When theory met data: Factor structure of the BRIEF2 in a clinical sample

Abstract

Objective: The BRIEF2 is the recent revision of a frequently employed measure of executive behaviors; however, no research has yet addressed the validity of the new measure’s theoretical design. Method: The present study examined the factor structure of the BRIEF2 in 5212 clinically referred youth (66% male, 5–18 years) via exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses of item-level responses. Results: Results from the EFA suggested the BRIEF2 has fewer factors than would be suggested by the nine theoretically derived scales. While the theoretical CFA model, that omitted item-level information, demonstrated the best fit, when the item-level information was employed there was a decrement in model fit statistics and several extremely high loadings suggested scale-level redundancy in measurement. When the scales were omitted, and the items were loaded directly onto the indices, there was very little change in item-level factor loadings. Conclusions: Findings suggest fewer than nine scales are needed and that clinical interpretation of the BRIEF2 may be more appropriate at the index, rather than scale, level.

A Validation Study of the BRIEF-2 Among Kindergarteners and First Graders At-Risk for Behavior Problems

“…We were interested in determining whether the underlying theory of the BRIEF-2 was supported by empirical evidence during a period when students experience active EF maturation and are at-risk for developing emotional and behavioral problems. Although research has examined the factor structure of the Parent Form of the BRIEF-2 at the item level (Jacobson et al, 2019), to our knowledge, this is the first study to conduct item level analyses of the teacher version of the BRIEF-2 to establish internal validity with students in early elementary school at-risk for behavior problems.…”

“…Although an emerging body of research on the BRIEF-2 has found support for three distinct second order factors, independent studies have tended to include either a wide range of ages (5-18 years old; Jacobson et al, 2019) or did not include students in kindergarten and first grade (8-12 years old; Muñoz & Filippetti, 2019), limiting insight into validity for these students. Furthermore, previous analyses of the original BRIEF resulted in support for a factor structure that did not align with the manual model (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010; Gioia et al, 2002; Peters et al, 2012), as well as cross loadings of subscales on indexes (Donders et al, 2010; Lyons Usher et al, 2016), highlighting internal validity concerns.…”

“…Limitations, however, have been noted in previous BRIEF-2 validation studies. First, much of the previous analyses has been conducted using parceling at the scale level (Gioia et al, 2015) versus at the item level, which not only makes the assumption that theoretically assigned items accurately reflect the assigned scale but may also mask item-level sources of misfit (Little et al, 2013), leading to biased estimates (Bandalos & Finney, 2001;Jacobson et al, 2019). Second, several choices related to underlying scales have been made based on theoretical considerations versus empirical methods (e.g., Gioia et al, 2015).…”

“…Internal Factor Structure. Following similar analytic procedures as Jacobson et al (2019), who investigated whether EF theory underlying the BRIEF-2 Parent Form was empirically supported using item level data, we examined the BRIEF-2 Teacher Form internal factor structure using an iterative process. First, with the full sample (N = 1,112; deidentified data and codes are available on request from the corresponding author), we evaluated the BRIEF-2 internal factor structure by fitting the a priori manual specified three-index model (referred to as manual model hereinafter; Gioia et al, 2015; see Figure 1), yet examined items at the item level, such that 60 items loaded onto 9 scales (first order factors)-Inhibit (eight items), Self-Monitor (five items), Shift (eight items), Emotional Control (eight items), Initiate (four items), Working Memory (eight items), Plan/ Organize (eight items), Task Monitor (six items), Organization of Materials (five items).…”

Effects of neurological music therapy on behavioural and emotional recovery after traumatic brain injury: A randomized controlled cross-over trial

“…Donders and Strong (2016) studied the factor structure of BRIEF-A in persons with TBI and found that the three-factor structure was particularly well fitting to the self-report data. Even the updated version of the questionnaire for children (BRIEF-2) has adopted this new factor structure (Jacobson et al, 2020). In the current study, we utilized three indices: Behavioural Regulation Index (comprising the Inhibit and Self-monitor scales), Emotional Regulation Index (comprising the Shift and Emotional control scales) and Metacognition Index (comprising of the remaining scales).…”