Updated profiles of everyday executive function in youth with Down syndrome using the BRIEF‐2

Abstract

Background Executive function difficulties in youth with Down syndrome (DS) are well recognised using informant-report measures. However, the profile of relative challenges and strengths has not yet been evaluated using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2), which includes a new internal factor structure. Method Using the BRIEF-2, profiles of everyday parent-reported executive function (EF) were evaluated in youth with DS (n = 34) and compared with age-based and sex-based norms. EF profiles were also compared across raters (parent vs. teacher, n = 20) and relative to mental age-matched typically developing controls (ns = 19 in each group). Results Although within-group differences were not revealed on indexes, significant differences were found among BRIEF-2 scales. Across raters, teachers reported significantly more difficulties than parents. Compared with mental age-matched typically developing controls, the DS group was rated more poorly on some but not all BRIEF-2 scales. Conclusions At the scale, but not the index level, the BRIEF-2 identifies a variegated EF profile in children with DS. For several of the scales, significant differences were noted relative to both chronological age expectations (using norms) and mental-age expectations (using a developmentally matched comparison group). At the scale level, the BRIEF-2 continues to be a sensitive tool for identifying executive function difficulties as well as profiles of relative strengths and weaknesses in children with DS.

Executive function and intellectual disability: innovations, methods and treatment

“…Moreover, the group-level profile seems to partially vary by factors like age and environmental context. Preschool and school-age children varied somewhat in their EF profiles in the Onnivello et al (2022) study, and greater EF challenges were reported by teachers relative to parents in the Csumitta et al (2022) study. These and other similar dimensions are important to consider when describing syndrome-related performances on the group level.…”

“…Also, several papers in this special issue reach the conclusion that proxy‐report measures used to assess EF in the general population, such as the BRIEF and its different forms, might are sensitive tools for identifying difficulties and profiles at least for some specific ID aetiologies such as Down and Williams syndrome (Csumitta et al . 2022; Greiner de Magalhaes et al ., 2022; Onnivello et al . 2022).…”

“…One advantage of this approach is that proxy-report measures that were developed for the general population have been demonstrated to be appropriate for use in individuals with ID and retain their psychometric properties. Also, several papers in this special issue reach the conclusion that proxy-report measures used to assess EF in the general population, such as the BRIEF and its different forms, might are sensitive tools for identifying difficulties and profiles at least for some specific ID aetiologies such as Down and Williams syndrome (Csumitta et al 2022;Greiner de Magalhaes et al, 2022;Onnivello et al 2022). Using proxy-report measures has the advantage of eliminating the confounding factors of laboratory test and they increase ecological validity, but important issues arise when interpreting parent-report or teacher-report data.…”

“…(2022) study, and greater EF challenges were reported by teachers relative to parents in the Csumitta et al . (2022) study. These and other similar dimensions are important to consider when describing syndrome‐related performances on the group level.…”

“…2015) in children with Down syndrome and examine the relationship between caregiver‐reported EF and adaptive behaviour. Csumitta et al (2022) compare EF proxy‐report data from parents and teachers of children with Down syndrome using the BRIEF‐2 (Gioia et al . 2015).…”