Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function BRIEF 2

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF 2): Analyzing and Interpreting Ratings from Multiple Raters Melissa A. Messer 1, MHS, Jennifer A. Greene 1, MSPH, Peter K. Isquith 2, Ph. D, Gerard Gioia 3, Ph. D, Lauren Kenworthy, Ph. D, and Steven Guy, Ph. D Background Results • The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF 2) is the first revision of the BRIEF, originally published in 2000 (Gioia, Isquith, Guy & Kenworthy, 2000). • It is a parent, teacher and self-report rating scale designed to assess everyday behaviors associated with executive functions in the home and school environments. • The BRIEF 2 scales are combined to form three indexes (Behavior Regulation, Emotion Regulation, Cognitive Regulation) and one overall composite (Global Executive Composite). • The majority of items are parallel across forms. • Objective: We examined interrater reliability of the BRIEF 2 among interrater dyad samples of both typically developing (TD) children and children with clinical and developmental disorders (i. e. , autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disorder). Methods n 287 Teacher/ Teacher C TD 149 583 115 Parent/ Teacher C TD 1, 426 632 • Parent/Parent, Parent/Teacher, and Parent/Self raters had the strongest correlations in the TD sample. • Teacher/Teacher, Parent/Parent raters had moderate correlations in the clinical sample. • The mean differences between BRIEF 2 scores are relatively small. • Effect sizes ranged from. 03 to. 21 in the typically developing sample and from. 00 to. 33 in the clinical sample, indicating very small differences between raters. Parent/Parent Clinical . 63* . 61* . 57* . 56* TD . 75* . 73* . 88* . 86* TD d Mean Difference 1. 77 . 14 . 52 d Mean Difference d 2. 37 . 18 1. 53 . 15 2. 02 . 20 . 13 . 34 . 04 . 27 . 03 . 46 . 05 Parent/Parent . 70** . 52** . 58** . 62** Teacher/Teacher TD . 45** . 27** . 45** Clinical . 39 . 03 . 13 . 01 . 04 . 00 . 03 . 00 TD 1. 22 . 13 1. 20 . 13 . 94 . 10 1. 14 . 12 Parent/Teacher/ Self-Report C TD Clinical . 45** . 32** . 36** . 30** Parent/Teacher TD . 72** . 60** . 72** Clinical . 75 . 05 3. 34 . 27 3. 12 . 28 3. 07 . 28 458 343 Parent/Self-Report TD 1. 90 . 21 2. 18 . 24 1. 84 . 20 1. 93 . 21 Clinical . 57 . 05 1. 86 . 16 3. 58 . 33 3. 25 . 33 TD 1. 45 . 15 . 99 . 11 1. 47 . 15 1. 41 . 15 472 372 Clinical . 33 . 28* . 35* . 25* . 62* . 59* . 74* . 71* 64. 8 46. 3 71. 2 50. 4 68. 5 47. 2 59. 0 48. 3 56. 7 47. 3 TD Female 35. 2 53. 7 28. 8 49. 6 31. 5 52. 8 41. 0 51. 7 41. 3 52. 7 Teacher/Self-Report Age (years) M 11. 4 10. 8 12. 4 13. 9 11. 0 11. 5 14. 7 14. 6 14. 4 14. 6 SD 3. 4 3. 8 3. 2 3. 0 3. 4 4. 0 2. 1 2. 3 Note. C = clinical sample; TD = typically developing sample Methods: Correlations, mean differences & effect sizes for each index were examined. • Effect size, Cohen’s d, was calculated based on the mean difference and pooled standard deviation for each pair’s index scores • In addition, percentages of these samples that obtained various T-Score differences on the Index scores and GEC score were calculated. BRIEF 2 Indexes/Composite Regulate and monitor behavior effectively, reflecting inhibitory control and self-monitoring. Regulate emotional responses, adapt to changes and Emotion Regulation shift set appropriately reflecting the Shift and Emotional Index (ERI) Control scales. Global Executive Composite (GEC) Clinical Sample Pair d Mean Difference Clinical Male Cognitive Regulation Index (CRI) Mean Difference GEC Parent/ Self-Report C TD Gender Behavior Regulation Index (BRI) Mean Differences and Effect Sizes for Dyad Scores BRI ERI Correlations between Dyad Scores Sample Pair BRI ERI CRI GEC Teacher/Teacher Participants: Reliability was assessed within five dyads: Parent/Teacher, Parent/Self-Report, Teacher/Self-Report, Parent/Parent & Teacher/Teacher. Parent/ Parent C TD • The correlations between raters are moderate to strong for TD children and low to moderate for clinical groups. Control and manage cognitive processes; to initiate, plan, organize and monitor problem solve effectively, holding goals and plans in working memory. Overall summary incorporating all aspects of executive functioning captured on the BRIEF-2. Clinical . 24* . 14* . 20* . 13* TD . 51* . 42* . 62* . 57* Parent/Self-Report Teacher/Self-Report Clinical 2. 57 . 24 3. 21 . 29 2. 57 . 23 2. 62 . 26 TD 1. 17 . 13 2. 28 . 25 1. 41 . 15 1. 76 . 19 • For parent and teacher ratings, 53 -59% of cases reported scores within 10 T-score points. Percentages of Dyad Scores within 10 T-Score Points (Clinical Samples only) Sample Pair BRI ERI CRI GEC • As expected the agreement of the Parent–Parent sample was higher, with 67 -76% of being within 10 T-score points. Parent/Parent 68% 67% 75% 76% Teacher/Teacher Parent/Teacher 72% 55% 73% 53% 70% 59% 76% 57% • Agreement in the Teacher–Teacher sample was even higher, with 70 -76% Parent/Self-Report 63% of cases bring within 10 T-score points of each other. Teacher/Self-Report 59% 59% 62% 55% 57% • Agreement within 10 T-score points for adolescents when compared to parents and teachers ratings was 59 -63% and 52 -59% of cases, respectively. Conclusions • Pairs of raters with similar perspectives, namely, Parent–Parent and Teacher–Teacher, tend to be correlated more highly than raters who see the child from different perspectives. • The lowest correlations were seen between adolescent and either parents or teachers. • Gathering multiple perspectives in the assessment of a child’s functioning provides a more comprehensive set of data. • An interpretive strategy that includes comparison of dyads or triads of raters’ views is desirable. 1 Psychological Assessment Resources; 2 Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College; 3 Children’s National Medical Center