scholarly journals The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function®-Adult Version is Related to Emotional Distress, Not Executive Dysfunction, in a Veteran Sample

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 701-716
Author(s):  
Susan K Shwartz ◽  
Brad L Roper ◽  
Timothy J Arentsen ◽  
Ellen M Crouse ◽  
Marcy C Adler

Abstract Objective In three studies, we explore the impact of response bias, symptom validity, and psychological factors on the self-report form of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) and the relationship between self-reported executive functioning (EF) and objective performance. Method Each study pulled from a sample of 123 veterans who were administered a BRIEF-A and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) during a neuropsychological evaluation. Participants were primarily middle-aged, and half carried a mood disorder diagnosis. Study 1 examined group differences in BRIEF-A ratings among valid, invalid, and indeterminate MMPI-2 responders. Analyses were conducted to determine the optimal cut-score for the BRIEF-A Negativity Validity scale. In Study 2, relationships were explored among MMPI-2-RF (restructured form) Restructured Clinical (RC) scales, somatic/cognitive scales, and the BRIEF-A Metacognition Index (MI); hierarchical analyses were performed to predict MI using MMPI-2-RF Demoralization (RCd) and specific RC scales. Study 3 correlated BRIEF-A clinical scales and indices with RCd and an EF composite score from neuropsychological testing. Hierarchical analyses were conducted to predict BRIEF-A clinical scales. Results Invalid performance on the MMPI-2 resulted in significantly elevated scores on the BRIEF-A compared to those with valid responding. A more stringent cut-score of ≥4 for the BRIEF-A Negativity scale is more effective at identifying invalid symptom reporting. The BRIEF-A MI is most strongly correlated with demoralization. BRIEF-A indices and scales are largely unrelated to objective EF performance. Conclusions In a veteran sample, responses on the BRIEF-A are most representative of generalized emotional distress and response bias, not actual EF abilities.

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 682-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Løvstad ◽  
S. Sigurdardottir ◽  
S. Andersson ◽  
V.A. Grane ◽  
T. Moberget ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectives:The present study explored the level of self-and informant reported executive functioning in daily living using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) in a large sample comprising healthy adults and patient cohorts with neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. The relationship to neuropsychological test performance and self-reported emotional distress was explored, as well as the applicability of U.S. normative data.Methods:Scores on the self- and informant reported BRIEF-A are presented, along with scores on standardized cognitive tests, and on rating scales of self-reported emotional distress in a Norwegian healthy comparison group (n=115), patients with severe traumatic brain injury (n=125), focal frontal lobe damage (n=29), focal cerebellar lesion (n=24), Parkinson’s disease (n=42), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (n=34), type II bipolar disorder (n=21), and borderline personality disorder (n=18).Results:Strong associations were observed between the BRIEF-A and emotional distress in both the healthy group and in neurological groups, while no or weak relationships with IQ and performance-based tests of executive function were seen. The relationship between BRIEF-A and emotional distress was weaker in the neuropsychiatric patient groups, despite high symptom load in both domains. Healthy participants tended to have BRIEF-A scores 1/2–3/4SDbelow the U.S. normative mean ofTscore=50.Conclusions:The study demonstrates the need to interpret BRIEF-A results within a broad differential diagnostic context, where measures of psychological distress are included in addition to neuropsychological tests. Uncertainty about the appropriateness of U.S. normative data in non-U.S. countries adds to the need for interpretive caution. (JINS, 2016,22, 682–694)


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1035-1035
Author(s):  
Trujillo S ◽  
Carrillo A ◽  
Greene J ◽  
Roth R ◽  
Isquith P ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function®—Adult Version (BRIEF-A) is a standardized measure that captures an adult’s executive functions in his or her everyday environment. The current study provides additional statistical evidence to support interpretation of BRIEF-A scores across raters and over time. Method Participants were adults, ages 18 to 90 years, from the BRIEF-A Self-Report (N = 1,050) and Informant-Report (N = 1,200) standardization samples, as well as an interrater sample (n = 180) and test–retest samples (n = 50 for Self, n = 44 for Informant). Interrater correlations, base rates of interrater differences, and score differences required for statistical significance were examined. Test–retest correlations and score differences required for statistical significance were examined. Base rates of elevated T scores (≥ 65) were calculated for the standardization samples across age groups. Results Interrater correlations ranged from .44 to .68 with an interrater difference of 17–20 T-score points considered significant at p < .05. Approximately 55–73% of raters reported scores within 10 T-score points. Test–retest scores were highly correlated (Self: r = .82–.94; Informant: r = .91–.96), with a between-test difference of 7–11 T-score points considered significant at p < .05. Base rates of elevated T- scores ranged from 3.3% to 15.4% for the Self-Report Form and 4.5% to 16.3% for the Informant-Report Form across the scales/indexes. Conclusions These data allow clinicians to interpret BRIEF-A scores across raters and over time by determining the statistical significance of BRIEF-A score differences, as well as quantifying the frequency of the observed differences.


2018 ◽  
Vol In Press (In Press) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Mani ◽  
Saeed Ghelijkhani ◽  
Raheleh Haghighat ◽  
Laaya Ahmadzadeh ◽  
Elnaz Chohedri ◽  
...  

Much research has examined the role of inhibitory and emotional controls in the educational setting with an emphasis on learning and coaching. However, they underestimate the effect and role of inhibitory and emotional controls in delinquent behaviors. Therefore, the current study examined the impact of inhibitory and emotional controls as mediators between protective factors and symptoms of problem behaviors. Respondents of the survey consisted of 404 delinquents convicted of several crimes such as armed robbery, drug trafficking, and drug use, gang fights, rape, homicide, and out of control behaviors. Three psychological instruments; Developmental Assets Questionnaire-Malaysian Version (DAQ-MV), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function- Self Report (BRIEF-SR) and Achenbach System of Empirical Behavior Assessment- Youth Self-Report (ASEBA-YSR) were used to collect data. The result showed that there was no evidence that planning/decision making influenced rule-breaking behavior independent of its effect on inhibitory and emotional controls (c’ = -.113, p = .062). On the contrary, there was evidence that resistance skill/resilience influenced rule-breaking behavior independently of its effect on inhibitory and emotional controls (c’ = -.204, p = .000). Morality and religiosity also have been found to influence rule-breaking behavior independently of its effect on inhibitory and emotional controls (c’ = -.231, p = .000). The results contributed to an enhancement of early prevention strategy based on executive function, especially in institutions like prison and rehabilitation school


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (13) ◽  
pp. 1557-1566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Ben-Sheetrit ◽  
Mika Zurawel ◽  
Abraham Weizman ◽  
Iris Manor

Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the connections within and between three measures of adult ADHD: the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult Version (BRIEF-A)–Self-Report, Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale–Investigator-Rated (CAARS-Inv), and Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA). Method: Data of 89 adults with ADHD (ages = 18-54, 46% females) who were assessed using these measures during pretreatment visits of a randomized study of metadoxine XR were analyzed. Results: The CAARS-Inv and TOVA did not correlate. The BRIEF-A correlated extensively with both the CAARS-Inv and TOVA, primarily via its Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI). The BRIEF-A Metacognition Index correlated with the CAARS-Inv inattentive score, while the BRI correlated with the CAARS-Inv hyperactive-impulsive score. Within the CAARS and TOVA, inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity correlated weakly. Conclusion: The measures seem to capture different aspects of adult ADHD. While the CAARS-Inv addresses mainly the domain of symptoms, and the TOVA that of impairment, the BRIEF-A captures aspects of both.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn E. Christ ◽  
Hayley E. Clocksin ◽  
Barbara K. Burton ◽  
Mitzie L. Grant ◽  
Susan Waisbren ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document