Psychometric properties of the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale: A Spanish-Language Version in a community sample of puerto rican adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance-based measures have shown some limitation in the assessment of executive functioning (EF) and rating scales have been proposed as an alternative. Our aim was to conduct a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS), as administered in 452 Latino community adults (65.5% female). The BDEFS was back-translated into Spanish. We performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to assess the structure of the translated BDEFS and to compare it with the original five-factor structure based on the English-language version. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the original language structure of the instrument, and also a modified version with items that loaded equally in both versions. The Adult Self-Report Scale was used to screen for ADHD symptoms. We assessed invariance on the latent factor's mean by age and gender, and to estimate associations with ADHD symptom dimensions. The five-factor structure of the BDEFS was partially supported by EFA/CFA, in which 78 out of 89 items loaded similar to the original English-language structure. Factor scores were significantly associated with ADHD symptom dimensions. Model-based contrasts revealed that inattention was primarily associated with disorganization, time-management and motivational aspects of EF; hyperactivity was predominantly related to self-restraint and self-regulation factors. The BDEFS seemingly assesses similar dimensions of the EF construct in English and in the present Spanish-language versions. Factor scores were differentially associated with ADHD subtypes. Replication and confirmation of the Spanish-language BDEFS in a larger sample is advised. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".