Frequency of Scale Elevations and Factor Structure of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in Children and Adolescents With Intractable Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) is a standardized rating scale that provides information about the nature and extent of executive function deficits displayed by children and adolescents in daily life. BRIEF protocols completed by parents of 80 children with intractable epilepsy were evaluated with respect to prevalence and severity of scale elevations in the sample, and also with respect to factor structure. Overall, the sample was rated as having significantly more executive function problems than healthy children in the BRIEF standardization sample; elevations on the Working Memory and Plan/Organize scales were most frequently seen. Fully 36% of the sample had four or more significantly elevated scales. However, 31% of the sample had no clinically elevated scales, indicating that executive difficulties, though frequent, are not necessarily characteristic of all children with severe epilepsy. As in the validation studies reported in the manual, a two-factor solution emerged from a principal factor analysis of BRIEF scales. However, the factor structure as given in the manual was not entirely replicated; specifically, the Monitor scale was found to load equivalently on both factors. The results of this study suggest that a substantial proportion of children with intractable epilepsy display significant executive function deficits in daily life. Research into the relationship of BRIEF scores to other measures of executive functioning in children with epilepsy is needed to further clarify its clinical utility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".