others reported that two-factor model best explains the factor structure of the BRIEF (Lyons Usher et al 2016;Memisevic 2015;Slick et al 2006) and BRIEF2 (Lace et al 2021). Such inconsistency may reflect the unique EF structure in specific clinical samples.…”

Section: Factor Structure Of the Brief And Brief2 In Clinical Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even more recently, the proposed factor structures (one-, two-, and three-factor models) were examined with some mixed and specific clinical samples by using the updated version of the BRIEFthe BRIEF2 (Jacobson et al 2020;Lace et al 2021;Parhoon et al 2022). Using CFA, Lace et al (2021) reported that the bifactor two-factor structure of the BRIEF2 (CRI & BRI/ERI) provided the best fit in a mixed clinical sample of children with ASD, cerebral palsy, brain tumours, unspecified neurodevelopmental disorders, ADHD, psychiatric (e.g. anxiety and depression) disorders, intellectual disabilities, and specific learning disorders.…”

Section: Factor Structure Of the Brief And Brief2 In Clinical Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, separating BRI from ERI and conceptualising them as distinct components may provide meaningful explanatory value for the BRIEF2 among youth with DS. Alternatively, It is possible that dysregulated behavioural and emotional functioning are less differentiable on parent reports in clinical samples (Lace et al 2021) including those with DS, and the two-factor model with the merged BRI and ERI makes sense. In the current study, we selected the three-factor structure as the best fitting model based on chi-square differences and its relevant P-value.…”

Section: Two-factor Model Versus Three-factor Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Confirmatory factor analysis of the BRIEF2 in a sample of youth with Down syndrome

Soltani

Schworer

Jacobson

et al. 2022

J intellect Disabil Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The factor structure of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, second edition (BRIEF2) has been widely examined in both typically developing children and specific clinical samples. Despite the frequent use of the BRIEF2 for measuring executive functioning in individuals with Down syndrome, no study has investigated the factorial validity or dimensionality of the BRIEF2 in this population. This study aimed to address this notable gap in the literature. Methods Parents of 407 children and youth with Down syndrome aged 6-18 years completed the BRIEF2 as part of different studies led by six sites. Three competing models proposed by previous studies were analysed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis: the theoretical structure of the BRIEF2 where the scales were constrained to load on three factors labelled as Cognitive, Behavioral, and Emotional Regulation, a two-factor correlated model with the merged Behavioral and Emotional regulation, and a single-factor model. ResultsThe three-factor model provided a better fit than the one-and two-factor models, yet a large correlation was observed between Behavioural and Emotional regulation factors. The results provide meaningful explanatory value for the theoretical structure of the BRIEF2. However, the Behavioral and Emotional regulation factors might be less differentiated and the two-factor structure of the BRIEF2 may also make theoretical and empirical sense. Conclusions Although more studies are needed to further examine the factor structure of the BRIEF2 in youth with Down syndrome, this investigation provides preliminary support for the interpretation of the three executive function index scores provided by the BRIEF2: Cognitive, Behavioral, and Emotional Regulation.

show abstract

Section: Two-factor Model Versus Three-factor Modelcontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Factor Structure Of the Brief And Brief2 In Clinical Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Factor Structure Of the Brief And Brief2 In Clinical Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Two-factor Model Versus Three-factor Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Confirmatory factor analysis of the BRIEF2 in a sample of youth with Down syndrome

Soltani

Schworer

Jacobson

et al. 2022

J intellect Disabil Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Asia, the three-factor nine-scale structure of the Chinese BRIEF2 parent and teacher forms has been supported in 6- to 15-year-old children with ADHD symptoms in Hong Kong (Shum et al, 2021). However, internationally, a series of exploratory factor analyses have suggested fewer factors could account for the variance at the item or scale levels (Jacobson et al, 2020; Lace et al, 2022). In line with this suggestion, a two-factor (CRI and BRI/ERI) bifactor structure was found to fit better in a sample of clinically referred children (Lace et al, 2022).…”

Section: Behavior Rating Inventory Of Executive Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for executive function difficulties: An evaluation of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-2nd Edition Screener, Teacher Report (BRIEF2-TS).

Waschl¹,

Khng²,

Bull³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive functions (EFs) correlate positively with many developmental outcomes, and ecologically valid measures of EFs may be more predictive of some outcomes than performance-based measures. Accordingly, there is a need to evaluate short EF rating scales, such as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-2nd Edition Screener, Teacher Report (BRIEF2-TS). Data from 1,322 kindergarten children in Singapore (50% girls; 61.3% Chinese, 10.6% Malay, 16.3% Indian, 4.0% other ethnicity, and 7.8% did not report their ethnicity), followed for 3 years, were used to examine the multilevel factor structure, gender and longitudinal invariance, reliability, and concurrent and predictive validity of BRIEF2-TS scores. Results indicated a two-factor within-level structure (11 items; cognitive and emotional-behavioral regulation) that was at least partially invariant across gender and time. Concurrent validity with direct EF measures and ratings of self-regulation, and predictive validity for socioemotional and academic skills were good. Overall, BRIEF2-TS scores showed evidence for good validity and reliability. Future research should consider correlates of the between-level structure and further consider structure and validity in clinical samples. Public Significance StatementExecutive functions (EFs) are positively related to important aspects of child development, and short EF rating scales are useful for measuring child EF in large-scale clinical and research settings. This study provides evidence of the psychometric validity of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-2nd Edition Screener, Teacher Report (BRIEF2-TS) with young children in Singapore.

show abstract

Executive functions beyond the “Holy Trinity”: A scoping review.

Dias,

Helsdingen,

Lins

et al. 2024

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Executive functions (EFs) are a multifaceted construct, important for several outcomes throughout life. The most commonly addressed executive components are inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. To map how other executive components are addressed conceptually and methodologically in the literature, a scoping review was carried out. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline was used. The database search (2017-2022) was carried out on the APA PsycInfo, Medline, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO databases. A total of 3,473 articles were identified; 1,302 remained after screening. Given the large number of articles, a sample calculation was performed (95% CI and 5% error), with 297 articles randomly selected for full-text reading and 242 studies included for analysis. Results: There was a predominance of health application studies in adults and older adults and in developed countries. There is relative conceptual consensus that EF are a multidimensional construct; however, there is no explicit identification of the theoretical model used in the studies. A diversity of EF was evidenced, which broadens the understanding of the construct, its assessment, and intervention targets. Furthermore, there was a variety of instruments used to assess these skills, with a predominance of performance tests, often with construct-instrument ambivalence between studies. Conclusions: The mapping showed a diversity of skills referred to as EF in addition to the core components and identified the instruments used in their assessment. Greater conceptual and structural clarity and greater methodological care are fundamental to support the assessment of EF and their intervention. Key PointsQuestion: This review involved the mapping of studies and definitions of executive functions, followed by an analysis of how the "noncore" components are conceptually and methodologically addressed in the literature. Findings: Despite some consensus on the definition of executive functions, there is little clarity regarding the models used, a wide diversity of components, and many instruments employed for their assessment. Importance: Executive functions are not limited to the three commonly investigated core components; the findings support the delimitation of components and the selection of instruments and highlight inconsistencies and research requirements in the area. Next Steps: It is necessary to encourage research in developing countries, greater care in the definition of the construct, and explicit delimitation of the theoretical model, while also solving conceptual (which skills are "executive"?) and operational (lack of standardization and arbitrariness in the choice of measures) challenges.

show abstract

The dimensionality of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition in a clinical sample

Cited by 8 publications

References 67 publications

Confirmatory factor analysis of the BRIEF2 in a sample of youth with Down syndrome

Confirmatory factor analysis of the BRIEF2 in a sample of youth with Down syndrome

Screening for executive function difficulties: An evaluation of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-2nd Edition Screener, Teacher Report (BRIEF2-TS).

Executive functions beyond the “Holy Trinity”: A scoping review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About