797762

research-article2018
CJSXXX10.1177/0829573518797762Canadian Journal of School PsychologyTest Review

Test Review
Canadian Journal of School Psychology
2019, Vol. 34(1) 73­–78
Test Review © The Authors 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjs

Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2015). Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function®, Second Edition (BRIEF®2). Lutz, FL: PAR Inc.

Reviewed by: Nicholas K. Hendrickson, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and Adam
W. McCrimmon , University of Calgary and Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
DOI: 10.1177/0829573518797762

Test Description
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF2;
Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2015), published by PARInc., is an updated indi-
vidually administered rating scale of executive function (EF) for children and youth,
aged 5 to 18 years. Primarily used in clinical, psychoeducational, and research set-
tings, the BRIEF2 evaluates everyday behaviors associated with EF in home and edu-
cational environments.
The BRIEF2 is a Level S measure, meaning that it can be purchased, administered,
and interpreted by individuals with a degree or license to practice in medicine, nurs-
ing, psychology, social work, occupational therapy, or other allied health professions
(and also can be used by individuals who meet Level B or C qualifications; details of
these qualifications are available from the test publisher’s website). Administration
time is 5 min for the screening form or less than 10 min per comprehensive form; scor-
ing takes approximately 15 min.
The BRIEF2 kit consists of the Professional Manual; Fast Guide (which provides
targeted information about the measure’s composition, administration, and scoring); 25
of each of the Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report forms; and 25 of each of the Parent,
Teacher, and Self-Report Scoring Summary/Profile forms. The manual is comprehen-
sive and well structured, beginning with an overview of the measure and its history, and
describes administration, scoring, and interpretation of the measure. Revision goals are
outlined and evidence of the measure’s psychometric properties is provided.

Measure Development
The BRIEF2 was developed to enhance its utility with minimal modification from the
original measure. No items were added to the primary scales or indexes; however,
74 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)

some items were modified and others were added to create a validity index called the
Infrequency Scale. The remaining items were evaluated to determine content cover-
age, ease of understanding, consistency across forms, and representativeness of the
theoretical and empirical models of EF.

Administration and Scoring

The BRIEF2 consists of Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report forms that can be adminis-
tered either manually via paper forms or digitally via PARiConnect. The Parent and
Teacher forms each consist of 63 items that contribute to nine factors: Inhibit, Self-
Monitor, Shift, Emotional Control, Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Task-
Monitor, and Organization of Materials. The Self-Report form can be completed by
children aged 11 to 18 and consists of 55 items that contribute to seven factors: Inhibit,
Self-Monitor, Shift, Emotional Control, Task Completion, Working Memory, and
Plan/Organize. There are also three validity scales (Inconsistency, Negativity, and
Infrequency) comprised of items on each version of the measure that evaluate respon-
dents’ response patterns. The primary scales combine to form three composite indexes:
Behavior Regulation Index (BRI; comprised of the Inhibit and Self-Monitor domains),
Emotional Recognition Index (ERI; comprised of the Shift and Emotional Control
domains), and Cognitive Regulation Index (CRI; comprised of the Initiate, Working
Memory, Plan/Organize, Task-Monitor, and Organization of Materials domains), and
a unitary Global Executive Composite (GEC).

Administration and Scoring

The BRIEF2 is a questionnaire in which respondents record their answer via a Likert-
type format with N (“Never”), S (“Sometimes”), or O (“Often”) that reflect the fre-
quency to which the child being evaluated performs an indicated behavior. Scoring of
the measure is completed either by tearing the perforated strips on the paper forms and
completing the scoring sheet within the booklet or via PARiConnect which will score
a digital administration and provide a summary of the results. Results are presented in
T-score format (M = 50, SD = 10). Confidence intervals are also provided. The mea-
sure also provides a screening form for each respondent to identify individuals who
may benefit from more comprehensive assessment.

Technical Adequacy
Test Standardization
The BRIEF2 standardization sample consisted of 3,603 children/youth who are typically
developing (TD), 1,400 of which contributed to the Parent form, 1,400 to the Teacher
form, and 803 to the Self-Report form (aged 11-18 only). The sample group was matched
to the U.S. population based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, parent education, and geo-
graphical region. The TD sample was required to have no history of special education,
Test Review 75

psychotropic medication, or neurological disorders. In addition, teachers were required

to know the student through daily contact for at least 1 month.
The sample also consisted of a clinical sample comprised of 5,295 participants
(3,007 parents, 1,826 teachers, and 462 self-reporters). Clinical samples included
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Combined Presentation (ADHD-C), ADHD
Predominantly Inattentive Presentation (ADHD-I), sluggish cognitive tempo, Autism
Spectrum Disorder, learning disability (LD), comorbid ADHD and LD, anxiety, trau-
matic brain injury, epilepsy, neurofibromatosis, cancer, or diabetes. All diagnoses were
based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.;
DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria.

Reliability
Internal consistency.  Reliability coefficients assess the degree to which items within a
scale measure the same construct. Coefficient alpha was calculated using data from
each form’s normative sample. Findings indicate high internal consistency for all
index scores in both the standardization and clinical samples. Parent forms revealed
coefficients ranging from .76 to .97, with index and composite scores ranging from .90
to .97. Teacher forms revealed coefficients ranging from .88 to .98, with index and
composite scores ranging from .94 to .98. Self-report forms revealed coefficients rang-
ing from .71 to .97, with index and composite scores ranging from .84 to .97. Neither
means nor standard deviations were reported.

Test–retest stability.  Some participants completed two administrations approximately 3

weeks apart to determine temporal stability; correlations range from .67 to .92 (M =
0.79). Index and composite score correlations are all above .80 (BRI = .83, ERI = .82,
CRI = .89, and GEC = .88). Teachers showed correlation coefficients ranging from
.76 to .89 (M = 0.82), while index and composite scores were again all above .80 (BRI
= .83, ERI = .89, CRI = .89, and GEC = .90). Finally, adolescents showed correla-
tion coefficients ranging from .61 to .85 (M = 0.74), with some index and composite
scores falling below .80 (BRI = .75, ERI = .77, CRI = .84, and GEC = .85). Standard
deviations were not reported.

Interrater and inter-interviewer reliability. Interrater reliability assesses whether two raters

provided similar scores. Interrater samples consisted of numerous pairings: parent–teacher,
parent–self, teacher–self, parent–parent, and teacher–teacher. The manual notes that some
of the interrater reliability scores are likely to be influenced by the nature of the pairing
(i.e., between a teacher and a student versus a parent and a student). Correlation coeffi-
cients for the parent–teacher group had a mean of 0.64 for the TD sample (range = .55 to
.72) and 0.34 for the clinical sample (range = .24 to .49). The parent–self pairing had a
mean of 0.62 for the TD sample (range = .46 to .74) and 0.30 for the clinical sample (range
= .20 to .36). Teacher–self had a mean of 0.49 for the TD sample (range = .37 to .62) and
0.16 for the clinical sample (range = .09 to .27). Parent–parent had a mean of 0.77 for the
TD sample (range = .57 to .88) and 0.59 for the clinical sample (range = .44 to .67).
76 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)

Teacher–teacher group had a mean of 0.39 for the TD sample (range = .11 to .47) and 0.56
for the clinical sample (range = .42 to .70). Standard deviations were not reported.

Validity
Internal structure and content.  The BRIEF2 characterizes EF as an umbrella construct
(i.e., distinct but related abilities/behaviors). Internal structure of the BRIEF2 was
measured by examining item-total correlations, intercorrelations, and a confirmatory
factor analysis. Item-total correlations revealed moderate to strong membership for
each scale. Correlation coefficients ranged from .44 to .77 for parents, .50 to .83 for
teachers, and .44 to .74 for self-report. Intercorrelations determined whether theoreti-
cally related constructs were more correlated than dissimilar constructs (e.g., Working
Memory and Planning/Organization as opposed to Emotional Control and Organiza-
tion of Materials). Results for the TD sample indicated values ranging from .41 to .83
for parents, .46 to .88 for teachers, and .52 to .84 for self-report. Intercorrelations for
the clinical sample ranged from .31 to .66 for parents; .24 to .79 for teachers; and .34
to .73 for self-report. Neither means nor standard deviations were reported for item-
total correlations nor intercorrelations.
Previous studies have ascertained the goodness-of-fit of a three-factor model (BRI,
ERI, and CRI) for the original BRIEF via exploratory and confirmatory factor analy-
ses (Donders, DenBraber, & Vos, 2010; Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Epsy, 2002). This
three-factor model is exhibited by the three index scores provided by both the BRIEF
and BRIEF2. Gioia et al. (2002) examined how the eight individual parent/teacher
scales would load on to a one-, two-, three-, and four-factor model; they reported that
comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) values favored the three-factor model.
Furthermore, they posited that the three-factor model most closely aligned with
Barkley’s (1997) description of EF, which describes inhibitory control, emotional reg-
ulation, and metacognition as representing distinct components. Thus, developers of
the BRIEF2 conducted a confirmatory factor analysis examining a three-factor model
to determine fit between the individual scales and the three indexes. Findings indi-
cated an acceptable fit with the three-factor model, with CFI values ranging from .95
to .99, SRMR values ranging from .02 to .05, and RMSEA values ranging from .07 to
.13. RMSEA values were slightly above the desired cutoff (.08; Hu & Bentler, 1998).
Based on Gioia et al.’s (2010) previous study (which found the BRIEF to have RMSEA
values of .11), this slight elevation was anticipated. During the Gioia et al. (2010)
study, when the error of covariance among scales was estimated, RMSEA values
decreased to .08. Consequently, the authors of the BRIEF2 determined the RMSEA
values to represent acceptable fit.

Concurrent validity.  Evidence for the validity of the BRIEF2 was gathered by compar-
ing individual scales and summary indexes with other measures. Findings from these
comparisons indicated moderate to strong relations between the BRIEF2 and the Child
Test Review 77

Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991), Behavior Assessment System for

Children, Second Edition (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), Conners Third
Edition (Conners-3; Conners, 2008), and ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV;
DuPaul, Power, Anastopoulos, & Reid, 1998). The BRIEF2 parent form demonstrated
r values ranging from .48 to .67 on the ADHD-RS-IV, .33 to .45 on the CBCL, –.67
(adaptive skills) to .75 on the BASC-2 PRS, and .17 to .50 on the Conners 3-P(S). The
BRIEF2 teacher form demonstrated r values ranging from .61 to .71 on the ADHD-
RS-IV, .49 to .81 on the CBCL-TRF, –.63 (adaptive skills) to .80 on the BASC-2 TRS,
and .36 to .61 on the Conners 3-T(S). Finally, the BRIEF2 self-report form demon-
strated r values ranging from .39 to .57 on the CBCL-YSR, and –.41 (personal adjust-
ment) to .75 on the BASC-2 SRP.

Special study groups.  Individuals with various diagnoses were matched to TD peers
based on age and gender. T-score elevation and mean T-score differences were com-
pared. In most cases, score differences aligned with expected diagnostic differences.
For instance, individuals with ADHD-C or ADHD-I received significantly higher
T-scores on all scales, indexes, and composite scores (p < .001 to p < .05) with sig-
nificant mean differences from the TD group ranging from 6.14 to 22.33. With the
exception of the self-report form’s Emotional Control scale, these findings held true
across all forms. It should be noted that significantly higher T-scores do not necessar-
ily correlate with clinically significant T-scores (i.e., above 60).

Commentary and Recommendations

The BRIEF2 has several features that make it useful in the examination of EF. It is
based on a strong previous measure with historical use in both research and clinical
settings. Its scales, indexes, and composite scores mirror the umbrella construct of EF.
Test standardization was conducted using a large and robust sample size and allows for
differentiation between TD and clinical populations. It has three forms tailored to the
respondent and can be administered either online or with a pencil and paper. The
screening forms allow for quick determination of potential comprehensive assess-
ment. The BRIEF2 scores have strong internal consistency and test–retest stability,
and moderate to strong internal validity and concurrent validity. The full forms are
completed in less than 10 min, thus promoting motivation for respondents to complete
the form.
The BRIEF2 also contains several limitations to its utility. The interrater reliability
of its scores is weak to moderate, indicating inherent differences among the raters.
Clinicians may struggle to find convergence across forms/raters. As with many rating
scales, the BRIEF2 offers a selection of behaviors and asks respondents to rate their
frequency. Given the limited number of questions and frequency ratings on the mea-
sure, some behaviors may not be captured adequately. Finally, the BRIEF2 is reliant
upon other observers rating the individual in question and so is susceptible to responder
bias (potentially reflected in the measure’s variable interrater reliability scores).
78 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)

Overall, the BRIEF2 provides a quick, effective, and efficient way to examine EF.
Its construct breakdown, test standardization, and short completion time make it a
useful measure for both clinical and research settings. Although the measure does
contain several limitations inherent in most rating scales, it remains both useful and
recommendable.

ORCID iD
Adam W. McCrimmon https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1535-2992

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile.
Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners (3rd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MultiHealth Systems.
Donders, J., DenBraber, D., & Vos, L. (2010). Construct and criterion validity of the Behaviour
Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in children referred for neuropsychologi-
cal assessment after paediatric traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neuropsychology, 4(Pt. 2),
197-209. doi:10.1348/174866409X478970
DuPaul, G. J., Power, T., Anastopoulos, A., & Reid, R. (1998). The ADHD Rating Scale-IV.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2015). Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function®, Second Edition (BRIEF®2). Lutz, FL: PAR Inc.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Retzlaff, P. D., & Espy, K. A. (2002). Confirmatory factor analy-
sis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a clinical sample.
Child Neuropsychology, 8, 249-257. doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.249.13513
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
doi:10.1037//1082-989X.3.4.424
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second
Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.