Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Adult Version in Patients with Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Conditions: Symptom Levels and Relationship to Emotional Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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 1/2-3/4 SD below the U.S. normative mean of T score=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).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".