Validating the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning for Children With ADHD and Their Typically Developing Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) has been widely used both clinically and in research for measuring executive functioning (EF) in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study examined the concurrent validity of the BRIEF (both parent and teacher ratings) compared to performance-based measures of EF in children with ADHD compared to typically developing (TD) children. The authors assessed 20 children with ADHD and 20 TD controls on 4 EF domains-working memory, planning, inhibition, and set shifting-using the BRIEF and performance-based measures of EF. Children (aged 8-12 years old) with ADHD demonstrated more EF impairment than their TD peers on both questionnaire- and performance-based measures. Ratings on questionnaire- and performance-based measures did not uniquely correlate with each other. Questionnaire-based measures were better at discriminating between children with ADHD and TD children, specifically BRIEF parent ratings, and discrimination depended mostly on the Working Memory, Plan/Organize, and Inhibit subscales. The BRIEF has clinical utility for discriminating between children with ADHD and their TD peers; however, some limitations exist for interpretation of the BRIEF, and it should be used with caution in the assessment and diagnosis of ADHD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".