Executive function behaviors in intellectually gifted/ADHD children compared to intellectually gifted children and ADHD children: the clinical utility of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the differential display of executive functions in intellectually gifted/ADHD children, although this may be relevant to identify the dual condition better. This study aimed to examine the executive function behaviors of intellectually gifted/ADHD youth, as reported by their parents using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), and to compare them with those of youth who were intellectually gifted only and those with ADHD only. Based on a cognitive assessment, a clinical sample of 110 participants (Mage = 10.13; SD = 2.59), aged six to 16, was drawn from attendees of two psychological clinics and divided into three groups: intellectually gifted/ADHD (n = 40), ADHD (n = 40) and intellectually gifted (n = 30). The results revealed that, in general, intellectually gifted/ADHD youth presented more alterations in executive function behaviors, particularly in the BRIEF metacognitive index, than intellectually gifted and ADHD youth, as reported by their parents. Furthermore, mothers rated executive function difficulties more severely on the BRIEF rating scale across all groups than fathers. These findings highlight the clinical utility of the BRIEF, particularly its Organization of Materials, Monitor, and Working Memory subscales, in detecting the co-occurrence of intellectual giftedness and ADHD in children with good sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, they support existing evidence of executive vulnerabilities in intellectually gifted/ADHD children and underscore the importance of supporting their executive function-related behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".