Review of the Brief-a Adult Version Psychological Test

Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2013 Aug; 28(5): 425–434.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Developed Version in Healthy Adults and Application to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Robert Chiliad. Roth

¹Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth/DHMC, One Medical Eye Drive, Lebanese republic, NH, United states of america

Charles Due east. Lance

²Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, U.s.

Peter K. Isquith

¹Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth/DHMC, 1 Medical Heart Drive, Lebanon, NH, Usa

Adina Southward. Fischer

^oneDepartment of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth/DHMC, One Medical Center Bulldoze, Lebanon, NH, United states of america

Peter R. Giancola

³Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, U.s.

Abstract

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (Brief-A) is a questionnaire measure designed to appraise executive functioning in everyday life. Analysis of data from the Cursory-A standardization sample yielded a two-gene solution (labeled Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition). The present investigation employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate 4 alternative models of the factor construction of the Cursory-A cocky-report form in a sample of 524 good for you young adults. Results indicated that a three-factor model best fits the data: a Metacognition gene, a Behavioral Regulation factor consisting of the Inhibit and Cocky-Monitor scales, and an Emotional Regulation factor equanimous of the Emotional Control and Shift scales. The iii factors contributed 14%, 19%, and 24% of unique variance to the model, respectively, and a 2nd-order full general gene accounted for 41% of variance overall. This three-cistron solution is consistent with contempo CFAs of the Parent study form of the Brief. Furthermore, although the Behavioral Regulation factor score in the two-factor model did not differ betwixt adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a matched good for you comparison group, greater impairment on the Behavioral Regulation factor only not the Emotional Regulation factor was found using the three-factor model. Together, these findings support the multidimensional nature of executive office and the clinical relevance of a three-factor model of the Cursory-A.

Keywords: Executive function, Cistron analysis, Psychometrics, Self-regulation, Neuropsychology, ADHD

Introduction

Executive function is a construct referring broadly to a ready of inter-related higher-order cognitive abilities involved in self-regulatory functions that organize, straight, and manage cognitive activities, emotional responses, and overt behaviors (Barkley, 1997, 2011; Gioia, Isquith, & Guy, 2001; Stuss & Alexander, 2000; Stuss & Benson, 1984). The specific processes subsumed under the rubric of executive function remains, all the same, an active area of scientific inquiry (Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Stuss & Benson, 1984; Tranel, Anderson, & Benton, 1994). Processes commonly regarded as executive functions include the ability to initiate behaviors; inhibit prepotent responses or competing actions; retain and dispense information "online" (i.e., working memory); select relevant task goals; plan and organize thoughts and behaviors; think flexibly in order to solve problems or, more generally, to adapt to changes in one'due south environment; regulate emotions; and monitor and evaluate 1'due south thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Executive functions, assessed via performance-based and questionnaire measures, have been reported to be associated with multiple aspects of performance in everyday life in non-clinical and clinical populations such as academic achievement (Weber, Gerber, Turcios, Wagner, & Forbes, 2006), social functioning (Dawson, Shear, & Strakowski, 2012), and behavioral problems (Baird, Silver, & Veague, 2010; Giancola, Godlaski, & Roth, 2012).

Some have argued that executive function is a unitary construct, manifesting in unlike ways depending on contextual demands (Duncan, Emslie, Williams, Johnson, & Freer, 1996; Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). Several lines of research, however, support the fractionation of executive functions. This has included evidence of discrepant developmental trajectories for different executive functions (Anderson, 2002; Welsh, Pennington, & Grossier, 1991); specific rather than generalized deficits on executive function measures in clinical populations (Godefroy, Cabaret, Petit-Chenal, Pruvo, & Rousseaux, 1999; Mur, Portella, Martinez-Aran, Pifarre, & Vieta, 2007; Nigg et al., 2005); evidence of at least partly singled-out neural circuitry subserving unlike executive functions (Roth, Randolph, Koven, & Isquith, 2006); and typically small-scale to moderate correlations between performance-based tests designed to appraise executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000; Nigg et al., 2005).

Cistron analytic studies of performance-based tests accept also supported a fractionation of executive functions, by and large identifying more than than one factor or component explaining variability (Busch, McBride, Curtiss, & Vanderploeg, 2005; Klenberg, Korkman, & Lahti-Nuuttila, 2001; Latzman & Markon, 2010). Similar findings have been reported in studies of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Role (BRIEF), a questionnaire measure out designed to capture multiple aspects of executive function as manifested in everyday life in children and adolescents (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000). Exploratory cistron analysis of the eight scales of the parent and instructor forms of the BRIEF revealed a two-factor solution in both typically developing children and a mixed clinical sample (Gioia et al., 2000). The Behavioral Regulation Index or gene reflects the ability to shift cognitive ready, modulate emotions and behavior, and exert appropriate inhibitory command. The Metacognition Index or factor measures working memory, the ability to initiate, plan, and organize trouble-solving, also as self-monitoring of behavior.

Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, and Espy (2002) subsequently conducted a confirmatory factor assay (CFA) of the Brief parent report form in a mixed clinical sample, using a nine calibration version that separated the Monitor scale into a Task-Monitor scale reflecting the monitoring of task-related activities, and a Self-Monitor calibration reflecting monitoring of the effects of one's behavior on others (Gioia & Isquith, 2002). A three-factor solution best fits the data, as opposed to i-, 2-, or four-factor models. Although the Metacognition Alphabetize remained unchanged, the Behavioral Regulation Index broke down into a Behavioral Regulation factor consisting of the Inhibit and Self-Monitor scales, and an Emotional Regulation cistron composed of the Emotional Control and Shift scales. A two-factor rather than ane- or 3-cistron solution for the parent study class was found to be most appropriate in a sample of children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy (Slick, Lautzenhiser, Sherman, & Eyrl, 2006), although this study used the eight- rather than nine-calibration model of the Brief (i.e., a single Monitor scale). The latter report did, all the same, find that the Monitor scale loaded equivalently on both the Metacognition Index and Behavioral Regulation Index, supporting the suggestion that this calibration does not reflect a unitary construct (Gioia & Isquith, 2002). In a sample of children with traumatic encephalon injury, a two- rather than ane-gene structure involving the original eight scales was reported for the BRIEF parent form, also as finding that the Inhibit calibration loaded more than strongly on the Metacognition gene than the expected Behavioral Regulation factor (Donders, DenBraber, & Vos, 2010). The potential of a ameliorate fit for a three-cistron solution was not examined. Finally, the contempo CFAs of the BRIEF parent and teacher forms in a mixed healthy and clinical sample supported a nine-calibration, three-factor model of the BRIEF including carve up Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010).

The Cursory-Adult version (Cursory-A) was adult equally an extension of the original BRIEF (Gioia et al., 2000) to adults aged 18–xc and has both self- and informant-study forms (Roth, Isquith, & Gioia, 2005). The Cursory-A has the same nine scales equally found in Gioia and Isquith (2002), having Self-Monitor and Task-Monitor scales rather than a single Monitor scale (Tabular arrayane). Exploratory cistron analysis of the BRIEF-A conducted separately for the two forms, using the normative sample besides every bit a mixed clinical and healthy adult sample, yielded a 2-factor solution (Metacognition factor and Behavioral Regulation factor) consequent with the original version of the measure. This factor construction was invariant across genders and present irrespective of whether younger or older adults were considered.

Tabular array 1.

Clarification of the 9 Cursory-A scales

Inhibit	Control impulses; accordingly stop verbal, attentional, physical behavior at the proper time
Shift	Move freely from one situation, activity, or aspect of a problem to some other equally the state of affairs demands; think flexibly to aid problem-solving
Emotional control	Attune one'south emotional responses appropriately
Self-Monitor	Recognize the effect of one'southward own behavior on others
Initiate	Brainstorm a task or activity without external prompting; independently generate ideas
Working retentiveness	Concur information in mind in order to complete a task; stay with, or stick to, an activity
Program/organize	Anticipate future events; set goals; develop steps ahead of time to deport out a task; organize information and behavior to achieve and objective; behave out tasks in a systematic mode
Task Monitor	Assess performance during or after finishing a job for mistakes
Organization of Materials	Keep workspace and living areas in an orderly manner; go along track of materials needed for tasks

In the present study, we conducted a CFA of the BRIEF-A self-report class in a large sample of healthy young adults. We compared one-, two-, 3-, and four-factor models. A single-gene model was considered in line with the view of executive office as a unitary construct. A ii-factor model consequent with the prior exploratory factor assay of the Brief-A was as well examined (Roth et al., 2005). Nosotros then evaluated whether the BRIEF-A may exist better characterized forth the line of findings for the original BRIEF, indicating the superiority of a three-gene model that separated the Behavioral Regulation Index into Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010; Gioia et al., 2002). Nosotros also considered a four-factor model involving the Behavioral Regulation and Emotion Regulation factors, as well every bit separating the Metacognition Index into "Internal" and "External" Metacognition factors (Gioia et al., 2002). These latter two factors were conceptualized as reflecting a focus on high-gild executive processes such as working memory, initiation, and the ability to plan and organize for problem-solving (Internal) versus attending to one'southward behavior and environment as reflected by monitoring one's performance on tasks for accuracy and organization of one's work and living space in an orderly manner (External).

Finally, a contempo written report reported poorer functioning on both the Behavioral Regulation Index and Metacognition Index in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relative to a healthy comparison group, though the deviation was larger for the latter index (Rotenberg-Shpigelman, Rapaport, Stern, & Hartmen-Maeir, 2008). We therefore explored in a sample of adults with ADHD whether an alternate model for the BRIEF-A, yielded through the factor assay indicated in a higher place, would provide clinically relevant information beyond that gained from the original two-gene model.

Method

Participants

Participants were 524 (255 men and 269 women) adults between 21 and 35 years of age (M = 23.07; SD = 2.91), recruited as part of larger study on beliefs and alcohol use in young adults. They were recruited through advertisements placed in various newspapers and fliers posted effectually the Lexington, Kentucky metropolitan area. Respondents were initially screened by phone for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Specific inclusion criteria included existence within the age range noted above and ability to read English at least at the quaternary grade level. Volunteers were excluded from participation if they reported during an screening interview whatever by or present drug- or alcohol-related problems, head injury with loss of consciousness and/or requiring medical attention, learning disability, history of astringent mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder), or electric current or past treatment for a psychiatric disorder. Participants were 87% Caucasian, ten% African American, 1.0% Hispanic, and Other 2.0% (essentially evenly dissever between men and women). Ninety-two percent of the participants were never married and the sample had an average of 16.two years of pedagogy (SD = 1.98). Written informed consent was obtained according to a protocol approved by the University of Kentucky'south Institutional Review Board.

A sample of 19 adults coming together DSM-IV criteria for ADHD (American Psychiatric Clan, 2000), referred to our clinics for neuropsychological assessment including the BRIEF-A, was examined to assess the clinical relevance of the factor structures. Within this sample 57.8% met criteria for the inattentive subtype and 42.two% for the combined subtype, and six were receiving medication for ADHD at the time of evaluation (three methylphenidate, two methylphenidate extended-release, and one dextroamphetamine). Viii patients had a history of mood disorder, three generalized feet disorder, and one booze use disorder. Patients were excluded if they had a history of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, current alcohol or substance use disorder, a neurological disorder, or agile medical disease that could affect the central nervous system. Patients were compared with a sample of healthy adults selected pseudorandomly (i.due east., matched for age and gender by one of the authors, ASF, without reference to their BRIEF-A scores) from a research database at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, ensuring that the data were contained from that used in the factor analysis. All of these participants were between eighteen and 35 years of age (Thou = 25.21; SD = 5.65 for both groups) and Caucasian, and the groups did not differ with respect to gender distribution (% female: ADHD = 36.8, Healthy = 47.4). χ ^two(1) = 0.42, p = .51. Brook Depression Inventory-2 (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Chocolate-brown, 1996) score was available for 12 of the patients (M = 19.17, SD = 9.42) but none of the matched controls.

Procedures

Participants at the Academy of Kentucky provided demographic data then completed the Cursory-A cocky-report form and the BDI-II (Brook et al., 1996) in addition to a number of other self-report inventories non pertinent to this paper. Participants in the ADHD and the matched healthy grouping completed the Brief-A. The Brief-A contains 75 items scored on a three-point Likert scale with higher scores indicating poorer executive function. A minimum 4th grade reading level is required. The BRIEF-A yields an overall score (Global Executive Composite) composed of two index scores, the Behavioral Regulation Index and the Metacognition Alphabetize. The Behavioral Regulation index is comprised of 4 scales (Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, and Self-Monitor) and the Metacognition Index is comprised of five scales (Initiate, Working Retentiveness, Plan/Organize, Task Monitor, and System of Materials). None of the participants had elevated scores on the three validity scales included in the BRIEF-A (Negativity, Infrequency, and Inconsistency). The Cursory-A was standardized on 1050 adults between the ages of xviii and 90 sampled to approximate the 2002 U.S. Demography proportions with respect to sociodemographic characteristics. The measure out has excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficients ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 for the three major indices) and 1-calendar month test–retest reliabilities (ranging from r = .93 to .94 for the 3 major indices; Roth et al., 2005). In that location is back up for the convergent and discriminant validity of the Cursory-A (Roth et al., 2005) and its utility has been demonstrated in studies of clinical (Biederman et al., 2011; Chang, Davies, & Gavin, 2009; Garlinghouse, Roth, Isquith, Flashman, & Saykin, 2010; Kumbhani, Roth, Kuck, Flashman, & McAllister, 2010; Rabin et al., 2006) and non-clinical (Christ, Kanne, & Reiersen, 2010; Koven & Thomas, 2010; Rabin, Fogel, & Nutter-Upham, 2010) populations.

Statistical Analyses

The CFA used the mean raw scores for the nine Brief-A scales. Nosotros tested the iv unlike CFA models examined past Gioia and colleagues (2002) using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004). Model 1 tested whether all ix subscales loaded onto one gene. Model two assessed whether Inhibit, Self-Monitor, Emotional Control, and Shift loaded onto a Behavioral Regulation gene and Initiate, Working Memory, Program/Organize, Organisation of Materials, and Task Monitor loaded onto a Metacognition gene. Model 3 extended Model ii to determine whether the Metacognition Index remained the same but with Inhibit and Self-Monitor loading onto a Behavioral Regulation factor and Emotional Control and Shift scales loading onto an Emotional Regulation factor. Finally, model 4 extended model three to examine whether the Behavioral and Emotional Regulation factors would be present three, as well as whether Initiate, Working Memory, and Plan/Organize would load onto an Internal Metacognition factor and Organisation of Materials and Chore Monitor would load onto an External Metacognition gene.

Model parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood in LISREL. In addition to the overall χ ^two statistic, several overall goodness-of-fit indices were employed to examine the fit of the 4 different factor models (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988) with the following "rule-of-thumb" cutoff criteria for well-plumbing equipment models: Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMSR) ≤0.08, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤0.06, Tucker–Lewis Alphabetize (TLI), and Comparative fit index (CFI) ≥0.95 (see Hu & Benter, 1998, 1999).

Results

Confirmatory Cistron Analysis

The mean BDI-II score of the sample was in the "minimal" range (Mean = 6.49, SD = five.99). The average BRIEF-A scores were all relatively depression (Table2), consistent with those reported for other samples of good for you adults (Kumbhani et al., 2010; Rabin et al., 2010; Roth et al., 2005). The nine Brief-A scales were moderately to highly correlated with i some other, with coefficients ranging from 0.21 to 0.72 (Tableii).

Tabular array 2.

Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations among the nine Brief-A scales

	Mean	SD	Shift	EC	SM	Initiate	WM	P/O	TM	OM
Inhibit	ane.62	0.36	.35	.40	.58	.44	.64	.50	.55	.37
Shift	1.41	0.34		.51	.42	.50	.51	.50	.49	.24
EC	1.42	0.40			.44	.35	.43	.36	.35	.26
SM	ane.47	0.37				.38	.46	.50	.51	.21
Initiate	1.51	0.35					.61	.70	.66	.47
WM	ane.48	0.35						.67	.67	.41
P/O	one.45	0.34							.72	.57
TM	1.54	0.36								.49
OM	ane.sixty	0.50

The CFA indicated that all models tested were rejected statistically on the ground of the χ ² statistic and none of the models met the stringent cutoff benchmark for RMSEA (Table3). Note that adjacent models in Tabular arraythree are nested so that they can be compared with one another on the basis of the Δχ ⁱⁱ for their relative fit to the information. For case, the two-factor model is nested within (a special case of) the three-factor model and can be generated from the three-cistron model by fixing the correlation between the Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors to 1.00 and constraining the correlations between these two factors and the Metacognition gene to be equal. The models that nosotros tested were not all that unlike from ane another in some respects. They all estimated the same number of cistron loadings (nine) and uniquenesses (9). They differed but with respect to the number of factors and correlations among the factors. This is why the global fit indices (i.e., SRMSR, RMSEA, TLI, and CFI) did non differ drastically from model to model. As such, the merely remaining means to determine which model best represented the data was to examine the solutions for out-of-bounds parameter estimates and differences in model goodness-of-fit between adjacent, nested models in terms of the Δχ ² test. The Δχ ² test confirmed that the Cursory-A is non unidimensional (i.e., the two-factor model fit significantly better than did the one-factor model), that the three-gene model improved fit beyond the two-factor model (Table3), and that calculation a fourth factor did not improve the model fit, resulting in an inadmissible solution—the correlation between the Internal and External Metacognition factors was estimated to be one.02. Thus, the 3-factor solution appeared to best stand for the data.

Tabular array three.

Model goodness of fit

Model	df	χ ²	SRMSR	RMSEA (90% CI)	TLI	CFI
ane. One factor	27	316.09*	0.065	0.140 (0.13–0.16)	0.92	0.94
Models ane versus two	1	71.47*
2. 2 cistron	26	242.62*	0.055	0.120 (0.10–0.13)	0.93	0.95
Models ii versuss 3	ii	46.41*
3. Iii factor	24	196.21*	0.047	0.110 (0.x–0.thirteen)	0.94	0.96
Models iii versus 4	three	8.34
4. Four factor	21	187.87*	0.046	0.120 (0.10–0.13)	0.94	0.96

Effigy1 displays the parameter estimates for the three-gene model. All factor loadings were relatively high and statistically significant with the Metacognition, Emotional Regulation, and Behavioral Regulation factors accounting for 61%, 52%, and 58% of the variance in their respective scales, respectively. The three factors contributed 14%, 19%, and 24% of unique variance to the model, respectively, and a second-order general cistron accounted for 41% of variance overall. The factors were also highly inter-related, with correlations ranging from .70 to .79. This suggested that the three beginning-order factors (FOFs) could also exist summarized in terms of their loadings on a single general second-order factor (SOF), labeled the Full general Executive Composite, as is shown in Fig.1. Annotation that the FOF and the SOF model are not differentiable statistically from ane some other, simply are merely culling plausible representations of the same latent correlational structure.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is act03101.jpg

Cistron Scores in Adult ADHD

Tabular array4 presents Brief-A mean factor scores for the ADHD and the healthy comparing group. Since the cistron assay indicated that the three-factor solution is preferable to the other alternating models tested here, we restricted group comparisons to scores for the ii- and three-cistron models. Independent sample t-test indicated significantly worse functioning on the Metacognition cistron in the ADHD grouping irrespective of model—t(ane) = 4.39, p = .001, d = ane.42. In the two-cistron model, the group difference for the Behavioral Regulation factor was merely at the level of a trend—t(one) = 1.83, p = .08, d = 0.59. In contrast, analysis of the three-factor model revealed poorer executive operation in the ADHD grouping every bit reverberate past the Behavioral Regulation factor—t(ane) = 2.18, p = .04, d = 0.71—only not the Emotional Regulation cistron—t(1) = 1.19, p = .24, d = 0.39. In the subset of patients with BDI-2 scores, greater depressed mood was associated with significantly worse executive office on the Metacognition (r = .76, p = .004) and Emotional Regulation (r = .68, p = .02) factors, a tendency for greater difficulty on the Behavioral Regulation factor in the two-factor model (r = .55, p = .07), but was unrelated to score on the Behavioral Regulation factor in the three-gene model (r = .thirty, p = .34).

Table 4.

Mean (SD) for BRIEF-A factor scores healthy adult and ADHD groups

Brief-A	Healthy developed (North = 19)	ADHD (N = 19)
Two-cistron structure
Metacognition factor	i.59 (0.42)	2.13 (0.33)
Behavioral regulation factor	1.57 (0.37)	one.80 (0.40)
Three-factor structure
Metacognition gene	one.59 (0.42)	2.thirteen (0.33)
Behavioral Regulation factor	1.54 (0.35)	1.84 (0.50)
Emotional Regulation gene	1.59 (0.44)	i.75 (0.40)

Discussion

The nowadays written report investigated the factor structure of the BRIEF-A in social club to determine which of four competing models best fit the information obtained from a large sample of young adults. Results showed that a three-cistron model fits the information better than either the i-, two-, or four-factor models tested. The structure of the Metacognition gene was found to exist the same every bit that obtained in an exploratory factor analysis of the Cursory-A, being composed of the Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Task Monitor, and Arrangement of Materials scales (Roth et al., 2005). In contrast, the originally unitary Behavioral Regulation Index separated into a Behavioral Regulation gene consisting of the Inhibit and Self-Monitor scales and an Emotional Regulation gene composed of the Emotional Control and Shift scales. This separation of the Behavioral Regulation Index into two factors, and the scale limerick of those factors, is consistent with the results of CFAs of the nine-scale version of the original BRIEF that was designed for apply with children and adolescents (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010; Gioia & Isquith, 2002).

Correlations among the three Cursory-A factors were significant, all the same, indicating considerable interactions among components of executive function. All the same, the results of the present analyses, also as those of the BRIEF designed for children (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010; Gioia & Isquith, 2002) and other questionnaire measures of executive function (Chaytor & Schmitter-Edgecombe, 2007), are not consistent with a model emphasizing a unitary, general executive construct. Rather, the ascertainment of dissever factors of metacognition, behavioral regulation (including inhibitory control), and emotional regulation meshes well with models of executive function emphasizing fractionation of executive role into at least partially distinct components each have important roles in self-regulation (Barkley, 1997; Miyake et al., 2000).

The presence of separate Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors in the Cursory-A is consistent with a growing body of evidence, indicating at least partly singled-out neural substrates for these two forms of self-regulation (Kompus, Hugdahl, Ohman, Marklund, & Nyberg, 2009; Mohanty et al., 2007). In addition, the two factors appear to overlap conceptually, to some extent, with theoretical models of executive function that argue for a unique function of emotion regulation, such as that of Zelazo & Müller (2002) proposing the presence "absurd" cerebral and "hot" affective aspects of executive control. Thus, further enquiry is warranted to assess the reliability and validity of the Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors.

The ability to monitor one'south ain behavior is vital for problem-solving, accurate completion of tasks (eastward.g., homework, job-related tasks), and interacting in a socially appropriate fashion. In this study, the Cursory-A Chore-Monitor and Self-Monitor scales loaded differentially on the Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation factors, a finding that was also obtained in prior studies using the BRIEF to examine parent and teacher reports of executive performance in children (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010; Gioia et al., 2000), equally well as an exploratory factor analysis of the Cursory-A (Roth et al., 2005). These findings indicate that monitoring is non a unitary construct, but rather varies depending on the nature of the information being monitored and the context in which monitoring tasks identify. Our findings also appear to be consequent with functional neuroimaging research and studies of patients with acquired brain lesions, which together suggest at least a partial dissociation between the neural correlates of unlike types of monitoring, though they involve richly interconnected prefrontal regions. Accurate monitoring of performance on behavioral tasks, reflected in the Brief-A Chore-Monitor calibration, has been most consistently associated with the anterior cingulate gyrus (Swick & Turken, 2002; van Veen & Carter, 2002). In contrast, the ability to gauge the ceremoniousness of one's behavior in social contexts, reflected in the BRIEF-A Self-Monitor scale, is more than commonly associated with integrity of ventral prefrontal cortical regions such as the orbitofrontal cortex (Beer, John, Scabini, & Knight, 2006; Viskontas, Possin, & Miller, 2007, only see also Turken & Swick, 2008). Recent enquiry demonstrating a relationship between an event-related potential correlate of the sensation of having committed an error during a behavioral task and the Task Monitor, but non Cocky-Monitor scale in adults with ADHD (Chang et al., 2009), provides boosted support for the distinctiveness of the ii monitoring scales. Further enquiry examining the BRIEF-A Task-Monitor and Self-Monitor scales in clinical populations, including those with lesions in different regions within the prefrontal cortex, will exist important to make up one's mind the consistency with which these two scales tin can exist dissociated, as well as their clinical relevance.

In addition to the CFAs in healthy immature adults, we examined Brief-A scores based on the two- and iii-gene models in a sample of young adults with ADHD. Our patient group reported greater difficulty on the Metacognition factor than a matched group of salubrious adults, consistent with a prior study on developed ADHD (Rotenberg-Shpigelma et al., 2008). The Behavioral Regulation factor showed only a trend toward being worse in the ADHD group when examined in the two-factor model. In dissimilarity, analysis of the three-factor model revealed that adult ADHD is associated with poorer scores on the Behavioral Regulation factor (reflecting inhibitory control and monitoring of social behavior) but not Emotional Regulation factor (reflecting control of emotions and cognitive flexibility). Furthermore, a differential pattern of correlations was observed betwixt self-reported depression and the BRIEF-A factor scores. Mood was unrelated to Behavioral Regulation in the iii-factor model only showed a tendency to be associated with Behavioral Regulation in the two-cistron model and was highly correlated with the Emotional Regulation gene. These findings support the clinical relevance of the 3-cistron model and indicate that the current BRIEF-A Behavioral Regulation Index score, although of demonstrated usefulness in a variety of clinical studies (Garcia-Molina, Tormos, Bernabeu, Junque, & Roig-Rovira, 2012; Reid, Karim, McCrory, & Carpenter, 2010; Rotenberg-Shpigelma et al., 2008), may mask meaningful problems with more than specific aspects of executive performance.

Together, the findings suggest that reliance on use of the Global Executive Composite score, representing the overall integrity of executive functions as measured by the Cursory-A, might obscure more specific relationships between executive functioning in everyday life (as reflected by index/factor scores or individual calibration scores) and clinical issues, neuropsychological test performance, or other salient variables. Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated the importance of examining the BRIEF at the level of the indexes/gene scores or at the level of individuals scales in a variety of pediatric (Brown et al., 2008; Mahone et al., 2002) and adult (Christ et al., 2010; Kumbhani et al., 2010; Schroeder & Kelley, 2008) populations.

The nowadays findings should exist interpreted inside the context of the limitations of this study. Offset, the factor assay sample consisted of generally well educated young adults and thus it remains unknown whether the three-factor model would also provide the best fit in other populations. Although exploratory gene assay of the Cursory-A indicated that older and younger adults did non differ with respect to the 2-factor structure reported (Roth et al., 2005), it is possible that age differences could be observed in the three-factor model. Furthermore, while at almost pocket-size effects on BRIEF-A scores have been reported in relation to gender, race/ethnicity, and educational level (effect sizes being more often than not 0.01 or less; Roth et al., 2005), it remains an empirical question whether such variables impact the factor construction of the measure. Similarly, information technology will exist important to determine whether the gene structure is invariant in clinical populations, especially given that greater variability in scores may be seen in clinical than healthy samples, thus potentially affecting gene loadings. In add-on, although exploratory factor analyses indicated consequent factor structures for the BRIEF-A Self- and Informant-Written report forms, the nowadays results are based on factor analysis of only the Self-Study grade. Thus, although the Self- and Informant-Study forms are essentially identical, it remains unknown whether the three-factor model is generalizable to informant written report form of the measure. In improver, we discovered in post hoc analyses that BRIEF-A scores were positively skewed and some were likewise kurtotic. Asymptotic distribution-complimentary estimators are now available for non-normal data (Browne, 1984; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) merely they require much larger sample sizes (in the 1,000 due south; come across Cortina, Chen & Dunlap, 2001; Hu, Bentler, & Kano, 1992) than was available here. Rather, we used normal theory maximum likelihood estimators that have been shown to be robust to at least modest violations of the multivariate normality supposition (Chou, Bentler, & Satorra, 1991; Cortina et al., 2001). Even so, this violation may be responsible for some of the models' imperfect fit to the information (e.thou., RMSEAs > 0.08). Our sample of adults with ADHD was relatively small and represented a clinical convenience sample rather than a carefully selected, comorbidity-free research sample. Furthermore, a subset of the patients were medicated for the disorder, although prior work (Roth et al., 2005) has indicated that treatment with methylphenidate improves scores on the Brief-A in adults with ADHD, and thus medication status is unlikely to account for the differences observed between the patient and matched control groups. Nonetheless, further investigation into the clinical sensitivity of the iii-factor model of the Brief-A in this population is needed.

Overall, with these caveats in mind, this study supports a multidimensional model of executive role, consistent with the pattern of the Cursory-A and its forerunner the BRIEF. It should be noted, still, that the clinical apply of the 3-factor model is limited at this time by the lack of advisable normative data. Furthermore, as noted to a higher place, boosted enquiry is required to ensure the reliability and the utility of the 3-factor model prior to its application in clinical contexts. Nonetheless, the present findings provide a promising avenue for examining components of executive function as manifested in everyday life.

Conflict of Involvement

PKI and RMR are co-authors of the Cursory-A and receive royalties from the publisher.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01-AA-11691 to PRG) and the National Center for Research Resources to PRG.

References

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. fourth ed. Washington, DC: Author; 2000. revised, [Google Scholar]
Anderson P. Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during babyhood. Child Neuropsychology. 2002;8(2):71–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Baird A. A., Silver Southward. H., Veague H. B. Cognitive control reduces sensitivity to relational aggression among adolescent girls. Social Neuroscience. 2010;5(5–half dozen):519–532. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Barkley R. A. ADHD and the nature of cocky-control. New York: The Guilford Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
Barkley R. A. Executive functioning in everyday life. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
Beck A. T., Steer R. A., Brown Thousand. Yard. Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1996. [Google Scholar]
Beer J. Southward., John O. P., Scabini D., Knight R. T. Orbitofrontal cortex and social behavior: Integrating cocky-monitoring and emotion–cognition interactions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2006;18(6):871–879. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Biederman J., Mick E., Fried R., Wilner Due north., Spencer T. J., Faraone S. V. Are stimulants effective in the treatment of executive part deficits? Results from a randomized double blind study of OROS-methylphenidate in adults with ADHD. European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;21(vii):508–515. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chocolate-brown T. M., Ris M. D., Beebe D., Ammerman R. T., Oppenheimer Southward. One thousand., Yeates M. O., et al. Factors of biological run a risk and reserve associated with executive behaviors in children and adolescents with spina bifida myelomeningocele. Child Neuropsychology. 2008;14(two):118–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Browne M. Due west. Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the assay of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 1984;37:62–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Busch R. M., McBride A., Curtiss G., Vanderploeg R. D. The components of executive functioning in traumatic encephalon injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2005;27(eight):1022–1032. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chang W.-P., Davies P. Fifty., Gavin West. J. Error monitoring in college students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Psychophysiology. 2009;23:113–125. [Google Scholar]
Chaytor N., Schmitter-Edgecombe M. Fractionation of the dysexecutive syndrome in a heterogeneous neurological sample: Comparing the Dysexecutive Questionnaire and the Brock Adaptive Performance Questionnaire. Encephalon Injury. 2007;21(6):615–621. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chou C. P., Bentler P., Satorra A. Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non-normal data in covariance construction analysis: A Monte Carlo report. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 1991;44:347–357. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Christ S. E., Kanne Southward. M., Reiersen A. Thou. Executive role in individuals with subthreshold autism traits. Neuropsychology. 2010;24(5):590–598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cortina J. G., Chen Thou., Dunlap Due west. P. Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illustration of bachelor procedures. Organizational Enquiry Methods. 2001;iv:324–360. [Google Scholar]
Dawson Eastward. L., Shear P. Chiliad., Strakowski Due south. 1000. Beliefs regulation and mood predict social functioning among healthy young adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2012;34(3):297–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Donders J., DenBraber D., Vos Fifty. Construct and criterion validity of the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Role (BRIEF) in children referred for neuropsychological cess afterwards paediatric traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neuropsychology. 2010;4:197–209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Duncan J., Emslie H., Williams P., Johnson R., Freer C. Intelligence and the frontal lobes: The organization of goal directed behavior. Cerebral Psychology. 1996;30:257–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Egeland J., Fallmyr Ø. Confirmatory gene analysis of Brief: Support for a stardom between emotional and behavioural regulation. Child Neuropsychology. 2010;16:326–337. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Garcia-Molina A., Tormos J. M., Bernabeu M., Junque C., Roig-Rovira T. Practise traditional executive measures tell us anything about daily-life functioning after traumatic encephalon injury in Spanish-speaking individuals? Encephalon Injury. 2012;26(6):864–874. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Garlinghouse M. A., Roth R. 1000., Isquith P. K., Flashman L. A., Saykin A. J. Subjective rating of working retention is associated with frontal lobe volume in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research. 2010;120:71–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Garon N., Bryson S. E., Smith I. Thousand. Executive office in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134(1):31–lx. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Giancola P. R., Godlaski A. J., Roth R. M. Identifying component-processes of executive functioning that serve every bit adventure factors for the booze-assailment relation. Psycholology of Addictive Behaviors. 2012;26(2):201–211. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gioia Yard. A., Isquith P. K. Two faces of monitor: They self and thy job. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Guild. 2002;viii:229. [Google Scholar]
Gioia Grand. A., Isquith P. K., Guy S. C. Assessment of executive function in children with neurological impairments. In: Simeonsson R., Rosenthal Due south., editors. Psychological and developmental assessment. New York: The Guilford Press; 2001. pp. 317–356. [Google Scholar]
Gioia Thousand. A., Isquith P. K., Guy S. C., Kenworthy L. Brief: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Lutz, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2000. [Google Scholar]
Gioia G. A., Isquith P. K., Retzlaff P. D., Espy Chiliad. A. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Beliefs Rating Inventory of Executive Part (BRIEF) in a clinical sample. Child Neuropsychology. 2002;viii(4):249–257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Godefroy O., Cabaret Chiliad., Petit-Chenal Five., Pruvo J.-P., Rousseaux K. Command functions of the frontal lobes: Modularity of the primal-supervisory system? Cortex. 1999;35:1–xx. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hu L., Benter P. Grand. Fit indices in covariance construction modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods. 1998;3:424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.iii.4.424. [Google Scholar]
Hu L., Bentler P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure assay: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;half dozen:one–55. [Google Scholar]
Hu Fifty. T., Bentler P. M., Kano Y. Can examination statistics in covariance structure analysis exist trusted? Psychological Message. 1992;112:351–362. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jöreskog Grand. G., Sörbom D. LISREL eight.80. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 2004. [Google Scholar]
Jurado G. B., Rosselli Thou. The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current agreement. Neuropsychology Review. 2007;17(3):213–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Klenberg L., Korkman M., Lahti-Nuuttila P. Differential evolution of attention and executive functions in 3- to 12-yr-quondam Finnish children. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2001;20:407–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kompus G., Hugdahl K., Ohman A., Marklund P., Nyberg L. Singled-out command networks for cognition and emotion in the prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience Letters. 2009;467(2):76–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Koven N. S., Thomas Westward. Mapping facets of alexithymia to executive dysfunction in daily life. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;49:24–28. [Google Scholar]
Kumbhani S., Roth R. M., Kuck C. L., Flashman L. A., McAllister T. W. Not-clinical obsessive compulsive symptoms and executive functions in schizophrenia. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 2010;22:304–312. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Latzman R. D., Markon K. E. The factor construction and age-related factorial invariance of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Role System (D-KEFS) Assessment. 2010;17(2):172–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mahone East. 1000., Cirino P. T., Cutting 50. E., Cerrone P. G., Hagelthorn K. M., Hiemenz J. R., et al. Validity of the Beliefs Rating Inventory of executive function in children with ADHD and/or Tourette syndrome. Athenaeum of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2002;17:643–662. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Marsh H. W., Balla J. R., McDonald R. P. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory gene analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103:391–410. [Google Scholar]
Miyake A., Friedman North. P., Emerson M. J., Witzki A. H., Howerter A., Wager T. D. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to circuitous "Frontal Lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology. 2000;41(1):49–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mohanty A., Engels A. Southward., Herrington J. D., Heller W., Ho M.-H. R., Banich M. T., et al. Differential engagement of inductive cingulate cortex subdivisions for cognitive and emotional function. Psychophysiology. 2007;44(three):343–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mur Thousand., Portella M. J., Martinez-Aran A., Pifarre J., Vieta E. Persistent neuropsychological deficit in euthymic bipolar patients: Executive function as a core deficit. Periodical of Clinical Psychiatry. 2007;68(seven):1078–1086. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nigg J. T., Stavro G., Ettenhofer K., Hambrick D. Z., Miller T., Henderson J. G. Executive functions and ADHD in adults: Prove for selective effects on ADHD symptom domains. Periodical of Abnormal Psychology. 2005;114(four):706–717. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rabin L. A., Fogel J., Nutter-Upham M. E. Academic procrastination in college students: The office of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2010;33(3):344–357. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rabin 50. A., Roth R. M., Isquith P. K., Wishart H. A., Nutter-Upham K. E., Pare North., et al. Self and informant reports of executive function in balmy cognitive impairment and older adults with cognitive complaints. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2006;21:721–732. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Reid R. C., Karim R., McCrory E., Carpenter B. Northward. Self-reported differences on measures of executive function and hypersexual behavior in a patient and community sample of men. International Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;120:120–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rotenberg-Shpigelman South., Rapaport R., Stern A., Hartmen-Maeir A. Content validity and internal consistency reliability of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Role - Adult Version (Brief-A) in Israeli adults with attending-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Israeli Periodical of Occupational Therapy. 2008;17(ii):77–96. [Google Scholar]
Roth R. M., Isquith P. Thou., Gioia Grand. A. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult Version (BRIEF-A) Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource; 2005. [Google Scholar]
Roth R. M., Randolph J. J., Koven N. S., Isquith P. K. Neural substrates of executive functions: Insights from functional neuroimaging. In: Dupri J. R., editor. Focus on neuropsychology enquiry. New York: Nova Science; 2006. pp. i–36. [Google Scholar]
Schroeder V. M., Kelley M. L. The influence of family factors on the executive performance of adult children of alcoholics in college. Family Relations. 2008;57:404–414. [Google Scholar]
Slick D. J., Lautzenhiser A., Sherman E. One thousand. S., Eyrl Thou. Frequency of scale elevations and cistron structure of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Cursory) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy. Child Neuropsychology. 2006;12(3):181–189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stuss D. T., Alexander Yard. P. Executive functions and the frontal lobes: A conceptual view. Psychological Research. 2000;63(three–iv):289–298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stuss D. T., Benson D. F. Neuropsychological studies of the frontal lobes. Psychological Message. 1984;95:3–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Swick D., Turken A. U. Dissociation between conflict detection and error monitoring in the human inductive cingulate cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of america. 2002;99(25):16354–16359. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tranel D., Anderson S. W., Benton A. L. Development of the concept of "executive office" and its relationship to the frontal lobes. In: Boller F., Grafman J., editors. Handbook of neuropsychology. Vol. ix. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1994. pp. 125–148. [Google Scholar]
Turken A. U., Swick D. The outcome of orbitofrontal lesions on the mistake-related negativity. Neuroscience Letters. 2008;441(1):7–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Veen V., Carter C. Southward. The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies. Physiology and Behavior. 2002;77(4–5):477–482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Viskontas I. V., Possin K. L., Miller B. Fifty. Symptoms of frontotemporal dementia provide insights into orbitofrontal cortex function and social behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2007;1121:528–545. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Weber D. P., Gerber E. B., Turcios V. Y., Wagner E. R., Forbes P. Due west. Executive operation and performance on high-stakes testing in children from urban schools. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2006;29:459–477. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Welsh M. C., Pennington B. F., Grossier D. B. A normative-developmental study of executive part: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology. 1991;7:199–230. [Google Scholar]
Zelazo P. D., Müller U. Executive function in typical and atypical evolution. In: Goswami U., editor. Handbook of babyhood cerebral development. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 2002. pp. 445–469. [Google Scholar]

Manufactures from Athenaeum of Clinical Neuropsychology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

winninghamwhicess.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3711374/