MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973123759 · doi:10.1080/21622965.2014.1002923

Does the BRIEF-P Predict Specific Executive Function Components in Preschoolers?

2015· article· en· W1973123759 on OpenAlexafffund
Nancy Garon, Claire Piccinin, Isabel M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology Child · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityMount Allison University
FundersIWK Health Centre
KeywordsPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Executive functionsRating scaleDevelopmental psychologyFunction (biology)CognitionScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study explored the association between the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool (BRIEF-P; Gioia, Espy, & Isquith, 2003 ) and a new battery of direct executive function (EF) measures designed for preschoolers. Forty-two typically developing 3- to 5-year-olds were given the Preschool Executive Function Battery (PEFB; Garon, Smith & Bryson, 2014); their mothers filled out the BRIEF-P. The findings support distinct associations between 3 BRIEF-P scales and corresponding direct EF measures. In particular, a strong association was found between the BRIEF-P Inhibition scale and children's performance on the PEFB Inhibition measure. The findings indicate that parent ratings of preschoolers' everyday EF behavior are related to performance on the PEFB, a laboratory measure. These findings have implications for early screening of children's EF difficulties as well as for future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Neuropsychology ChildSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207