IF44®

Behavior Rating
Inventory of
Executive Function®

Gerard A. Gioia, PhD

Peter K. lsquith, PhD
Steven C. Guy, PhD
Lauren Kenworthy, PhD

Murdoch Childrens Research Institute

Property of Clinical Sciences
West Level 4 - Test Library
Office: 9345 4679
WL4 Reception: Ext 66647

PAR
• Montgomery County Public Schools including Matt also go to Arthur Maerlender, Ann Marcotte, Richard Doty,
Kamins and Joseph Hawkins of central administration; and Janet Panter, who served as beta testers for the BRIEF
James Fernandez and Lance Dempsey of Julius West and provided valuable recommendations and feedback.
Middle School; Joan Benz of Churchill High School; and Finally, we are deeply grateful to our spouses Margie,
Fred Evans of Gaithersburg High School Lindy, Suzanne, and Eric for their endless patience, support,
• Thomas Riddle of Our Lady of Victory in Baltimore and cheerleading, and for reminding us when it was time to
come home.
• Sr. Marie Rose of Saint Thomas Aquinas School in
Baltimore
• Marcy Pierorazio of Shrine of the Sacred Heart in Gerard A. Gioia, PhD
Baltimore. Peter K. Isquith, PhD TABLE OF CONTENTS
We wish to acknowledge the contributions and support of Steven C. Guy, PhD
Travis White and Mario Rodriguez of Psychological Assess- Lauren Kenworthy, PhD
ment Resources, Inc., publisher of the BRIEF. Many thanks June 2000
Acknowledgments 111

Chapter 1. Introduction 1
The Executive Functions 1
Brain Basis of the Executive Functions 2
Developmental Factors 3
Clinical Assessment 3
Chapter 2. Administration and Scoring 5
BRIEF Materials 5
Appropriate Populations 5
Professional Requirements 5
General Administration 5
Administration of the Parent Form 5
Administration of the Teacher Form 6
Scoring and Profiling the Parent and Teacher Forms 6
Calculating Scale Raw Scores 7
Missing Responses 7
Scoring the Negativity Scale 7
Scoring the Inconsistency Scale 7
Converting Raw Scores to T Scores 10
Calculating Confidence Intervals 10
Plotting the BRIEF Profile 10
Chapter 3. Interpretation of the BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms 13
Normative Comparisons 14
Assessing Validity 14
Other Indications of Compromised Validity 15
Clinical Scales 17
Inhibit 17
Shift 18
Emotional Control 18
Initiate 18
Working Memory 19

iv
 Plan/Organize 19 BRIEF Profiles of Diagnostic Groups 66
Organization of Materials 20 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 66
Monitor 20 Traumatic Brain Injury 66
The Behavioral Regulation Index, the Metacognition Index, and the Global Executive Composite 20 Tourette's Disorder 71
Behavioral Regulation Index 20 Reading Disorder 71
Metacognition Index 20 Low Birth Weight 72
Global Executive Composite 21 Documented Brain Lesions 73
Individual Item Analysis 21 High Functioning Autism 73
Interpretive Case Illustrations 23 Pervasive Developmental Disorders 73
Case Illustration 1. Eight-Year-Old Boy With ADHD, Combined Type 23 Early-Treated Phenylketonuria 73
Case Illustration 2. Nine-Year-Old Girl With Nonverbal Learning Disability and ADHD, Mental Retardation 75
Predominantly Inattentive Type 26
Clinical Utility of the BRIEF for Diagnosis of ADHD 76
Case Illustration 3. Twelve-Year-Old Boy With Traumatic Brain Injury 27
Predictive Validity 78
Case Illustration 4. Eleven-Year-Old Boy With Asperger's Disorder 31
Clinical Utility 79
Case Illustration 5. Fifteen-Year-Old Girl With Executive/Organizational Dysfunction 32
Summary 82
Case Illustration 6. Ten-Year-Old Boy With Reading Disorder 33
References 85
Chapter 4. Development and Standardization of the BRIEF 35
35 Appendix A: T-Score and Percentile Conversion Tables and 90% Confidence Interval Values
Development for BRIEF Parent Form: Boys by Age Group
35 89
Item Content
Item Development 35 Appendix B: T-Score and Percentile Conversion Tables and 90% Confidence Interval Values
36 for BRIEF Parent Form: Girls by Age Group 103
Item-Scale Membership
Item Tryouts 37 Appendix C: T-Score and Percentile Conversion Tables and 90% Confidence Interval Values
Final Scale Development 37 for BRIEF Teacher Form: Boys by Age Group 117
Validity Scales 42
Appendix D: T-Score and Percentile Conversion Tables and 90% Confidence Interval Values
Inconsistency Scale 42 for BRIEF Teacher Form. Girls by Age Group 131
Negativity Scale 42
Standardization 42
Demographic Characteristics 42
Influence of Demographic Characteristics of Respondent and Child 43
Development of the Normative Groups 45
Construction of Scale Norms 45

Chapter 5. Reliability and Validity 49

Reliability 49
Internal Consistency 49
Interrater Reliability 49
Test-Retest Reliability 51
Validity 53
Content Validity 53
Construct Validity 54
Factor Analysis 61
Exploratory Factor Analysis 61
Principal Factor Analysis of the BRIEF and Other Behavior Rating Scales 62
 INTRODUCTION
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Function (BRIEF) is a questionnaire for parents and
teachers of school age children that enables profes-
sionals to assess executive function behaviors in the
home and school environments. It is designed for a
broad range of children, ages 5 to 18 years, including
those with learning disabilities and attentional dis-
orders, traumatic brain injuries, lead exposure, per-
vasive developmental disorders, depression, and
other developmental, neurological, psychiatric, and
medical conditions. The Parent and Teacher Forms of
the BRIEF each contain 86 items within eight theo-
retically and empirically derived clinical scales that
measure different aspects of executive functioning:
Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, Initiate, Working
Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials,
and Monitor. Table 1 describes the clinical scales and
two validity scales (Inconsistency and Negativity).
The clinical scales form two broader Indexes,
Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition, and an
overall score, the Global Executive Composite. Two of
the scales, Working Memory and Inhibit, are clini-
cally useful in differentiating the diagnostic subtypes
of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
This manual provides information about the
BRIEF materials, administration and scoring proce-
dures, and normative data, as well as guidelines for
clinical interpretation and a variety of case studies to
assist you in understanding the results obtained on
the BRIEF. The manual also describes the develop-
ment of the instrument and results of studies that
establish the reliability, validity, and diagnostic
utility of the BRIEF as a measure of executive func-
tion in children.
THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
The executive functions are a collection of
processes that are responsible for guiding, directing,
and managing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
functions, particularly during active, novel problem
solving. The term executive function represents an
umbrella construct that includes a collection of inter-
related functions that are responsible for purposeful,
goal-directed, problem-solving behavior. Welsh and
Pennington (1988) characterized the early develop-
ment of the executive functions in terms of "the abil-
ity to maintain an appropriate problem solving set
for attainment of a future goal" (p. 201). Stuss and
Benson's (1986) classic work describes a set of
related capacities for intentional problem solving
that include anticipation, goal selection, planning,
monitoring, and use of feedback. Their hierarchical
model highlights important aspects of the executive
functions that relate to the highest levels of cogni-
tion: anticipation, judgment, self-awareness, and
decision making. Their model distinguishes "execu-
tive," or directive, cognitive control functions from
more "basic" cognitive functions (e.g., language,
visual-spatial, memory abilities).
Specific subdomains that make up this collection
of regulatory or management functions include the
ability to initiate behavior, inhibit competing actions
or stimuli, select relevant task goals, plan and organ-
ize a means to solve complex problems, shift
problem-solving strategies flexibly when necessary,
and monitor and evaluate behavior. The working
memory capacity, whereby information is actively held
"online" in the service of complex multistep problem
 Table 1
Description of the Clinical and Validity Scales on the BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms
Number of items
Scale Parent Teacher Behavioral description
Clinical scales
10 10 Control impulses; appropriately stop own behavior at the proper time.
Inhibit
10 Move freely from one situation, activity, or aspect of a problem to
Shift 8
another as the situation demands; transition; solve problems flexibly.
10 9 Modulate emotional responses appropriately.
Emotional Control
Begin a task or activity; independently generate ideas.
Initiate 8 7
Working Memory 10 10 Hold information in mind for the purpose of completing a task; stay
with, or stick to, an activity.
Plan/Organize 12 10 Anticipate future events; set goals; develop appropriate steps ahead of
time to carry out an associated task or action; carry out tasks in a
systematic manner; understand and communicate main ideas or key
concepts.
Keep workspace, play areas, and materials in an orderly manner.
Organization of Materials 6 7
Monitor 8 10 Check work; assess performance during or after finishing a task to
ensure attainment of goal; keep track of the effect of own behavior on
others.
Validity scales
Inconsistency 19 17 Extent to which the respondent answers similar BRIEF items in an
inconsistent manner.
9 9 Extent to which the respondent answers selected BRIEF items in an
Negativity
unusually negative manner.
solving, is also described as a key aspect of executive Miner, Levin, & Eisenberg, 1990), these functions do
function (Pennington, Bennetto, McAleer, & Roberts, not simply reside in the frontal lobes. An under-
1996). Finally, the executive functions are not exclu- standing of the frontal region of the brain is, how-
sive to cognitive control; regulatory control of emo- ever, important in any discussion of the executive
tional response and behavioral action also falls under functions. The neuroanatomical essence of the
the umbrella of the executive functions. frontal lobes is their dense connectivity with other
cortical and subcortical regions of the brain. The
prefrontal system is highly and reciprocally intercon-
BRAIN BASIS OF THE
nected through bidirectional connections with the
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS limbic (motivational) system, the reticular activating
(arousal) system, the posterior association cortex
The developmental course of the executive func-
(perceptuallcognitive processes and knowledge base),
tions parallels the protracted course of neurological
and the motor (action) regions of the frontal lobes
development, particularly with respect to the pre-
(e.g., Johnson, Rosvold, & Mishkin, 1968; Porrino &
frontal regions of the brain. One common view of the
Goldman-Rakic, 1982). Such a central neuro-
neuroanatomic organization of the executive func-
anatomic position underlies the regulatory control
tions, however, is that they are seated solely in the
that the frontal brain.systems exert over the poste-
prefrontal region. This is an oversimplification of the
rior cortical and subcortical systems (Welsh &
complex organization of the brain. Although damage
Pennington, 1988).
to the frontal lobes can result in significant dysfunc-
tion of various executive subdomains (Anderson, The concept of frontal system (as opposed to lobe)
1998; Asarnow, Satz, Light, Lewis, & Neumann, 1991; explicitly acknowledges and directly incorporates
Eslinger & Grattan, 1991; Fletcher, Ewing-Cobbs, the interconnections of the frontal region with the
2 3
cortical and subcortical regions of the brain.
Importantly, a disorder within any component of the
frontal system network can result in executive dys-
function (Mesulam, 1981). Conditions that render
the frontal systems vulnerable to dysfunction include
the following: disorders affecting the connectivity of
the brain such as cranial radiation and white matter
development (Brouwers, Riccardi, Poplack, & Fedio,
1984), lead poisoning affecting synaptogenesis
(Goldstein, 1992), direct trauma to the prefrontal
regions in traumatic brain injury (Fletcher et al.,
1990), dysfunctional neurotransmitters such as
dopamine in Tourette's Disorder and ADHD
(Rogeness, Javors, & Pliska, 1992; Singer & Walkup,
1991), disorders involving aspects of the posterior
cortex such as learning disabilities, and disorders of
the arousal mechanism such as those seen in brain
injury and severe depression. Thus, executive dys-
function can arise from damage to the primary pre-
frontal regions as well as damage to the densely
interconnected posterior or subcortical areas.
DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS
A unique feature of the executive functions is their
prolonged developmental course (e.g., Levin et al.,
1991; Passler, Issac, & Hynd, 1985; Welsh &
Pennington, 1988) in comparison with other cogni-
tive functions, paralleling the prolonged pattern of
neurodevelopment of the prefrontal regions of the
brain. The development of attentional control,
future-oriented intentional problem solving, and self-
regulation of emotion and behavior can be observed
beginning in infancy and continuing through the pre-
school- and school-age years (Welsh & Pennington).
The development of goal-directed, planful problem-
solving behaviors has been demonstrated in infants
as young as 12 months of age using an object perma-
nence and object retrieval paradigm (Diamond &
Goldman-Rakic, 1989). Eighteen-month-old children
exhibit specific self-control abilities to maintain an
intentional action and inhibit behavior incompatible
with attaining a goal (Vaughn, Kopp, & Krakow,
1984). Thus, early intentional self-control behaviors
are present in infants and toddlers for the purpose of
goal-directed problem solving. Executive self-control
at these early ages is, however, variable, fragile, and
bound to the external stimulus situation; stability
increases between 18 to 30 months of age.
Developmental studies through adolescence demon-
strate a time-related course of development for
specific subdomains of executive function, including
inhibitory control (Passler et al.), flexible problem
solving (Chelune & Baer, 1986; Levin et al.; Welsh,
Pennington, & Grossier, 1991), and planning (Klahr
& Robinson, 1981; Levin et al.; Welsh et al.). As is the
case with most dimensions of psychological and neu-
ropsychological development, the emergence of exec-
utive control functions varies across individuals in
terms of both the timing of specific subdomains and
the final endpoint.
Executive functions of self-awareness and control
develop in parallel with the domain-specific content
area or functional areas as described by Stuss and
Benson (1986). For example, as basic memory skills
develop (e.g., immediate memory span, encoding, or
retrieval), "metamemory" (i.e., knowledge about how
to strategically use and control these memory abili-
ties for particular tasks or situations) develops con-
currently (Brown, 1975). An important corollary to
consider is that if the basic ability does not develop,
then the associated metacognitive knowledge and
control skill (i.e., the executive function) would not
develop as fully. This point relates directly to the
interest in metacognition in learning disabilities
(Pressley & Levin, 1987; Siegel & Ryan, 1989;
Swanson, Cochran, & Ewers, 1990; Wong, 1991) and
the development of self-control strategies within the
context of specific processes (e.g., reading disorder,
writing process). Assessment and intervention in
learning disabilities must, therefore, include the con-
trol strategies (e.g., recognizing the critical "problem"
situation, planning and evaluating the use of specific
learning strategies), in addition to the primary
domain-specific processing disorder (e.g., decoding
words, extracting meaning from sentences).
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT
Historically, clinical assessment of the executive
functions has been challenging given their dynamic
essence (Denckla, 1994). Fluid strategic, goal-
oriented problem solving is not as amenable to a
paper-and-pencil assessment model as are the more
domain-specific functions of language, motor, and
visuospatial or visual/nonverbal abilities. Further-
more, the structured nature of the typical assessment
situation often does not place a high demand on the
executive functions, reducing the opportunity for
observing this important domain (Bernstein & Waber,
1990). We believe the child's everyday environments
at home and at school serve as important venues for
observing the essence of the executive functions.
Parents and teachers possess a wealth of information
about the child's behavior in these settings that is
directly relevant to an understanding of the child's
executive function. A rich tradition exists in utilizing
structured behavior rating systems to assess psy-
chological and neuropsychological constructs
(Achenbach, 1991a; Conners, 1989; Reynolds &
Kamphaus, 1992). The use of rating scale systems,
completed by parents and teachers, measuring overt
behavior is an often-used and well-proven method
for assessing various domains of social, emotional,
and behavioral functioning. Additionally, behavioral
inventories completed by caregivers are widely
employed in the assessment of adaptive behavior
(e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales; Sparrow,
4
Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) and personality develop-
ment (Personality Inventory for Children; Lachar,
1982). The authors believe there is a need for a rat-
ing scale to assess the range of behavioral manifes-
tations of executive functions in children. A reliable
and valid behavior rating system can serve as an
important adjunct to the clinical evaluation and
treatment of problems that involve the executive
control functions.
The BRIEF is a reliable and valid behavior rating
scale of executive functions in children and adoles-
cents that can (a) become an integral part of the clin-
ical and school assessment of children and
adolescents and (b) assist with focused treatment
and educational planning for children with disorders
of executive function.
ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING
BRIEF MATERIALS
The BRIEF materials consist of the Professional
Manual, the Parent Form, the Teacher Form, and the
two-sided Scoring Summary/Profile Form. The cover
page of each rating form (Parent and Teacher)
includes instructions for completing the form and
examples for marking responses directly in the book-
let. The remaining two pages of each form contain
the BRIEF items and an area for recording demo-
graphic information about the child and information
about the respondent's relationship to the child. The
carbonless rating booklet is designed to be hand-
scored by the examiner.
One side of each Scoring Summary/Profile Form
(Parent and Teacher) provides instructions for hand-
scoring the BRIEF clinical and validity scales and
indexes, as well as summary tables for recording raw
scores, T scores, and percentiles for scales and
indexes. Conversion of raw scale scores to T scores
can be accomplished using the normative tables
located in the appendixes at the end of this manual.
The reverse side of the Scoring Summary/Profile
Form provides a graph for plotting T scores to visu-
ally portray the respondent's clinical scale, index,
and GEC scores relative to those of the normative
sample.
APPROPRIATE POPULATIONS
The BRIEF was standardized and validated for
use with boys and girls, ages 5 through 18 years. The
normative sample included children from a range of
racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and geo-
graphic locations, including inner city, urban, subur-
ban, and rural environments. As a result, the BRIEF
is appropriate for school-age children in a wide range
of social and demographic contexts.
PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The BRIEF can be administered and scored by
individuals who do not have formal training in neu-
ropsychology, clinical psychology, school psychology,
counseling psychology, or related fields. The exam-
iner should carefully study the administration and
scoring procedures presented in this manual. In
keeping with the Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing of the American Education
Research Association, American Psychological Associa-
tion, and National Council on Measurements in
Education (1985), interpretation of the BRIEF scores
and profiles requires graduate training in neuropsy-
chology, clinical psychology, school psychology, counsel-
ing psychology, neuropsychiatry, behavioral neurology,
developmental/behavioral pediatrics, general pedi-
atrics, or a closely related field, as well as relevant
training or coursework in the interpretation of psycho-
logical tests at an accredited college or university.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Materials required for administration are the
BRIEF Parent Form and/or Teacher Form booklets, a
hard-point pen or a pencil, and a flat writing surface.
Because instructions for administering the Parent
and Teacher Forms of the BRIEF differ slightly, they
are discussed separately in the following sections.
Administration of the Parent Form
Selecting Raters
The BRIEF Parent Form is designed to be com-
pleted by the child's parent or guardian. It is desir-
able to obtain ratings from both parents, if possible.
This provides more information on the child's behav-
ior and can reveal areas of disagreement that may be
important to the assessment and identification of
5
at home and at school serve as important venues for
observing the essence of the executive functions.
Parents and teachers possess a wealth of information
about the child's behavior in these settings that is
directly relevant to an understanding of the child's
executive function. A rich tradition exists in utilizing
structured behavior rating systems to assess psy-
chological and neuropsychological constructs
(Achenbach, 1991a; Conners, 1989; Reynolds &
Kamphaus, 1992). The use of rating scale systems,
completed by parents and teachers, measuring overt
behavior is an often-used and well-proven method
for assessing various domains of social, emotional,
and behavioral functioning. Additionally, behavioral
inventories completed by caregivers are widely
employed in the assessment of adaptive behavior
(e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales; Sparrow,
4 5
Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) and personality develop-
ment (Personality Inventory for Children; Lachar,
1982). The authors believe there is a need for a rat-
ing scale to assess the range of behavioral manifes-
tations of executive functions in children. A reliable
and valid behavior rating system can serve as an
important adjunct to the clinical evaluation and
treatment of problems that involve the executive
control functions.
The BRIEF is a reliable and valid behavior rating
scale of executive functions in children and adoles-
cents that can (a) become an integral part of the clin-
ical and school assessment of children and
adolescents and (b) assist with focused treatment
and educational planning for children with disorders
of executive function.
ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING
BRIEF MATERIALS
The BRIEF materials consist of the Professional
Manual, the Parent Form, the Teacher Form, and the
two-sided Scoring Summary/Profile Form. The cover
page of each rating form (Parent and Teacher)
includes instructions for completing the form and
examples for marking responses directly in the book-
let. The remaining two pages of each form contain
the BRIEF items and an area for recording demo-
graphic information about the child and information
about the respondent's relationship to the child. The
carbonless rating booklet is designed to be hand-
scored by the examiner.
One side of each Scoring Summary/Profile Form
(Parent and Teacher) provides instructions for hand-
scoring the BRIEF clinical and validity scales and
indexes, as well as summary tables for recording raw
scores, T scores, and percentiles for scales and
indexes. Conversion of raw scale scores to T scores
can be accomplished using the normative tables
located in the appendixes at the end of this manual.
The reverse side of the Scoring Summary/Profile
Form provides a graph for plotting T scores to visu-
ally portray the respondent's clinical scale, index,
and GEC scores relative to those of the normative
sample.
APPROPRIATE POPULATIONS
The BRIEF was standardized and validated for
use with boys and girls, ages 5 through 18 years. The
normative sample included children from a range of
racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and geo-
graphic locations, including inner city, urban, subur-
ban, and rural environments. As a result, the BRIEF
is appropriate for school-age children in a wide range
of social and demographic contexts.
PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The BRIEF can be administered and scored by
individuals who do not have formal training in neu-
ropsychology, clinical psychology, school psychology,
counseling psychology, or related fields. The exam-
iner should carefully study the administration and
scoring procedures presented in this manual. In
keeping with the Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing of the American Education
Research Association, American Psychological Associa-
tion, and National Council on Measurements in
Education (1985), interpretation of the BRIEF scores
and profiles requires graduate training in neuropsy-
chology, clinical psychology, school psychology, counsel-
ing psychology, neuropsychiatry, behavioral neurology,
developmentalfbehavioral pediatrics, general pedi-
atrics, or a closely related field, as well as relevant
training or coursework in the interpretation of psycho-
logical tests at an accredited college or university.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Materials required for administration are the
BRIEF Parent Form and/or Teacher Form booklets, a
hard-point pen or a pencil, and a flat writing surface.
Because instructions for administering the Parent
and Teacher Forms of the BRIEF differ slightly, they
are discussed separately in the following sections.
Administration of the Parent Form
Selecting Raters
The BRIEF Parent Form is designed to be com-
pleted by the child's parent or guardian. It is desir-
able to obtain ratings from both parents, if possible.
This provides more information on the child's behav-
ior and can reveal areas of disagreement that may be
important to the assessment and identification of

intervention strategies. When a choice is necessary,
it is preferable to obtain the rating from the person
with the most recent and most extensive contact with
the child.
Establishing Rapport and
Giving Instructions
It is essential to establish good rapport with the
person completing the form. Instructions to the par-
ent should emphasize the importance of responding
to all items on the form. The following instructions
may be used as a guide:
Parents observe a lot about their children's
problem solving and behavioral functioning
that cannot be measured in an office visit. Your
help is essential to me as I attempt to under-
stand your child. This questionnaire allows you
to document your observations of your child's
functioning at home. Please read the instruc-
tions and respond to all of the items, even if
some are difficult or do not seem to apply. As
you will see, the instructions ask you to read a
list of statements that describe children's
behavior and indicate whether your child has
had any problems with these behaviors in the
past 6 months. If the specific behavior has never
been a problem in the last 6 months, circle the
letter "N"; if the behavior has sometimes been a
problem, circle the letter "S"; if the behavior
has often been a problem, circle the letter "0." If
you have any questions or concerns, please
don't hesitate to ask for my help.
Completing and Checking the Record Form
The BRIEF Parent Form will take approximately
10 to 15 minutes to complete. Ideally, the parent or
guardian should complete the form in a quiet setting
and in one sitting. Once the form has been com-
pleted, review it for blanks or multiple responses. If
any are found, ask the parent to go back and
respond to the skipped items or to clarify any
ambiguous responses. If this is not practical, or if
the parent refuses to answer certain items, proceed
with scoring.
Administration of the Teacher Form
Selecting Raters
The BRIEF Teacher Form is designed to be com-
pleted by any adult who has had extended contact
with the child in an academic setting. Typically this
will be a teacher, but a teacher's aide or other knowl-
edgeable person can be used as an informant when
necessary. To provide valid ratings, the respondent
6 7
should have had a considerable amount of contact
with the child. For example, 1 month of daily contact
should be sufficient. Multiple ratings from teachers
who observe the child in different classes can be use-
ful in showing how the youth responds to varied
teaching styles, academic demands, and curriculum
content areas.
Establishing Rapport and
Giving Instructions
It is important to establish good rapport with the
person completing the form. Instructions to the
teacher should emphasize the importance of respond-
ing to all items on the form. The following instruc-
tions may be used as a guide:
I am evaluating a child in your class. I need
your help to fully understand his/her learning
and behavior in school. This form takes 10 to 15
minutes to complete. Please read the instruc-
tions and respond to all of the items, even if
some are difficult or do not seem to apply. As
you will see, the instructions ask you to read a
list of statements that describe children's
behavior and indicate whether this student has
had any problems with these behaviors in the
past 6 months. If the specific behavior has never
been a problem in the last 6 months, circle the
letter "N"; if the behavior has sometimes been a
problem, circle the letter "S"; if the behavior
has often been a problem, circle the letter "O." If
you have known the student for less than 6
months, you may still respond to the question-
naire based on your experience. If you have any
questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to
ask for my help.
Completing and Checking the Record Form
The BRIEF Teacher Form will take approximately
10 to 15 minutes to complete. Ideally, the teacher
should complete the form in a quiet setting and in
one sitting. Once the form has been completed,
review it for blanks or multiple responses. If any are
found, ask the teacher to go back and respond to
skipped items or to clarify any ambiguous responses.
If this is not practical, or if the teacher refuses to
answer certain items, proceed with scoring.
SCORING AND PROFILING THE
PARENT AND TEACHER FORMS
Tear off the perforated strips along the sides of the
completed rating booklet and peel away the top sheet
(answer sheet) to reveal the scoring sheet beneath. Missing Responses
Demographic information and the rater's responses
Examine the scoring sheet for unanswered items.
are reproduced on the carbonless scoring sheet. The
If the total number of unanswered items that con-
scoring sheet is used to calculate the raw scale scores
tribute to the calculation of scale raw scores is
for each of the eight clinical scales.
greater than 14, then the BRIEF protocol cannot be
Calculating Scale Raw Scores appropriately scored. In such cases, the respondent
The rater's responses are reproduced as circled should be asked to complete the missing items if pos-
item scores on the scoring sheet, with 1 correspon- sible. Similarly, if more than two items that con-
ding to Never (N), 2 corresponding to Sometimes (S), tribute to the calculation of a scale raw score have
and 3 corresponding to Often (0). Transfer the circled missing responses, then a scale raw score should not
score for each item to the box provided in that item be calculated for that scale. Otherwise, missing
row. Sum the item scores in each column and enter responses for one or two items that contribute to a
scale raw score should be assigned a score of 1 when
the subtotal in the box at the bottom of the column.
calculating the scale raw score. Because Items 73
For the first page of items, transfer the subtotal score
for each scale to the appropriate box in the row for through 86 on the Parent Form and Items 74
subtotals at the bottom of the facing page. Sum the through 86 on the Teacher Form are not included in
two subtotals for each scale and enter the total in the the calculation of Total scale raw scores, missing
Total scale raw scores box at the bottom of the appro- responses for these particular items will not affect
priate column. Transfer each Total scale raw score to the calculation of raw scores for the clinical scales.
the Raw score column in the Scoring Summary Table Figure 2 presents a completed scoring sheet for an 8-
on the Scoring Summary/Profile Form (see Figure 1). year-old boy with ADHD, Combined Type.
Note that the last 14 items on the Parent Form scor- Scoring the Negativity Scale
ing sheet and the last 13 items on the Teacher Form
Negativity scale items are indicated by an "N"
scoring sheet do not have boxes for transcribing item
enclosed in a box in the margins on the scoring sheet
scores. These items are not used in calculating Total
of the rating form. Examine the scoring sheet to
scale raw scores; several of the items (i.e., those
determine which, if any, of these items were scored
marked N in the margins on the scoring sheets) are
as 3 (i.e., endorsed as "Often" by the respondent).
used to calculate a score on the Negativity scale.
Locate the Negativity scale area on the Scoring
Summary page of the Scoring Summary/Profile
Form. Circle each item number in the boxed column
Parent Form
Scoring Summary Table that received an item score of 3, and then enter the
number of circled items at the bottom of the column
Raw T
Scale/Index score score %Ile 90% CI to obtain the Negativity score (see Figure 3).
Inhibit 26 73 97 68- 78 Scoring the Inconsistency Scale
Shift 13 53 74 45 - _61 The Scoring Summary/Profile Form provides an
Emotional Control 27 73 98 68-15 area for calculating the Inconsistency Scale score.
BR! 60 71 90 _61- 75 This calculation is somewhat complex and must be
Initiate 21 75 98 _61-113 done carefully to ensure accuracy. Inconsistency
Working Memory 26 72 97 _62- 77 scale items are indicated by a circled "I" (I) in the
Plan/Organize 35 82 99 16- 88 margins on the scoring sheet of the rating form.
Organization of Materials 18 71 99 65- _77 Transfer the item scores for the 10 item pairs from
Monitor 21 69 90 61 -.Z7 the scoring sheet to the appropriate boxed columns
MI 121 79 99 75 - 55 (labeled Score) at the bottom right of the Scoring
GEC (BR! + MI) 187 78 98 75- 81 Summary page.
For each item pair, calculate the absolute value of
Figure 1. Sample of Scoring Summary Table: Parent
the difference in item scores for the two items. For
Form.
example, if the item score for the first item is 1 and
 Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
Gender MaleGrade 3rd Age 45 Birth Date 11 / 5/ 90 Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor
Child's Name
Your Name Relationship to Child mother Today's Date / 45.
46.
Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
Memory Organize Materials Monitor 47.
Inhibit Shift Control Initiate
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
10.
58.
11.
12. 59.
13. 60.
14. 61.
15. 62.
16. 63.
17. 64.
18. 65.
19.
20. a
21.
22. 69.
23. 7o.
24. 71.
25. 72.
26. 73.
27. 74.
28. 75.
29. 76.
30. 77.
31. 78.
32. 79.
33. 80.
34. 81.
35. 82.
36. 83.
2
37. 84.
38. 0 85.
39. 0 86.
2 Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
40.
2 0 Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor
41.
42.
16 14 12 3 12 12 Subtotals (Items 45-86)
1 2 10 13 13 23 23 6 13 Subtotals (Items 1-44)
43.
1
26 13 27 21 26 35 18 21 Total scale raw scores

13 Subtotals (Items 1-44)

10 13 13 23 23

Figure 2. (continued)
Figure 2. Completed BRIEF Scoring Sheet.
8
 Negativity Scale
1. Locate the first Negativity item (indicated with a boxed N Item
in the margin of the Scoring Sheet). For each Negativity
item with a score of 3, circle that item number in the
column to the right.
2. Count the number of circled items to determine the
13.
Negativity score. 23.
3. Circle the appropriate Protocol classification based on 30.
that score.
62.
Cumulative Protocol
Negativity
score percentile classification 71.
<4 5_90 CAcceptal
5 to 6 91 -98 Elevated 83.
>7 >98 Highly elevated
Negativity score
(Range = 0 to 9)
Figure 3. Sample of Negativity scale score
calculations: Parent Form.
the item score for the second item is 3, subtract the
lesser number (1) from the greater number (3) to
obtain the absolute difference value of 2. Sum the dif-
ference values for the 10 item pairs to obtain the
Inconsistency score (see Figure 4).
Converting Raw Scores to T Scores
To obtain a T score and percentile for each scale
raw score, locate the normative table for the appro-
priate gender and age range in the Appendixes at the
end of this manual. Enter the T score and percentile
for each scale in the spaces provided in the Scoring
Summary Table (see Figure 1).
To calculate the Behavioral Regulation Index
(BRI) raw score, sum the scale raw scores obtained
for Inhibit, Shift, and Emotional Control; enter this
value in the space provided in the Scoring Summary
Table on the Scoring Summary/Profile Form. Locate
the BRI raw score in the appropriate Appendix table
and read across the table to obtain the correspon-
ding T score and percentile; enter these values in the
spaces provided in the Scoring Summary Table.
Similarly, calculate the Metacognition Index (MI)
raw score by summing the raw scale scores obtained
for Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize,
Organization of Materials, and Monitor; enter this
value in the space provided. Locate the MI raw score
in the Appendix table for the appropriate gender and
age group and read across the table to obtain the cor-
responding T score and percentile; enter these values
in the spaces provided. Finally, to calculate the
10
Inconsistency Scale spaces along the bottom of the Profile Form (located To assist in interpretation of the clinical scales, the
Item no. Score Item no. Score Difference on the reverse side of the Scoring Summary page). horizontal rule located on the Profile Form at a
no. Plot the T score obtained for each scale, index, and
7. 3 25. 2 1 T score of 50 represents the mean of the T score dis-
8. 3 3 the GEC by first locating the T score within either
11. 22. 0 tribution. The horizontal rule at a T score of 65 rep-
27. 3 17. 3 0 the far left or the far right column on the Profile resents the point 1.5 standard deviations above the
33. 2 32. 3 1 Form and then carefully marking an X on the corre- mean, which is the recommended threshold for inter-
38. 2 59. 2 0 sponding tick mark in the appropriate scale column. pretation of a score as abnormally elevated (see chap-
41. 3 65. 3 0 After all the T scores have been plotted, connect the
ter 3); this area of potential clinical significance is
42. 2 63. 2 0
Xs (without crossing the vertical lines) to provide a indicated by light shading on the Profile Form.
44. 2 54, 3 1 profile of the BRIEF scores (see Figure 5).
53. 3 60. 3 0
55. 3 44. 2 1
Inconsistency score
(Range = 0 to 20)
4
2
Figure 4. Sample of Inconsistency scale score
calculations: Parent Form.
Global Executive Composite (GEC) raw score, sum
the raw scores for BRI and MI; enter this value in the
space provided in the Scoring Summary Table. Locate
the GEC raw score in the Appendix table for the
appropriate gender and age group and read across the
table to obtain the corresponding T score and per-
centile; enter these values in the spaces provided in
the Scoring Summary Table.
Calculating Confidence Intervals
Confidence intervals provide the band of measure-
ment error that is associated with a clinical scale,
index, or GEC T score. The 90% confidence interval
(CI) was chosen because it is commonly used for clin-
ical interpretation. The bottom of each column in the
Appendix tables shows the CI values needed to cal-
culate the 90% confidence interval for that scale,
index, or the GEC. These values were calculated by
multiplying the standard error of measurement
(SEM) for each clinical scale/index/GEC by 1.64
(z score for the 90th percentile). To obtain the
90% confidence interval for a given scale, index,
or GEC T score, add the CI value from the bottom
row of the appropriate column to the T score. Enter
this number as the high end of the interval. Then,
subtract the CI value from the T score and enter
this number as the low end of the interval.
Plotting the BRIEF Profile
Transcribe the T scores for each of the eight
clinical scales, the two indexes, and the GEC from
the Scoring Summary Table to the corresponding
11
 lE3JR, H 1E1E' Parent Profile Form Date
Rater's Name
Child's Name Gender Male Grade 3rd Age

Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of

T score Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BR! MI GEC T score
-roo

9 —95
INTERPRETATION OF THE
90- —90
BRIEF PARENT AND TEACHER FORMS
This chapter describes the proper method for disorder of executive function, but rather a variety of
85- —85 interpreting BRIEF Parent and Teacher Form scores presentations involving one or more aspects of exec-
by explaining how to (a) make normative compar- utive function, including a number of common syn-
isons, (b) assess the validity of the BRIEF results, dromes that reflect different patterns of executive
80- 80
(c) interpret domain-specific clinical scale scores, (d) dysfunction. These syndromes may be developmental
interpret the Index scores and the Global Executive in origin (e.g., pervasive developmental disorders,
75- —75 Composite score, and (e) review individual items. learning disabilities, ADHD) or acquired (e.g., as a
Although 18 of the items on the Parent and Teacher result of traumatic brain injury or cranial radiation
Forms of the BRIEF differ in order to appropriately as treatment for brain tumors and leukemia).
70- —70
reflect the different settings in which they measure
A clear understanding of the differences between
behavior, the interpretation of the clinical scale and
assessment of the "basic" domain-specific content
65 65 index scores derived from the Parent and Teacher
areas of cognition (e.g., memory, language, visuospa-
Forms is identical. Therefore, the following discus-
tial) and the domain-general or "control" aspects of
sion applies to both Parent and Teacher Forms.
60- —60 cognition and behavior is essential. For example,
The first step in the competent clinical interpreta- what may appear as a problem with language
tion of the BRIEF is a solid, working understanding expression may be due less (or not at all) to the basic
55 55 of the concepts, clinical manifestations, and assess- aspects of linguistic functioning (e.g., vocabulary,
ment of the executive functions. This manual only syntax, semantics) than to poor "metalinguistic"
briefly addresses the conceptual and clinical assess- functions (e.g., formulating and maintaining an
50 50
ment issues regarding executive function. The organized, planful approach to the topic of conversa-
reader/examiner is referred to more comprehensive tion). There is no test or assessment battery that sin-
45- —45 discussions of conceptual issues (Krasnegor, Lyon, & gularly assesses executive function. By necessity,
Goldman-Rakic, 1997; Lyon & Krasnegor, 1996; both elements, the domain-specific content area and
Welsh & Pennington, 1988) and assessment issues its regulatory executive control processes, are always
(Gioia, Isquith, & Guy, in press; Lezak, 1995). present in any test. Thus, part of the challenge of
Secondly, a thorough understanding of the BRIEF, assessing executive functions is separating cognitive
35- 35 including its psychometric development and proper- and behavioral control functions from domain-
ties, is a prerequisite to interpretation. (See chapters specific functions. Frequently, the more novel and/or
4 and 5 for an in-depth discussion of these issues.) As complex the task or situation, the greater is the
530— —530
with any clinical method or procedure, appropriate demand for the executive functions. The more famil-
Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BR! MI GEC
training and clinical supervision is necessary to iar, automatic, and simple the task, the less the child
ensure competent use of the BRIEF. needs to recruit his or her executive functions. What
T score 73 53 73 75 72 02 71 69 71 79 70 T score
Assessment of the executive functions is a complex may be a complex, novel task for one child may be a
Instructions: Transfer the Scale, Index, and GEC T scores from the Scoring Summary Table on the reverse side of this form. Mark an X on the task with unique features. Given that the executive relatively familiar and automatic task for another,
tick mark corresponding to each T score. Connect the Xs (without crossing the vertical lines) to create a profile. functions are "meta" level in nature, their elucida- thus, different children may need to recruit vastly
tion in a clinical testing protocol can present signifi- different degrees of executive control functions to
Figure 5. Completed BRIEF Profile Form. cant challenges. Furthermore, there is no singular solve a particular problem.
12 13
 The BRIEF was developed to provide a window
into the everyday behavior associated with specific
domains of self-regulated problem solving and social
functioning. Given the multiple determinants of any
particular behavior, it is important to consider the
full range of factors, including the executive func-
tions that might play a role in the child's functioning.
As such, the executive or regulatory aspects of behav-
ior have a unique, complex, and at times hidden, role
in cognition and behavior. Gathering reliable ratings
of behavior associated with executive function via
the BRIEF can add important information to the
overall assessment of a child's strengths and weak-
nesses. Although the BRIEF can appropriately serve
as a screening tool for possible executive dysfunction,
the clinical information gathered from an in-depth
profile analysis is best understood within the context
of a full assessment that includes a detailed history
of the child and family, performance-based testing,
and observations of the child's behavior.
NORMATIVE COMPARISONS
T scores are used to interpret the child's level of
executive functioning as reported by parents and/or
teachers on the BRIEF rating form. These scores are
linear transformations of the raw scale scores (M =
50, SD = 10). T scores provide information about an
individual's scores relative to the scores of respon-
dents in the standardization sample. For example, a
T score of 70 would indicate that the respondent's
score is 2 standard deviations above the standardi-
zation sample mean and equals or exceeds the scores
of approximately 90% of the respondents in the stan-
dardization sample. The exact percentile for each
raw score varies slightly for each scale, as the scores
are not normally distributed. Thus, a T score of 70
may exceed 90% of the normal population for one
scale and 93% for another scale. It is often helpful to
examine both T scores and accompanying percentiles
when interpreting the BRIEF. Higher raw scores,
percentiles, and T scores indicate greater degrees of
executive dysfunction. For all the BRIEF clinical
scales and indexes, T scores at or above 65 should be
considered as having potential clinical significance.
Assessing Validity
Before interpreting BRIEF parent or teacher
scores, it is essential to carefully consider the validity
of the data provided. The inherent nature of rating
scales (i.e., relying upon a third party for ratings of a
14
child's behavior) brings potential bias to the scores. Table 2
The BRIEF contains two scales that provide infor- Item Pair Correlations and Cumulative Percentiles for Absolute Difference Scores
mation on validity: the Inconsistency and Negativity on the Inconsistency Scale of the BRIEF Parent Form
Scales.
Item Description Item Description
Inconsistency Scale
7. Has explosive, angry outbursts 25. Has outbursts for little reason .73
Scores on this scale indicate the extent to which
11. Does not bring home homework, 22. Forgets to hand in homework, even when
the respondent answers similar BRIEF items in an
assignment sheets, materials, etc. completed .64
inconsistent manner relative to the clinical samples.
27. Needs help from adult to stay on task 17. Has trouble concentrating on chores,
For example, a high Inconsistency score for a parent .66
schoolwork, etc.
might be associated with marking Never in response
33. When sent to get something, forgets what 32. Forgets what he/she was doing .66
to Item 44 (Gets out of control more than friends) at
he/she is supposed to get
the same time as marking Often in response to Item
38. Acts wilder or sillier than others in groups 59. Becomes too silly .66
54 (Acts too wild or "out of control"). Item pairs com-
prising the Inconsistency scale, along with inter-item 41. Interrupts others 65. Talks at the wrong time .70
correlations, and cumulative percentiles for absolute 42. Does not notice when his/her behavior causes 63. Does not realize that certain actions
negative reactions bother others .76
difference scores are shown in Tables 2 and 3 for the
Parent and Teacher Forms, respectively. T scores are 44. Gets out of control more than friends 54. Acts too wild or "out of control" .76
not generated for the Inconsistency scale. Instead, 53. Written work is poorly organized 60. Work is sloppy .67
the raw difference scores between 10 paired items 55. Has trouble putting the brakes on his/her actions 44. Gets out of control more than friends .84
(see chapter 2) are summed and the protocol is clas-
sified as either "Acceptable," "Questionable," or Inconsistency Cumulative Protocol
"Inconsistent." score percentile' classification
<6 5_98 Acceptable
The examiner must carefully review protocols
7 to 8 99 Questionable
classified as "Questionable" or "Inconsistent." Due to
minor content differences between paired Inconsis- >9 >99 Inconsistent
tency items, one should consider the possibility that Note. r = correlation between the two items comprising each item pair.
there is a reasonable explanation for the Inconsis- 'Based on total clinical sample (n = 852).
tency score other than response inconsistency on the
part of the respondent. If the respondent can explain
most Inconsistency responses logically, the protocol the child or that the child may have substantial neurological disorder where inflexibility is a promi-
should be considered valid. Because the inconsis- executive dysfunction. nent symptom (e.g., severe traumatic brain injury).
tency threshold on this scale is quite high, such If the Negativity scale score is high, then the Other Indications of Compromised Validity
adjustments should be rare. examiner should consider the possibility that the As with any other assessment tool, it is essential
Negativity Scale respondent had an unusually negative response style that the examiner consider the BRIEF results in the
The Negativity scale measures the extent to which that skewed the BRIEF results. It is also possible, context of other information about the child being
the respondent answers selected BRIEF items in an however, that the BRIEF results represent accurate evaluated. Examiner observations of the child, his-
unusually negative manner relative to the clinical reporting on a child with severe executive dysfunc- tory obtained from the parent, teacher reports, other
samples. Items comprising the Negativity scale, tion. An elevated Negativity scale score should test results, and relevant medical and therapeutic
along with cumulative percentiles from the clinical prompt the examiner to carefully review BRIEF history are among the other sources of data that pro-
sample for the Parent and Teacher Forms are shown results in the context of other information about the vide vital contextual information. Significant incon-
in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. A higher raw score on child, including BRIEF responses by other inform- sistencies between the BRIEF results and any other
this scale indicates a greater degree of negativity, ants, other test performance, and the examiner's own
sources of information about the child are cause for
with less than 3% of respondents in the clinical sam- observations of the child. On the Parent Form, four
careful review, whereas corroborating evidence,
ple scoring above 7 on the Parent and Teacher of the nine items comprising the Negativity scale are
whether gathered in different modalities or from dif-
Forms. As with the Inconsistency scale, T scores are from the Shift scale. The possibility of significant
ferent respondents, increases confidence that the
not generated for this scale. Scores of 5 or more cognitive rigidity in the child should be considered as
findings are genuine.
should be considered elevated and a cause for careful an alternative explanation for a high Negativity
review of the protocol. Scores at or above 7 likely scale score, particularly if the child has a diagnosis of It is also essential to carefully review information
reflect either an excessively negative perception of Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) or another relevant to the ability of the parent or teacher to
15
 Table 3 Table 5
Item Pair Correlations and Cumulative Percentiles for Absolute Difference Scores Negativity Scale Items and Cumulative Percentiles for
on the Inconsistency Scale of the BRIEF Teacher Form Clinical and Normative Respondents on the BRIEF Teacher Form
Item Description Item Description Item Description
27. Mood changes frequently 26. Has outbursts for little reason .74 13. Acts upset by a change in plans
36. Leaves work incomplete 39. Has trouble finishing tasks (chores, homework) .74 14. Is disturbed by change of teacher or class
42. Interrupts others 43. Is impulsive .71 24. Resists change of routine, food, places, etc.
45. Gets out of seat at the wrong times 9. Needs to be told "no" or "stop that" .67 32. When sent to get something, forgets what he/she is supposed to get
46. Is unaware of own behavior when in a group 65. Does not realize that certain actions bother .75 64. Angry or tearful outbursts are intense but end suddenly
others 68. Leaves a trail of belongings wherever he/she goes
47. Gets out of control more than friends 58. Has trouble putting the brakes on his/her .81 71. Leaves messes that others have to clean up
actions 82. Cannot stay on the same topic when talking
48. Reacts more strongly to situations than other children 66. Small events trigger big reactions .77 84. Says the same things over and over
55. Talks or plays too loudly 57. Acts too wild or "out of control" .75
57. Acts too wild or "out of control" 46. Is unaware of own behavior when in a group .63 Total
69. Does not think of consequences before acting 65. Does not realize that certain actions bother Negativity Clinical Protocol
.74
others score' sampleb classification
.54 5.94 Acceptable
Inconsistency Cumulative Protocol 5 to 6 95 - 98 Elevated
score percentile' classification
>98 Highly elevated
<7 5_98 Acceptable
'Total number of items endorsed as "Often." bBased on total clinical sample (n = 475).
8 99 Questionable
>9 >99 Inconsistent
Note. r = correlation between the two items comprising each item pair.
meet the demands of completing the BRIEF rating CLINICAL SCALES
'Based on total clinical sample (n = 475).
form. The presence of a severe attention disorder,
reading skills below a fifth-grade level, and lack of The BRIEF clinical scales measure the extent to
Table 4 fluency in English are among the factors that can which the respondent reports problems with differ-
Negativity Scale Items and Cumulative Percentiles for compromise BRIEF results. Direct observation of ent types of behavior related to the eight domains of
Clinical and Normative Respondents on the BRIEF Parent Form the respondent, review of his or her (i.e., parental) executive functioning. The following sections describe
the content and interpretation of the clinical scales.
Item Description education and employment, and review of the com-
(See Table 1 for brief descriptions of the clinical
pleted BRIEF rating form are useful in assessing
8. Tries same approach to a problem over and over even when it does not work scales.)
respondent competency.
13. Is disturbed by change of teacher or class
Omission of Items Inhibit
23. Resists change of routine, food, places, etc.
When reviewing the completed rating form, look The Inhibit scale assesses inhibitory control (i.e.,
30. Has trouble getting used to new situations (classes, groups, friends)
for omissions in ratings. More than two omissions on the ability to inhibit, resist, or not act on an impulse)
62. Angry or tearful outbursts are intense but end suddenly
a scale invalidates the derivation of a T score for that and the ability to stop one's own behavior at the
71. Lies around the house a lot ("couch potato")
scale. Missing responses for one or two items that appropriate time. This is a well-studied behavioral
80. Has trouble moving from one activity to another regulation function that is described by Barkley (1990)
83.
contribute to a scale raw score should be assigned a
Cannot stay on the same topic when talking and many others as constituting the core deficit in
score of 1 when calculating scale raw scores.
85. Says the same things over and over ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type,
Unusual Patterns of Responses as described in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic
Total
The examiner should also scan the test form for and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV; American Psychia-
Negativity Cumulative Protocol
score' percentileb
unusual patterns of responses, such as marking only tric Association, 1994). Barkley (1996, 1997), Burgess
classification
one response (e.g., Never or Often) for all items, or (1997), and Pennington (1997) have also argued that
<4 5.90 Acceptable
systematically alternating responses between poor inhibition is more generally an underlying
5 to 6 91 - 98 Elevated
Never, Sometimes, and Often. Further investigation deficit in executive dysfunction. Children who have
>7 >98 Highly elevated
of such potential response biases is warranted. sustained a traumatic brain injury frequently also
'Total number of items endorsed as "Often." b Based on total clinical sample (n = 852).
16 17
exhibit disinhibited or impulsive behavior.
Caregivers and teachers often are particularly con-
cerned about the intrusiveness and lack of personal
safety observed with children who do not inhibit
impulses well. Such children may display high levels
of physical activity, inappropriate physical responses
to others, a tendency to interrupt and disrupt group
activities, and a general failure to "look before leap-
ing." Evaluators observe the same problems, which
are often particularly evident on tasks requiring a
delayed response. BRIEF items related to inhibition
include: "Blurts things out" and "Acts too wild or out
of control." Case Illustration 1 describes a child with
severe inhibition problems and ADHD, although sev-
eral other cases also relate weaknesses in this pri-
mary function.
The Inhibit scale can be useful as a diagnostic
indicator of ADHD, Combined Type (ADHD-C).
Given the relationships between the neuropsycholog-
ical construct of inhibition and the behaviors that
characterize ADHD-C, it is reasonable to expect the
BRIEF Inhibit scale to capture many of the everyday
behaviors that might suggest a diagnosis of ADHD-
C. Further in-depth discussion about the diagnostic
utility of the Inhibit scale can be found in chapter 5.
Shift
The Shift scale assesses the ability to move freely
from one situation, activity, or aspect of a problem to
another as the circumstances demand. Key aspects of
shifting include the ability to make transitions, prob-
lem-solve flexibly, switch or alternate attention, and
change focus from one mindset or topic to another.
Mild deficits in the ability to shift compromise the
efficiency of problem solving, whereas more severe
difficulties are reflected in perseverative behaviors.
Caregivers often describe children who have diffi-
culty with shifting as rigid or inflexible. Such child-
ren often require consistent routines. In some cases,
children are described as being unable to drop cer-
tain topics of interest or unable to move beyond a
specific disappointment or unmet need. Confronting
a change in normal routine may elicit repetitive
inquiries about what is going to happen next or when
an expected but postponed event will occur. Other
children may have specific repetitive or stereotypic
behaviors that they are unable to stop. Clinical
evaluators may observe a lack of flexibility or cre-
ativity in problem solving and a tendency to try the
same wrong approach repeatedly despite negative
18
feedback about its efficacy. BRIEF items related to
shifting include: "Acts upset by a change in plans"
and "Thinks too much about the same topic."
Difficulty with shifting and susceptibility to perse-
veration are described in a variety of clinical cases
involving brain damage and are also observed in
developmental disorders. The DSM-IV diagnostic cri-
teria for the Pervasive Developmental Disorders
(PDD) include poor shifting ability. Case Illustration
4 (presented later in this chapter) involves a child
with a PDD who had a particular weakness in shift-
ing, among other domains
Emotional Control
The Emotional Control scale addresses the mani-
festation of executive functions within the emotional
realm and assesses a child's ability to modulate emo-
tional responses. Poor emotional control can be
expressed as emotional lability or emotional explo-
siveness. Children with difficulties in this domain
may have overblown emotional reactions to seem-
ingly minor events. Caregivers, teachers, and evalu-
ators of such children may observe a child who cries
easily or laughs hysterically with small provocation,
or a child who has temper tantrums with frequency
or severity that is not age appropriate. Examples of
BRIEF items related to emotional control include:
"Mood changes frequently" and "Has explosive,
angry outbursts." Case Illustration 3 describes a
child with poor emotional control.
Initiate
The Initiate scale contains items relating to begin-
ning a task or activity, as well as independently gen-
erating ideas, responses, or problem-solving
strategies. Poor initiation typically does not reflect
noncompliance or disinterest in a specific task.
Children with initiation problems typically want to
succeed at a task, but they cannot get started.
Caregivers of such children frequently report diffi-
culties with getting started on homework or chores
along with a need for extensive prompts or cues in
order to begin a task or activity. In the context of psy-
chological assessment, initiation difficulties are often
demonstrated in the form of difficulty with word and
design fluency tasks, as well as a need for additional
cues from the examiner in order to begin tasks in
general. Initiation is often a significant problem for
individuals with severe frontal lobe brain injury (e.g.,
Case Illustration 3) and children who have received
cranial radiation for the treatment of cancer. BRIEF
items related to initiation include: "Lies around the
house a lot (couch potato)," "Is not a self-starter," and
"Needs to be told to begin a task even when willing."
It is important to rule out primary oppositional
behavior as the likely factor when considering initia-
tion deficits. Children with other types of executive
dysfunction may experience problems with initiation
as a secondary consequence. For example, children
who are very poorly organized can become over-
whelmed with large assignments or tasks; conse-
quently they may have great difficulty beginning the
task.
Working Memory
Items from this scale measure the capacity to hold
information in mind for the purpose of completing a
task. Working memory is essential to carry out mul-
tistep activities, complete mental arithmetic, or fol-
low complex instructions. Caregivers describe
children with weak working memory as having trou-
ble remembering things (e.g., phone numbers or
directions) even for a few seconds, losing track of
what they are doing as they work, or forgetting what
they are supposed to retrieve when sent on an
errand. Clinical evaluators may observe that a child
cannot remember the rules governing a specific task
even as he or she works on that task, rehearses infor-
mation repeatedly, loses track of what responses he
or she has already given on a task which requires
multiple answers, and struggles with mental manip-
ulation tasks (e.g., repeating digits in reverse order)
or solving orally presented arithmetic problems with-
out writing figures down. Working memory weak-
nesses are observed in a variety of clinical
populations with executive function deficits, and
they have been posited as a core or necessary compo-
nent of executive dysfunction by Pennington (1997).
BRIEF items related to working memory include:
"Forgets what he/she was doing" and "Has trouble
remembering things, even for a few minutes." Case
Illustrations 5 and 6, among others, describe child-
ren with working memory weaknesses.
Integral to working memory is the ability to
sustain performance and attention. Parents of child-
ren with difficulties in this domain report that the
children cannot "stick to" an activity for an age-
appropriate amount of time and frequently switch
t asks or fail to complete tasks. Although the working
memory and ability to sustain have been conceptual-
17.ed as distinct entities, behavioral outcomes of
these two domains are often difficult to distinguish.
Furthermore, based on the empirically driven scale
construction of the BRIEF, these two domains com-
prise one unified scale (see chapter 4).
Given the posited relationship between working
memory as an executive function and the diagnostic
criteria for ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type
(ADHD-I), the BRIEF Working Memory scale can be
clinically useful in assessing the presence or absence
of ADHD-I. Further in-depth discussion about the
diagnostic utility of the Working Memory scale can
be found in chapter 5.
Plan/Organize
The Plan/Organize scale measures the child's abil-
ity to manage current and future-oriented task
demands. The plan component of this scale relates to
the ability to anticipate future events, set goals, and
develop appropriate steps ahead of time to carry out
a task or activity. Planning involves imagining or
developing a goal or end state and then strategically
determining the most effective method or steps to
attain that goal. It often requires sequencing or
stringing together a series of steps. Caregivers and
teachers often describe planning in terms of a child's
ability to start large assignments in a timely fashion
or ability to obtain in advance the correct tools or
materials for carrying out a project. Evaluators can
observe planning when a child is given a problem
requiring multiple steps (e.g., assembling a puzzle or
completing a maze). BRIEF items related to plan-
ning include: "Underestimates time needed to finish
tasks" and "Has trouble carrying out the actions
needed to reach goals (saving money for special item,
studying to get a good grade)."
The organizing component of this scale relates to
the ability to bring order to information and to appre-
ciate main ideas or key concepts when learning or
communicating information. This involves the ability
to organize oral and written expression, as well as to
understand main points expressed in presentations
or written material. Organization also has a clerical
component that is expressed, for example, in the abil-
ity to efficiently scan a visual array or to keep track of
a homework assignment. Caregivers often describe
children with organizational weaknesses as approach-
ing tasks in a haphazard fashion, "missing the forest
for the trees," having excellent ideas that they fail to
express on tests and written assignments, and being
easily overwhelmed by large amounts of information.
19
The way in which information is strategically organ-
ized can play a crucial role in how it is learned,
remembered, and retrieved. This is often observed in
the context of an evaluation that reviews learning
and memory abilities. Poor organization of newly
learned material can result in difficulty with retriev-
ing that material in free recall conditions, but much
better performance with recognition (multiple
choice) formats. BRIEF items related to organiza-
tion include: "Gets caught up in details and misses
the big picture" and "Becomes overwhelmed by large
assignments."
The Plan/Organize scale was originally two sepa-
rate scales, based on their conceptualization as theo-
retically distinct entities in the literature. Again,
however, the empirical analysis of the item-scale
structure of the BRIEF, as derived from the norma-
tive and clinical data, indicated that the two scales
should be collapsed into one (see chapter 4). The
interrelationship of planning and organizing is clear;
thus, the derivation of one unified scale is reason-
able. Difficulty with organization and planning is
integral to many cases of executive dysfunction. Case
Illustrations 2 and 5, among others, describe child-
ren with severe organizational deficits.
Organization of Materials
The Organization of Materials scale measures
orderliness of work, play, and storage spaces (e.g.,
such as desks, lockers, backpacks, and bedrooms).
Although evaluators may not have an opportunity to
observe this problem directly, caregivers and teach-
ers typically can provide an abundance of examples
describing the difficulty children with executive dys-
function experience in organizing, keeping track of,
and/or cleaning up their possessions. The Organi-
zation of Materials scale assesses the manner in
which children order or organize their world and
belongings. Children who have difficulties in this
area often cannot function efficiently in school or at
home because they do not have their belongings
readily available for their use. Pragmatically, teach-
ing a child to organize his or her belongings can be
a useful, concrete tool for teaching greater task
organization. BRIEF items related to organization of
materials include "Has a messy closet" and "Leaves a
trail of belongings wherever he/she goes." Case
Illustrations 2 and 5 describe children with deficits
in this area.
20
Monitor
The Monitor scale assesses work-checking habits
(i.e., whether a child assesses his or her own per-
formance during or shortly after finishing a task to
ensure appropriate attainment of a goal). This scale
also evaluates a personal monitoring function (i.e.,
whether a child keeps track of the effect his or her
behavior has on others). Caregivers often describe
problems with self-monitoring in children who score
low on the Monitor scale in terms of rushing through
work, making careless mistakes, and failing to check
work. Clinical evaluators can observe the same types
of behavior during the assessment of such children.
BRIEF items related to self-monitoring include
"Does not realize that certain actions bother others"
and "Does not check work for mistakes." Case
Illustrations 4 and 5 describe children with self-
monitoring difficulties.
THE BEHAVIORAL REGULATION INDEX,
THE METACOGNITION INDEX, AND THE
GLOBAL EXECUTIVE COMPOSITE
Based on theoretical and empirical factor analytic
findings (reviewed in chapter 5), the clinical scales
combine to form two Indexes, Behavioral Regulation
and Metacognition, and one composite summary
score, the Global Executive Composite. The content
and interpretation of the two indexes and the com-
posite summary score are discussed in the following
sections.
Behavioral Regulation Index
The Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) represents
a child's ability to shift cognitive set and modulate
emotions and behavior via appropriate inhibitory
control. It is comprised of the Inhibit, Shift, and
Emotional Control scales. Appropriate behavioral
regulation is likely to be a precursor to appropriate
metacognitive problem solving. Behavioral regula-
tion enables the metacognitive processes to success-
fully guide active, systematic problem solving, and
more generally, supports appropriate self-regulation.
Metacognition Index
The Metacognition Index (MI) represents the
child's ability to initiate, plan, organize, and sustain
future-oriented problem solving in working memory.
This index is interpreted as the ability to cognitively
self-manage tasks and reflects the child's ability to Theoretical (e.g., Barkley, 1996, 1997) and statisti-
monitor his or her performance. The MI relates cal (Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Pratt, in press) models
directly to a child's ability to actively problem solve suggest that inhibition underlies the metacognitive
in a variety of contexts. It is comprised of the aspects of executive function. From a practical view,
Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organiza- this relationship makes reasonable sense in that one
tion of Materials, and Monitor scales. needs to be appropriately inhibited, flexible, and
under emotional control for efficient, systematic, and
Global Executive Composite
organized problem solving to take place. Therefore,
The Global Executive Composite (GEC) is a sum-
from the point of view of clinical interpretation, the
mary score that incorporates all eight clinical scales
examiner should first review the scores on the
of the BRIEF. Although review of the indexes, indi-
Inhibit, Shift, and Emotional Control scales for pos-
vidual scale scores, and BRIEF profile is strongly
sible elevations. If the Inhibit scale or the BRI (com-
recommended, the GEC can be useful as a summary
prised of the Inhibit, Shift, and Emotional Control
measure. In some clinical cases, scores on all or most scales) is significantly elevated, then the examiner
of the BRIEF scales will be at a similar level; thus, a
must strongly consider the possibility that poor
summary score would be an accurate reflection of the inhibitory control/behavioral regulation is having a
child's executive dysfunction level. To legitimately
negative effect on active metacognitive problem solv-
derive a GEC score, the examiner must first deter- ing domains. Such a finding would have important
mine that there is no significant difference between
implications for the priority and direction of treat-
the BRI and MI scores. Table 6 shows the frequency ment efforts. In such a case, for example, one might
(in percentiles) of differences between the BRI and
place stronger initial emphasis on interventions
MI T scores in the Parent and Teacher Form norma- aimed at inhibition, flexibility, and/or emotional con-
tive samples. T-score differences of 13 or greater trol. Of course, the finding of an elevated BRI does
occurred less than 10% of the time in the Parent
not negate the meaningfulness of elevated scores on
Form normative sample, whereas differences of 19 or the MI scales. Instead, one must consider the influ-
more occur less than 10% of the time in the Teacher
ence of the underlying behavioral regulation issues
Form normative sample. Differences of these magni- while simultaneously considering the unique prob-
tudes suggest that the GEC is likely to obscure lems with the metacognitive problem-solving skills.
important differences between the two index scores
and should not be used as a summary measure.
INDIVIDUAL ITEM ANALYSIS
Table 6 Placing too much interpretive significance on
Frequency of Absolute T-Score Differences Between individual items is not recommended due to lower
the Behavioral Regulation Index (BR!) and the reliability of individual items relative to the scales
Metacognition Index (MI) in the Normative Sample for and indexes. Careful review of individual items of
the BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms interest with caregivers, as well as in the context of
the assessment as a whole, however, can yield useful
Absolute T-Score
information for understanding a child's behavior and
Frequency differences (BRI- MI)
guiding appropriate interventions. Certain items may
(%ile) Teacher Formb
Parent Forma be particularly relevant to specific clinical groups
50 4.54 3.05 (e.g., Inhibit items in ADHD, Shift items in PDD).
75 8.65 9.87
Therefore, reviewing items of clinical interest on the
80
Parent and Teacher Forms is recommended because
9.71 12.22
they can assist the examiner in identifying and tar-
85 11.03 15.29
geting actual areas of concern for intervention.
90 13.13 18.78
9)5 Tables 7 and 8 present additional items of clinical
16.45 24.78
interest on the Parent and Teacher Forms, respec-
98 21.16 30.91
tively, which are not included on any of the clinical
99 24.89 36.50 scales. Inclusion of these items on the BRIEF was
1,419. bn = 720. deemed important for two reasons: their direct
21
 Table 7 :relevance to functional intervention programming Case Illustration 1. Eight-Year-Old Boy
Additional Clinical Items on the BRIEF Parent Form
and their relevance to specific clinical populations With ADHD, Combined Type
Item number Original scale Item description (e.g., PDD, TBI, and ADHD). Specific items were Joshua is an 8-year-old, left-handed boy, referred
73. chosen from the original Shift, Inhibit, and Plan/ by his teaching team, with a longstanding history of
Inhibit Has trouble waiting for turn
Organize scales because of their relevance to these attentional and behavioral control difficulties includ-
74. Organization of Materials Loses lunch box, lunch money, permission slips, homework, etc. specific populations. Examination of these items can
75.
ing overactivity, impulsivity, and problems sustain-
Organization of Materials Cannot find clothes, glasses, shoes, toys, books, pencils, etc. further reinforce interpretation of the findings from ing his attention in school. Problems were first noted
76. Plan/Organize Tests poorly even when knows correct answers the clinical scales by providing additional evidence of in kindergarten, but as a second grader, he is experi-
77. Plan/Organize Does not finish long-term projects difficulties in the particular domain of executive encing significant behavioral difficulties in class. In
78. Inhibit Has to be closely supervised function. For example, the additional Shift items addition, he has had difficulty initiating and main-
79. Inhibit (e.g., Gets stuck on one topic or activity) can provide taining friendships.
Does not think before doing
80. further evidence of difficulties with flexible problem
Shift Has trouble moving from one activity to another Results of the evaluation revealed a youth with
solving in a child with PDD. Likewise, the additional
81. Inhibit Is fidgety normal intellectual ability (Wechsler Intelligence
Inhibit items (e.g., Does not think before doing) can
82. Inhibit Is impulsive add to the examiner's understanding of the ways Scale for Children, 3rd Edition (WISC-III) FSIQ =
83. Working Memory Cannot stay on the same topic when talking that inhibitory problems may manifest themselves in 98; Wechsler, 1991), but with poor sustained atten-
84. Shift a child with ADHD. tion and impulsive responding on continuous per-
Gets stuck on one topic or activity
85.
formance testing. Joshua was observed to have
Shift Says the same things over and over trouble remaining seated during the evaluation. He
86. Plan/Organize Has trouble getting through morning routine in getting INTERPRETIVE CASE ILLUSTRATIONS also demonstrated significant difficulty on tasks with
ready for school
The six clinical cases presented in this section use high organizational demands such as copying a com-
the Parent and Teacher Forms of the BRIEF to illus- plex figure and completing selected visual/nonverbal
trate the interpretation of possible profiles. Although constructional tasks.
these BRIEF profiles are relatively typical of the spe- Examination of his BRIEF scores provides insight
Table 8 cific disorders, they are not to be viewed as exclusive into areas of significant concern to which primary
Additional Clinical Items on the BRIEF Teacher Form to that clinical disorder. Included in these examples emphasis of intervention can be directed. Validity
Item number Original scale Item description are children with developmental disorders (e.g., scale scores were within normal limits indicating the
74.
PDD, ADHD, and learning disabilities), as well as likelihood of a valid profile. As can be seen in Figures
Inhibit Has trouble waiting for turn children with acquired neurological conditions that 6 and 7, Joshua demonstrated similar scores and
75. Plan/Organize Does not connect doing tonight's homework with grades have an effect on executive functioning. profiles on the Parent and Teacher Forms. Each pro-
76. Plan/Organize Tests poorly even when knows correct answers file indicated globally elevated scale T scores with
77. Plan/Organize Does not finish long-term projects
78. Monitor Has poor handwriting
79. Inhibit Has to be closely supervised Parent Form Teacher Form
Scoring Summary Table Scoring Summary Table
80. Shift Has trouble moving from one activity to another
81. Raw T Raw T
Inhibit Is fidgety %Ile 90% CI Scale/Index score score c/oile 90% CI
Scale/Index score score
82. Working Memory Cannot stay on the same topic when talking Inhibit 29 50 98 15- Inhibit 30 70 99 _01- 73
83. Inhibit Blurts things out Shift 14 57 79 49 - _6_5 Shift 19 61 52 56-6e
84. Shift Says the same things over and over Emotional Control 21 00 56 _55 -_0_5 Emotional Control 23 71 94 67- 75
85. Inhibit Talks at the wrong time BR! 04 09 90 _65- 73 BR! 72 09 93 .E27- 71
86. Plan/Organize Does not come prepared for class
Initiate 14 53 70 45- 01 Initiate 13 54 65 49 - _59
Working Memory 24 07 95 62- 72 Working Memory 30 74 99 70- 75
Plan/Organize 27 05 91 59- 71 Plan/Organize 22 03 92 55- _65
Organization of Materials 10 45 35 _39- 51 Organization of Materials 12 54 72 50- 55
Monitor 19 62 91 54- 70 Monitor 23 , 61 53 56-6e
1 94 62 55 55-66 MI 100 03 90 _61--05
GEC (BR! + MI) 155 66 93 63-69 GEC (BR! + MI) 172 07 59 65- 09

Figure 6. Parent and Teacher Form Scoring Summaries for Case Illustration 1.
22
23
 • 99
• Teacher Profile Form Date 1 5 9
Parent Profile Form 13 RAE JP' Rater's Name JO.
--"m1111Pow'
Joshua Gender M Grade 2nd Age Student's Name Joshua Gender Grade 2nd Age
Child's Name

Working Plan/ Org. of Emotional Working Plant Org. of

Emotional Monitor MI GEC T score
Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BR! MI GEC T score T score Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials BRI
T score Inhibit Shift
—a1 k — — — — oo
al —
- - - _ - - - - - - _ -
- - _ -
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 95
35— _ _ —95 - - - - - - -
= = - - - - - _ _ -
-
- - -
- _
— -90 —90
_
_
—85 _ _ _ _ —85
_
_

_ _ _ —80 _
BO—

_
_ _ _ _ —75
_
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ —70 _ 70
70—
_ _

_
_
_ _ _
_
_ _
_
_
55—-= = = _
- _ _

50 5C
50

-
40-
-
-
_
—3! 3!
_
_
__

Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of

Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
BR! MI GEC
BR! MI GEC Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor

T score 80 57 60 53 67 65 45 62 69 62 66 T score T score 70 61 71 54 74 63 54 61 69 63 67 T score

Instructions: Transfer the Scale, Index, and GEC Tscores from the Scoring Summary Table on the reverse side of this form. Mark an X on the Instructions: Transfer the Scale, Index, and GEC Tscores from the Scoring Summary Table on the reverse side of this form. Mark an X on the
tick mark corresponding to each T score. Connect the Xs (without crossing the vertical lines) to create a profile. tick mark corresponding to each T score. Connect the Xs (without crossing the vertical lines) to create a profile.

Figure 7. Parent and Teacher Form Profiles for Case Illustration Figure 7. (continued)

24 25
two of the highest elevations on the BRI scales. Case Illustration 2. Nine-Year-Old Girl With Parent Form Teacher Form
Scoring Summary Table Scoring Summary Table
Joshua's Inhibit scores on both Parent and Teacher Nonverbal Learning Disability and ADHD,
Forms suggested particularly significant problems Predominantly Inattentive Type Raw T Raw T
Scale/Index score score %Ile 90% Cl Scale/Index score score %Ile 90% Cl
controlling impulses, whereas his elevation on the Allison is a 9-year-old, right-handed girl with a
Emotional Control scale of the Teacher Form sug- Inhibit 12 45 42 40-SO Inhibit 13 57 55 52- 62
history of social problems, poor fine-motor skills, and
gested difficulties modulating his emotional Shift 13 53 71 47- 59 Shift 22 93 99 55- 95
academic difficulties; she was referred by her pedia-
responses in school. Given Joshua's significant prob- Emotional Control 19 56 76 51 - 61 Emotional Control 15 51 95 76- 56
trician for evaluation to assist with academic plan-
lems with behavioral regulation, MI scale elevations BR! 44 52 64 45-56 BR! 53 50 97 76-54
ning and social intervention. Despite a strong desire
were not surprising. Problems were noted on the Initiate 14 55 75 45- _6_2 Initiate 15 73 97 65- 75
to have friends, Allison's interactions were consis-
Working Memory and Plan/Organize scales, suggest- Working Memory 26 74 95 69- 79 Working Memory 21 52 95 77- 57
tently awkward and she had difficulty making and
ing difficulty with holding information actively in plan/Organize 23 59 52 _54- 64 Plan/Organize 21 77 97 72 -.52
maintaining friendships. Writing was always diffi-
working memory and with systematic problem- cult for her due to weak fine motor development.
Organization of Materials 16 63 85 55- 68 Organization of Materials 16 99 99 92-1126
solving strategies. Finally, despite excellent verbal knowledge that she
Monitor 16 58 50 52- 64 Monitor 19 73 96 66-130
MI _ 95 64 55 61 - 67 MI 92 53 95 50-56
The Working Memory and Inhibit scales can be was readily eager to demonstrate, at times to the
helpful in reaching a diagnostic formulation. point of "droning on about information others don't GEC (BR! + MI) 139 60 53 55- 62 GEC (BR! + MI) 145 55 95 52-55
Joshua's T scores on the Working Memory and find interesting," she continued to achieve below her
Inhibit scales were high for both the Parent and grade level and she demonstrated particular weak- Figure 8. Parent and Teacher Form Scoring Summaries for Case Illustration 2.
Teacher Forms, falling above the 90th percentile. nesses in arithmetic skills. Many of her academic dif-
According to the available sensitivity and specificity ficulties appeared to be a function of inattention and
data for these scales (see Tables 54, 55, 56, and 57), disorganization. Teachers reported that Allison often and Organization of Material scales. Her teacher Individual and group psychotherapy with emphasis
there is only a small likelihood of misidentifying a had trouble paying attention in class and could not reported significant problems on the Shift scale, sug- on social skills and metacognitive self-awareness
child as having ADHD at this level of elevation. start assignments without assistance. Her work was gesting problems with cognitive flexibility. Her was suggested to promote self-monitoring, emotional
Given the convergence of history, clinical observa- often disorganized and she frequently failed to com- teacher also reported secondary elevations on the control, and social functioning.
tions, formal assessment, and parent and teacher plete assignments or forgot to turn them in to her Monitor and Emotional Control scales. Allison's pat-
Case Illustration 3. Twelve-Year-Old Boy
ratings, Joshua met the criteria for ADHD, Com- teacher. tern of scores indicated particular difficulties with
With Traumatic Brain Injury
bined Type with associated deficits in aspects of his metacognitive problem solving, including initiating,
Results of the evaluation revealed a child with organizing, and planning strategies; monitoring; and Juan is a 12-year-old boy in the sixth grade who
executive function.
highly variable cognitive abilities (WISC-III VIQ = holding information actively in mind. Diagnostically, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) as a
The BRIEF findings assist in directing the goals of 109, PIQ = 82), and were remarkable for visual- passenger in an automobile accident at the age of 5.
Allison met the criteria for a nonverbal learning dis-
intervention. The focus would be directed primarily at perceptual, visuospatial, and visual-constructional History prior to the accident was unremarkable and
ability with a concurrent disorder of executive func-
two levels: first, at facilitating more age-appropriate weaknesses. Furthermore, Allison was found to have he was succeeding in school without difficulty. He
tioning. Given the reported history, observations,
inhibitory control (behavioral regulation) and, second, poor sustained attention, severe problems with was unconscious for 5 days and was unable to learn
and formal testing, she also met the criteria for
at improving organized problem-solving skills. This organization, and initiation deficits. Her motor abili- any new information for a period of 10 to 12 days
HD, Predominantly Inattentive Type. Her Work-
could be accomplished through a variety of environ- ties bilaterally were below average with relatively (posttraumatic amnesia) immediately following the
ing Memory scale scores on both the Parent and
mental, familial, academic, and individual treatment greater left-handed impairment. She also demon- automobile accident. He returned home after a slow
Teacher Forms were at the 98th percentile, whereas
methods. Behavior management at home and school strated above average reading and spelling skills. but steady 2-month recovery in the rehabilitation
her Inhibit scale scores were not clinically elevated.
were recommended to facilitate impulse control and but her arithmetic skills fell in the Borderline range hospital. Juan demonstrated excellent physical
sustained performance. Cognitive behavioral psy- The BRIEF findings suggest that the focus of recovery, but he was unable to return to a regular
chotherapy with emphasis on mediating impulses Allison's scores on the BRIEF are presented in intervention should be two pronged with primary education curriculum due to problems with inhibit-
with "Stop-and-Think" verbal statements (i.e., Figure 8. The validity scales were within normal lim- efforts addressing the development of metacognitive ing his behavior, an exaggerated emotional response
inhibitory control) was also recommended. Develop- its indicating the likelihood of an interpretable pro- awareness to promote active generation of flexible, to stress, decreased sustained attention, and poor
ing more effective modulated responses to stress (i.e., file. Allison demonstrated a similar pattern of ".1- -trategic, and organized problem-solving skills. organization. He often began tasks impulsively and
emotional control) was also a focus. Medical manage- scores on the Parent and Teacher Forms, although Specific tutoring in organizational and strategic did not monitor his actions, which resulted in fre-
ment of Joshua's impulsivity was also suggested. her scores on the Teacher Form suggest higher oven Problem solving was also suggested to promote quent errors. Consequently, his motivation toward
Specific tutoring in organizational and strategic all levels of concern. Her scores on the Inhibit scalt metneognitive control over her cognitive processing. academic tasks decreased significantly and this pre-
problem solving was suggested to promote metacog- were generally adequate at home and school indican Secondly, treatment should focus on methods to viously enthusiastic student now refused to complete
nitive development and a sense of control over his ing appropriate basic executive inhibitory control Increase sustained attention, including behavioral his work. His regulatory disturbance also had an
cognitive processing. Classroom accommodations to behavior. Some of her greatest difficulties wet, management at home and school, and medication impact on his social and family functioning. Juan
facilitate attention, impulse control, and the imple- reported on the metacognition scales in the schoo conaltation. In addition, classroom accommodations had trouble playing with peers and siblings without
mentation of organizational strategies in class were setting. Significant elevations were seen on the Plan to facilitate sustained attention were outlined. getting into a physical or verbal altercation.
also recommended. Organize scale together with the Working Meolop
26 27
 The neuropsychological evaluation revealed a scale and "Small events trigger big reactions" from thel • 1 6 98
pattern frequently seen in children with severe Shift scale). These underlying deficits in behavioral) 1E3 11,10E Parent Profile Form Date 5
Rater's Name N.R.
TBI, including a dampening of general intellectual regulation adversely affected metacognitive problem
Child's Name Juan Gender M Grade 6th Age 12
functioning (WISC-III FSIQ = 82), attentional and solving as reflected in elevations on the Initiate,1
memory deficits, and severe executive/regulatory Working Memory, Plan/Organize, and Monitor scales. j Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
disturbance. Previously learned material and skills T score Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BRI MI GEC T score
These elevations indicated problems with initiating
al 00— — — — — — — — _ — oo
(e.g., vocabulary, reading decoding) were less tasks, holding information actively in mind, poor - - - - - - - -
impaired, but significant difficulty with acquiring - - - - - - - - - -
organizational skill, and little awareness of his - - _ -
new information was evident. Sustained attention - - - - _ -
deficits. He demonstrated milder, though still of con- 95— — — — — — _ ._ — —95
was impaired on continuous performance testing, as - - - - - _ -
cern, elevations across most other scales.
was self-initiated planning and organization. -
_
Learning and memory were severely hampered by Interventions designed to assist Juan were imple- 90—
inattention and disorganization. Motor skills were mented across environments. First, he required assis-
weakened and generally inefficient. Academic skills tance with behavioral regulation in order to effectively
were roughly age-appropriate. Emotional lability, treat his poor metacognitive skills. He was placed in a
general irritability, and fatigue were observed during highly structured special education program incorpo-
testing. rating goals for executive problem-solving routines as
a central part of his individualized program. Intensiv
BRIEF results are presented in Figures 9 and 10.
behavioral modification was implemented within th
The validity scales were within appropriate limits
suggesting the likelihood of a valid profile. Juan classroom to promote the adoption of these executiv
demonstrated elevated T scores on the BRI and MI routines and to facilitate task attention/persistenc
scales across both home and school settings. His and behavioral control. At home, similar executiv
routines were implemented for active problem solv _
highest BRI elevations were found on the Inhibit and
ing, and his parents were trained in behavior modifi _
Emotional Control scales, suggesting significant
problems with inhibiting impulses and behaviors cation principles to promote his use of the executiv
and with regulating emotions. Examination of the routines. Juan received individual cognitive/behav
individual items within these scales reveals the ioral treatment to facilitate impulse control an —60
nature of his deficits (e.g., ratings of Often on "Gets adjustment to his injury. A trial of stimulant medica
out of control more than friends" from the Inhibit tion was also initiated with moderate success. —55

Parent Form Teacher Form

Scoring Summary Table Scoring Summary Table

Raw T Raw T -
Scale/Index score score %i le 90% Cl Scale/Index score score %Ile 90% CI 45— —45
-
-
Inhibit 28 86 99 _&1-B1 Inhibit 30 89 99 235 - _
-
Shift 17 70 96 _62-1k Shift 18 66 92 _el - _Z1: 40— = = = = = = = = =-40
-
Emotional Control 26 80 99 _7_4- 116 Emotional Control 20 78 98 73 -113 -
-
BRI 71 85 99 .Q-9Q BRI 68 82 98 79 - ; -
35—_
Initiate 18 65 90 .513 - _7_2 Initiate 16 69 94 .64-14
Working Memory 28 78 98 13 - 233 Working Memory 27 83 99 ia -13 _
Plan/Organize 33 74 96 _69 -19 Plan/Organize 26 77 96 13 - _51 30—

Organization of Materials 17 66 94 _6Q-...Z2 Organization of Materials 12 60 87 56 -124 Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
24 74 96 69-19
Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BRI MI GEC
Monitor 22 75 99 132 Monitor

MI 115 75 98 12 -15 MI 105 76 96 12 - _60 T score 86 70 80 65 78 74 66 75 85 75 81 T score

GEC (BRI + MI) 189 81 99 78- 84 GEC (BRI + MI) 173 80 98 78
Instructions: Transfer the Scale, Index, and GEC T scores from the Scoring Summary Table on the reverse side of this form. Mark an X on the
tick mark corresponding to each T score. Connect the Xs (without crossing the vertical lines) to create a profile.
Figure 9. Parent and Teacher Form Scoring Summaries for Case Illustration
Figure 10. Parent and Teacher Form Profiles for Case Illustration
28 29
 Teacher Profile Form Date 5 / 16/98 Case Illustration 4. Eleven-Year-Old Boy Form but a highly inconsistent Teacher Form, sug-
Rater's Name J. G. With Asperger's Disorder gesting the possibility of an invalid protocol. Results
Student's Name Juan Gender M Grade 6th Age 12 George is an 11-year-old boy with a history of on the BRIEF Parent Form revealed elevations on
severe behavioral problems in school and a diagnosis BRI and MI, with significant difficulties noted in
Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of
T score Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BR! MI GEC T score of "atypical" ADHD and Obsessive-Compulsive George's ability to inhibit and flexibly regulate his
~100- Disorder (APA, 1994). George had been unresponsive behavior and thinking. Further deficits were reported
to a variety of stimulant medications. His parents with initiation, planning, organizing materials, and
sought evaluation on the recommendation of monitoring of actions (see Figure 11). George also
95- 95 George's psychiatrist who required assistance with had difficulties regulating his emotions.
diagnostic clarification and school planning.
BRIEF findings, combined with corroborating clin-
90- —90 George reportedly had experienced difficulty in ical data, enabled the examiner to reformulate
school since kindergarten related to his high levels of George's "atypical" ADHD as a severe disorder of
85
distractibility, disruptive behavior, poor frustration executive functioning. This led to a refocusing of
85
tolerance, and tendency to argue with other stu- intervention strategies away from stimulant trials
dents. Although he was always an affectionate child, and toward the provision of additional structure to
8 80 George was not sensitive to many nonverbal social support appropriate behavior and academic problem
cues and frequently misread the communications of solving. Individual tutoring was also recommended
his peers. He was at his best with younger children to teach George to think and problem solve strategi-
75- —75
and at his worst in large groups. In addition, cally, use checklists and other organizing devices,
George's parents revealed that he was overly focused and learn specific skills (e.g., self-monitoring). These
70- 70 on his favorite video game characters, relied on rigid skills could be applied to George's behavioral as well
routines at home, and engaged in stereotypic hand as academic performance. In addition, the diagnosis
movements. Academically, he generally performed of Asperger's Disorder was made based on George's
65 65
well, demonstrating particular strengths in reading social deficits, restricted interests, and repetitive
end spelling. behaviors. Here again, the elucidation of George's
60- —60 Cognitive assessment revealed solidly average executive dysfunction facilitated a deeper under-
WISC-III Verbal and Performance IQ scores, but standing of how his repetitive behaviors did not con-
—55
severe deficits in a variety of executive function stitute a separate Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
(tomains, including organization and planning, inhi- but instead were related to his general difficulties
hition, working memory, and self-monitoring. Exami- with flexibly problem solving with peers and his
50 50 nation of BRIEF ratings indicated a valid Parent shifting behaviors or problem-solving strategies.
Parent Form Teacher Form
45 Scoring Summary Table Scoring Summary Table
Raw T Raw T
Scale/Index score score %Ile 90% CI Scale/Index score score %Ile 90% CI
Inhibit 20 05 91 60- 70 Inhibit 24 75 96 71 - 79
Shift
16 67 96 59- 75 Shift 17 63 88 55-65
35- 35
Emotional Control 20 64 92 58- 70 Emotional Control 17 69 93 64- 74
spi
_ 56 68 94 63- 73 BR! 55 72 95 . 69- 75
Hilate
23 79 99 72 - 56 Initiate 9 48 58 43 - _53
5_30 :-.6„n g memory
20 60 87 55- 65 Working Memory 17 59 85 55 - _6_3
Emotional Working Plan/ Org. of , Organize 32
Inhibit Shift Control Initiate Memory Organize Materials Monitor BR! MI GEC 72 95 67- 77 Plan/Organize 15 53 75 49- 57
17, nization of Materials _ 17 66 94 Organization of Materials 20 56 99 82- 90
T score 59 66 78 69 83 77 60 74 52 76 80 T score ....___tor 20 69 97 -0-2 - Z Monitor 22 69 94 , 64-14
Instructions: Transfer the Scale, Index, and GEC Tscores from the Scoring Summary Table on the reverse side of this form. Mark an X on the 112 72 95 69-15. MI 83 63 87 -59 - 07
GEC , 3t - ;A
tick mark corresponding to each T score. Connect the Xs (without crossing the vertical lines) to create a profile. 168 72 97 69- 75 GEC (BRI + MI) 141 68 91 66- 70

Figure 10. (continued) P7,--;tri•c /1.

Parent and Teacher Form Scoring Summaries for Case Illustration 4.
30 31
Case Illustration 5. Fifteen-Year-Old Girl
With Executive/Organizational Dysfunction
Jenny is a 15-year-old girl whose academic per-
formance had slipped below grade level over the pre-
vious 3 to 4 years despite an earlier history of
excellent elementary school achievement. Middle
school became more challenging for her, and there
were signs of academic performance problems that
worsened significantly in high school. Despite above
average cognitive ability, she often required excess
time to complete assignments, resulting in procrasti-
nation and task avoidance. She frequently started
long-term, multistep projects the night before they
were due (e.g., "Starts assignments or chores at the
last minute" rated as Often by parent and teacher).
In addition, Jenny often performed poorly on tests
despite knowing the material the night before. She
often lost or forgot to turn in her work on time. The
quality of her work decreased dramatically, and she
often turned in assignments without regard for accu-
racy. Her self-confidence as a student dropped with
her increasing academic struggles.
The neuropsychological evaluation highlighted
Superior cognitive abilities (WISC-III VIQ = 128,
PIQ = 116) with specific difficulties in four areas: (a)
organizing complex sets of information and tasks at
home and school, (b) effectively planning out multi-
step tasks, (c) inhibiting immediate responses to
situations, and (d) monitoring her performance con-
sistently. She demonstrated a tendency toward
careless and impulsive errors despite appropriate were masked during her earlier development when Results of the evaluation revealed weaknesses in
knowledge for the task. Her performance on memory there was less demand for organized multistep addition to William's reading/writing learning
tasks was above average and thus her "forgetful- performance. During middle and high school, where disability. His test performance was remarkable for
ness" appeared to be the result of poorly organized emphasis on independent, systematic, and organized difficulties with more complex tasks such as those
processing. When information, either verbal or non- functioning increases, Jenny displayed greater diffi- requiring independent planning and organization.
verbal, was not inherently organized for her, she culty. Individualized instruction was recommended William also experienced difficulty with tasks requir-
had difficulty imposing her own organizational to teach Jenny the active use of efficient organiza- ing working memory and could not hold information
structure to learn the material efficiently. Exam- tional skills and to promote positive mastery over the or strategies in mind when problem solving. Finally,
ination of her scores on the validity scales revealed learning process. A variety of external organizational he appeared to have mild difficulties sustaining per-
valid Parent and Teacher Form profiles. As shown aids were also recommended, including cued home- formance over time and was more likely than his
in Figure 12, underlying behavioral regulation work lists, provision of lecture outlines to assist with peers to be easily distracted. Examination of the
appears appropriate; however, Jenny's greatest notetaking and organization when studying, and the BRIEF validity scales indicated a valid profile. As
areas of difficulty were in the metacognition domain use of a pocket calendar/organizer to assist her with can be seen in Figure 13, significant elevations were
Specifically, weaknesses were reported in both the keeping track of assignments and long-term projects. noted on both the Parent and Teacher Form in two
home and school settings with holding information critical metacognitive scales: Working Memory and
Case Illustration 6. Ten-Year-Old Boy With
actively in working memory, strategic planning and Plan/Organize. No underlying behavioral regulation
Reading Disorder
organization of activities, and monitoring of per. problems were reported.
formance. In addition, an elevation on the Initiate William is a 10-year-old boy referred for evalua-
tion as a result of longstanding academic problems. These findings suggest problems with strategi-
scale indicated problems getting started on task
He was diagnosed with a reading/writing disability cally "attacking" complex tasks in an organized
(e.g., "Has trouble getting started on homework oi
in the second grade and received tutoring in reading manner, which is critical for managing complex
chores" and "Is not a self-starter" both rated as Often
decoding skills and phonological processing at that tasks. Reading can be negatively affected by poor
by parent and teacher), which must be addressed in
time. Although his reading accuracy has improved to working memory and organization in several ways.
her intervention program. Relatively mild difficult
within normal limits, he continues to be a slow Comprehension is supported by holding information
was reported on the Inhibit scale, mostly in the
reader with below average reading comprehension. actively in mind during the reading process. Moreover,
context of multistep performance. Jenny's neuro
Also of concern were his parents' reports of William's an effective organizational framework is important for
psychological profile is consistent with executive
difficulty completing his work efficiently or as keeping the information properly ordered and avail-
organizational dysfunction.
quickly as his peers. He often had to be redirected to able for recall. Organizational and working memory
The areas of weakness revealed on the BRIEF had his work or given assistance to organize himself difficulties can also be compounded by a reading dis-
profound impact on Jenny's ability to demonstrate he, before beginning a task. These difficulties occurred order. As William expends significant cognitive
outstanding cognitive potential. These weaknesse, across academic subjects. resources in his efforts to complete basic reading

Parent Form Teacher Form Parent Form Teacher Form

Scoring Summary Table Scoring Summary Table Scoring
_ Summary Table Scoring Summary Table
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
Scale/Index score score %He 90% CI Scale/Index score score %He 90% Cl 1 Scale/Index score score "kile 90% CI Scale/Index score score %ile 90% Cl

Inhibit 18 04 92 58-10 Inhibit 14 60 93 56-_6.4 _Inhibit 19 57 80 52-.02 Inhibit 17 00 05 56-64

Shift 13 54 71 41- 61 Shift 11 50 70 44-56 _Shift 13 53 74 45- 61 Shift 15 55 85 53-_63
Emotional Control 18 56 75 51- 61 Emotional Control 10 51 70 46- _56 j Emotional Control 20 50 01 53- 63 Emotional Control 12 , 54 01 49-_59
BR! 49 59 81 55 - _03 BR! 35 55 90 52 -_,53j BI 52 58 81 54-6 BR! 44 50 82 55-61
Initiate 17 05 93 57- 73 Initiate 12 64 00 59 - _6_,9 Initiate 10 59 04 51 - 67 Initiate 12 57 01 52-62
Working Memory 22 71 96 _65-_77 Working Memory 10
9 579
1 90
5 _66
53" _65
7 _Working Memory 25 69 96 04-74 Working Memory 22 71 93 _67- 75
Plan/Organize 29 70 99 71-_81 Plan/Organize 21 70 90 73 -133 _Plan/Organize 28 07 93 61-73 Plan/Organize 23 70 93 66-74
Organization of Materials 18 71 99 05- 77 Organization of Materials Organization of Materials 14 55 78 52-_64 Organization of Materials 11 57 85 53 - 61
Monitor 16 04 92 56-72 Monitor 16 05 92 59 - if 1 ''lonitor 19 62 91 54-70 Monitor 19 02 87 57-_67
102 Av i AN
MI 75 98 21- 79 76 71 92 66-14 1 102 67 95 _63- 71 07 00 89 62-70
GEC (Bpi ÷ mo
GEC (BRI + MI) 151 69 96 06-72 GEC (BRI + MI) 111 00 93 644_43 154 64 90 61-07 GEC (BR! + MI) 131 64 88 -

Figure 12. Parent and Teacher Form Scoring Summaries for Case Illustration 5. Figure 13. Parent and Teacher Form Scoring Summaries for Case Illustration 6.

32 33
tasks, he has less cognitive resources available to
employ organizational strategies.
In addition to continued reading intervention, it
was recommended that William receive specific
instruction in organizational strategies. Develop-
ment of a more active and intentional problem-
solving style was paramount to his efficient
learning and performance in all areas. To address
William's working memory weaknesses, strategie,,
were developed to decrease his cognitive load, such
as the use of external cues and outlines. Increased
time on task was facilitated through classroom
accommodations, including strategic seat placement
frequent reminders by staff, and reinforcement for
"on-task" behaviors.

DEVELOPMENT AND
STANDARDIZATION OF THE E JEF
DEVELOPMENT Item Content
The literature on executive function was reviewed
At the outset, the goal was to develop a psychome-
with particular emphasis on theory of executive func-
trically sound measure of executive function in child-
tion development in children. This review yielded
ren that would be easy to administer and score and
domains of executive function commonly discussed in
would yield clinically useful information about com-
the literature (Denckla, 1989; Stuss & Benson, 1986;
monly agreed upon domains of executive function.
Welsh, Pennington, & Grossier, 1991; Ylvisaker,
Such a measure would necessarily exhibit properties
Szekeres, & Hartwick, 1992). Colleagues in neuro-
of reliability and validity appropriate to a behavior
psychology were then asked about their use of the
rating scale. The instrument should be internally
term "executive function" and what domains this
consistent and stable across time, and should yield
term might encompass. This process yielded nine
consistent profiles between observers or raters. The
domains of executive function that were initially
instrument should adequately sample behavioral
included in the BRIEF: initiate, sustain, inhibit, shift
manifestations of executive function domains in a
(flexibility), organize, plan, self-monitor, working
clear and coherent manner, such that professionals
memory, and emotional control. More general
Familiar with the construct could identify items and
domains of executive function (e.g., self-regulation)
their respective domains. Further, the scales within
for which specific behaviors could not be generated
the instrument should correlate most highly with
were not included. After factor analysis, two "meta-
other measures of cognitive function and behavior
domains" emerged as underlying factors (i.e.,
that theoretically incorporate or reflect higher exec-
Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation). Other
utive function demand (e.g., measures of attention,
possible domains (e.g., goal setting, strategic problem
behavioral control, problem solving, and learning).
solving) were incorporated within the nine existing
The scales should not, however, correlate with other
domains (e.g., planning, shift).
measures that theoretically involve minimal execu-
tive demand, such as measures of emotional diffi- Before writing individual items for each scale, con-
culties (e.g., somatization, anxiety, obsessive- cise behavioral definitions were written for each of
compulsive symptoms). the executive domains as outlined in Table 1.

The BRIEF was developed with attention to con- Item Development

tent validity both within each scale and for individ-
ual items. Each scale was built from items whose
content reflects the intended domain, thus increas-
ing content validity. To promote construct validity,
the domains of executive function were identified
and defined based on theory, clinical practice, and
the research literature.
To increase content validity, the majority of indi-
vidual items within each of the executive domains
were collected from actual clinical interviews (i.e.,
rather than written) conducted by the authors. Each
of the authors is involved in full-time clinical neu-
ropsychology with culturally and economically
diverse pediatric populations that present with a

34 35
tasks, he has less cognitive resources available to
employ organizational strategies.
In addition to continued reading intervention, it
was recommended that William receive specific
instruction in organizational strategies. Develop-
ment of a more active and intentional problem-
solving style was paramount to his efficient
34
learning and performance in all areas. To address
William's working memory weaknesses, strategies
were developed to decrease his cognitive load, such
as the use of external cues and outlines. Increased
time on task was facilitated through classroom
accommodations, including strategic seat placement,
frequent reminders by staff, and reinforcement for
"on-task" behaviors.
DEVELOPMENT AND
STANDARDIZATION OF THE BRIEF
DEVELOPMENT Item Content
The literature on executive function was reviewed
At the outset, the goal was to develop a psychome-
with particular emphasis on theory of executive func-
trically sound measure of executive function in child-
tion development in children. This review yielded
ren that would be easy to administer and score and
domains of executive function commonly discussed in
would yield clinically useful information about com-
the literature (Denckla, 1989; Stuss & Benson, 1986;
monly agreed upon domains of executive function.
Welsh, Pennington, & Grossier, 1991; Ylvisaker,
Such a measure would necessarily exhibit properties
Szekeres, & Hartwick, 1992). Colleagues in neuro-
of reliability and validity appropriate to a behavior
psychology were then asked about their use of the
rating scale. The instrument should be internally
term "executive function" and what domains this
consistent and stable across time, and should yield
term might encompass. This process yielded nine
consistent profiles between observers or raters. The
domains of executive function that were initially
instrument should adequately sample behavioral
included in the BRIEF: initiate, sustain, inhibit, shift
manifestations of executive function domains in a
(flexibility), organize, plan, self-monitor, working
clear and coherent manner, such that professionals
memory, and emotional control. More general
familiar with the construct could identify items and
domains of executive function (e.g., self-regulation)
their respective domains. Further, the scales within
for which specific behaviors could not be generated
the instrument should correlate most highly with
were not included. After factor analysis, two "meta-
other measures of cognitive function and behavior
domains" emerged as underlying factors (i.e.,
that theoretically incorporate or reflect higher exec-
Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation). Other
utive function demand (e.g., measures of attention,
possible domains (e.g., goal setting, strategic problem
behavioral control, problem solving, and learning).
solving) were incorporated within the nine existing
The scales should not, however, correlate with other
domains (e.g., planning, shift).
measures that theoretically involve minimal execu-
tive demand, such as measures of emotional diffi- Before writing individual items for each scale, con-
culties (e.g., somatization, anxiety, obsessive- cise behavioral definitions were written for each of
compulsive symptoms). the executive domains as outlined in Table 1.
The BRIEF was developed with attention to con- Item Development
tent validity both within each scale and for individ- To increase content validity, the majority of indi-
ual items. Each scale was built from items whose vidual items within each of the executive domains
Content reflects the intended domain, thus increas- were collected from actual clinical interviews (i.e.,
ing content validity. To promote construct validity, rather than written) conducted by the authors. Each
the domains of executive function were identified of the authors is involved in full-time clinical neu-
and defined based on theory, clinical practice, and ropsychology with culturally and economically
the research literature. diverse pediatric populations that present with a
35
broad spectrum of neurological, medical, psychiatric,
learning, behavioral, and attentional concerns; thus,
there was abundant resource material from which to
select potential items. Interview notes from previous
cases were reviewed, and frequent teacher and par-
ent complaints that fit with the established defini-
tions of executive function were highlighted. Most of
these descriptions are commonly heard and easily
placed within the scale domains (e.g., "He is so disor-
ganized"; "Her room, locker, and desk are constantly
in disarray"; "He can't seem to begin his homework,
but once you get him going, he will finish it").
To broaden the initial item pool, additional items
that would be behaviorally consistent with each of
the domains were written. Two types of items were
generated: statements reflecting specific behaviors
(e.g., "Has a messy room"), and more general state-
ments (e.g., "Is stubborn"). Although the specific items
are directly tied to concrete behaviors and may be
more reliable, the more general items ask the respon-
dent to reflect more broadly on the nature of the
child's behavior, tapping global perceptions. Several
colleagues also contributed individual items based on
complaints they typically listen for in patient or par-
ent interviews as indications of executive difficulties.
Finally, a number of published behavior rating
scales were surveyed to ensure completeness of item
content areas and to incorporate divergence from
more general measures that address a broader spec-
trum of behavior. Given that the BRIEF is intended
as a focused measure of executive function and not as
a broad measure of attention and behavior problems,
efforts were made to eliminate obvious redundancy
between the BRIEF and other behavior scales that
would likely be administered along with the BRIEF.
Measures reviewed included the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991a), the CBCL
Teacher's Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, 1991b), the
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC;
Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992), the Conners Parent
and Teacher Questionnaires (Conners, 1989), the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow et al.,
1984), the Profile of Executive Control System
(Braswell et al., n.d.), and the Cognitive System
Checklists: Executive Function (O'Hara, Harrell,
Bellingrath, & Lisicia, 1993).
The initial pool of approximately 180 items was
reviewed to identify items that were redundant, idio-
syncratic, or poorly written, as well as items that, on
36
closer examination, were not specific to an executive
domain. Approximately 50 items were removed, and
the remaining pool of items was then assessed for
readability. A group of general education teachers,
special education teachers, and reading specialists
reviewed the items for ease of reading, clarity, and
syntactic consistency. Many items were edited for
syntactic consistency, combined with similar items,
or deleted, resulting in a reduced pool of 129 items in
the parent rating scale and 127 items in the teacher
rating scale. The reading specialists determined that
the edited and reduced item set would require
approximately a fourth- to-fifth grade reading level.
Sentence length and word complexity were then
assessed via RightWriter software (Version 4.0;
Quesoftware, 1990) as a gross index of readability.
This analysis revealed that the BRIEF items
required a 4.75 grade reading level, making it appro-
priate for use by most adult raters.
Item-Scale Membership
Although items were initially written or collected
with the definitions of the specific executive domains
in mind, a more rigorous examination was conducted
to increase separation of the scale domains and to
measure consensus among a group of neuropsycholo-
gists on the fit between each item and its hypothe-
sized scale. All items were combined in one pool,
randomized, and distributed along with concise defi-
nitions for each executive domain to 12 neuropsy-
chologists in hospital and university-based clinical
practice. Reviewers were asked to indicate the exec-
utive domain of best fit for each questionnaire item.
Recognizing that the domains of executive function
are not mutually exclusive, the expert raters were
asked to rank the primary and secondary domain
membership if more than one domain applied. As a
separate indication of agreement, the BRIEF authors
also completed the same item review. This process
served not only to refine item-scale membership, but
also to suggest the strength of membership within a
scale and to reflect a degree of content validity.
Rater agreement for each of the 129 Parent Form
and 127 Teacher Form items was collated and the
percentage of agreement was calculated based on
the separate ratings from the authors and the 12
independent reviewers. There was good general
agreement between the test authors and the expert
raters as to the fit of each item. Tables 9 and 10 show
the interrater agreement based on author and expert
ratings for the final set of items. Some items were
moved from one scale to another when raters clearly
agreed that the fit was better with another scale
than with the original intended scale. No items, how-
ever, were deleted from the scales based simply on
lack of agreement. Instead, empirical methods were
used to reduce the number of items in the scales.
Item Tryouts
BRIEF ratings were collected from both a clinical
population and a normative population from a local
school using the 129-item Parent Form and the 127-
item Teacher Form. Two hundred and twelve Parent
Forms and 120 Teacher Forms were collected from
the clinical sample, along with 120 Parent and
Teacher ratings (controls) from the normative sam-
ple. These data were used to begin refining the
scales.
Using the Reliability procedure in SPSS for
Windows (SPSS, 1998), the correlation of each item
with the total score within each scale was calculated;
the goal was to adjust the total number of items for
each scale to a more manageable set while maintain-
ing maximum internal consistency for each scale.
The item-total correlation process was iterative,
eliminating items with the lowest item-total correla-
tion in a stepwise fashion. Although this process
identified more coherent and more concise scales for
each domain, no items were permanently removed.
Instead, all 129/127 items were retained for further
analysis with additional, larger data sets.
Principal factor analysis (PFA) with orthogonal
rotation was used as a second approach to clarifying
scale structure and determining the strength of scale
membership for each item. The PFA method was
intended only to clarify how items would cluster and
not as a confirmatory hypothesis testing approach.
The group of intended items within each single
scale was submitted to PFA. Each of the nine analy-
',c.s identified one predominant factor along with
one or two additional factors that accounted for the
majority of variance within a scale. These latter fac-
tors contained only a few items and accounted for
minimal variance. The PFA results were consistent
With the iterative item-total correlation approach to
refining scales. Again, no items were removed at
this point.
Item content for each of the scales was then
reviewed again to ensure that the items in each of
the more concise scales captured the essence of the
intended executive function construct. Most of the
items not included in the primary factor for each
scale had lower interrater agreement than those that
comprised the primary scale factor. Over 80% of the
items retained in the scales had at least 75% agree-
ment for item-scale membership among expert raters
and the authors.
Final Scale Development
Although the convergence of the item-total corre-
lation analyses, principal factor analyses, and inter-
rater agreement processes suggested good internal
consistency and conceptual content of the resulting
smaller scales, no items were permanently elimi-
nated following the item tryout phase. Instead, stan-
dardization was completed with the 129-item Parent
Form and 127-item Teacher Form. At the same time,
data from several larger clinical samples were col-
lected for both forms. These larger and more reliable
data sets allowed for final editing of the scales. The
iterative item-total correlation process was then
repeated with the full normative data sets for the
Parent and Teacher Forms and repeated separately
with the new clinical data sets. This process resulted
in nine scales that were quite similar to the scales
developed with the item tryout data sets.
Examination of the intercorrelation matrix for all
of the BRIEF scales for both the Parent and Teacher
Forms revealed moderate correlations between most
scales, but unacceptably high correlations between
two sets of scales: Working Memory and Sustain (r =
.96) and Plan and Organize (r = .94). These correla-
tions suggested that both scales in these sets were
tapping the same functions or behaviors. Conse-
quently, the items from both the Working Memory
and the Sustain scales were combined into one scale,
producing a new, larger, item pool that could be
reduced further. Similarly, the Plan and Organize
scale items were combined into a single item pool for
analysis and reduction. The items in the new com-
bined scales were carefully reviewed for conceptual
consistency to increase the content validity. On
review, it was difficult to distinguish between the
Working Memory and Sustain items. Although the
Plan and Organize scale items could be distinguished,
the behavioral manifestations of these difficulties are
often quite similar in the home and school contexts.
Items were then selected from these larger combined
pools and again evaluated using an iterative item-
total correlation approach. This process yielded two
37
 Table 9 (continued)
Table 9
Scale Items, Item-Total Correlations, and lnterrater Agreement for the BRIEF Parent Form (n = 2,271)
Scale Items, Item-Total Correlations, and Interrater Agreement for the BRIEF Parent Form (n = 2,271)
Expert Item-Total Author Expert
Item-Total Author
ratings (%) ratings (%) Scale/Item no. correlations ratings (%) ratings (%)
Scale/Item no. correlations
Working Memory
Inhibit 2. When given three things to do, remembers only the first or last .60 100 88
38. Acts wilder or sillier than others in groups (birthday parties, recess) .66 75 66
100 9. Has a short attention span .66 100 100
41. Interrupts others .63 100
17. Has trouble concentrating on chores, schoolwork, etc. .68 100 88
43. Gets out of seat at the wrong times .65 100 100
19. Is easily distracted by noises, activity, sights, etc. .64 11
44. Gets out of control more than friends .70 75 77
24. Has trouble with chores or tasks that have more than one step .64 75
49. Blurts things out .66 100 100
27. Needs help from an adult to stay on task .67 100 100
54. Acts too wild or "out of control" .73 100 66
100 32. Forgets what he/she was doing .63 75 66
55. Has trouble putting the brakes on his/her actions .73 100
44 33. When sent to get something, forgets what he/she is supposed to get .63 100 100
56. Gets in trouble if not supervised by an adult .61 75
37. Has trouble finishing tasks (chores, homework) .65 100 100
59. Becomes too silly .65 100 55
100 57. Has trouble remembering things, even for a few minutes .58 100 100
65. Talks at the wrong time .69 100
Plan/Organize
Shift 11. Does not bring home homework, assignment sheets, materials, etc. .55 100 66
5. Resists or has trouble accepting a different way to solve a problem .52 100 100
with schoolwork, friends, chores, etc. 15. Has good ideas but cannot get them on paper .57 75 88
Becomes upset with new situations .62 100 100 18. Does not connect doing tonight's homework with grades .61 100 100
6.
Tries the same approach to a problem over and over even when it .43 100 88 22. Forgets to hand in homework, even when completed .53 100 55
8.
does not work 28. Gets caught up in details and misses the big picture .54 100 88
12. Acts upset by a change in plans .59 100 100 35. Has good ideas but does not get job done (lacks follow-through) .69 75 66
13. Is disturbed by change of teacher or class .52 100 100 36. Becomes overwhelmed by large assignments .61 100 77
23. Resists change of routine, foods, places, etc. .56 40. Underestimates time needed to finish tasks .64 100 88
30. Has trouble getting used to new situations (classes, groups, friends) .54 75 100 46. Starts assignments or chores at the last minute .63 100 100
39. Thinks too much about the same topic .46 100 100 51. Does not plan ahead for school assignments .71 100 100
53. Written work is poorly organized .66 100 88
Emotional Control
Overreacts to small problems .58 100 100 58. Has trouble carrying out the actions needed to reach goals .66 100 99
1.
100 (saving money for special item, studying to get a good grade)
7. Has explosive, angry outbursts .59 100
20. Becomes tearful easily .52 100 100 Organization of Materials
Has outbursts for little reason .69 100 100 4. Leaves playroom a mess .67 100 66
25.
.62 100 100 29. Keeps room messy .70 100 88
26. Mood changes frequently
Reacts more strongly to situations than other children .56 100 100 67. Cannot find things in room or school desk .60 100 88
45.
.63 75 77 68. Leaves a trail of belongings wherever he/she goes .71 100 55
50. Mood is easily influenced by the situation
.59 100 100 69. Leaves messes that others have to clean up .69 100 66
62. Angry or tearful outbursts are intense but end suddenly
.73 100 72. Has a messy closet .65 100 88
64. Small events trigger big reactions
70. Becomes upset too easily .73 100 100 Monitor
14. Does not check work for mistakes .49 100 100
Initiate 21,
Is not a self-starter .51 100 100 Makes careless errors .58 100 88
3.
100 31. Has poor handwriting .46 75 33
10. Needs to be told to begin a task even when willing .48 100
88 34. Is unaware of how his/her behavior affects or bothers others .56 100 100
16. Has trouble coming up with ideas for what to do in play or free time .50 100
42. Does not notice when his/her behavior causes negative reactions .59 100 100
47. Has trouble getting started on homework or chores .54 100 100
52. Has poor understanding of own strengths and weaknesses .52 100 100
48. Has trouble organizing activities with friends .50 -
60, Work is sloppy .62 50 88
61. Does not take initiative .57 100 100
63. Does not realize that certain actions bother others .61 100 100
66. Complains there is nothing to do .45 100 44
71. Lies around the house a lot ("couch potato") .41 100 100 -Vole• - item not rated.
(contin rmi
39
38
 Table 10 Table 10 (continued)
Scale Items, Item-Total Correlations, and Interrater Agreement for the BRIEF Teacher Form (n = 1,195) Scale Items, Item-Total Correlations, and lnterrater Agreement for the BRIEF Teacher Form (n = 1,195)
Item-Total Author Expert Item-Total Author Expert
Scale/Item no. correlations ratings (%) ratings (%) Scale/Item no. correlations ratings (%) ratings (%)

Inhibit Working Memory

9. Needs to be told "no" or "stop that" .77 100 88 2. When given three things to do, remembers only the first or last .72 100 88
38. Does not think before doing .78 8. Has a short attention span .77 100 100
42. Interrupts others .82 100 100 18. Has trouble concentrating on chores, schoolwork, etc. .77 100 88
43. Is impulsive .82 100 100 21. Is easily distracted by noises, activity, sights, etc. .70
45. Gets out of seat at the wrong times .79 100 100 25. Has trouble with chores or tasks that have more than one step .72 75
47. Gets out of control more than friends .82 75 77 28. Needs help from adult to stay on task .78 100 100
57. Acts too wild or "out of control" .83 100 66 31. Forgets what he/she was doing .76 75 66
58. Has trouble putting the brakes on his/her actions .87 100 100 32. When sent to get something, forgets what he/she is supposed to get .54 100 100
59. Gets in trouble if not supervised by an adult .81 75 44 39. Has trouble finishing tasks (chores, homework) .72 100 100
69. Does not think of consequences before acting .81 75 44 60. Has trouble remembering things, even for a few minutes .72 100 100

Shift Plan/Organize
4. Cannot get a disappointment, scolding, or insult off his/her mind .66 100 88 12. Does not bring home homework, assignment sheets, materials, etc. .67 100 66
5. Resists or has trouble accepting a different way to solve a problem .63 100 100 17. Has good ideas but cannot get them on paper .72 75 88
with schoolwork, friends, chores, etc. 23. Forgets to hand in homework, even when completed .61 100 55
6. Becomes upset with new situations .71 100 100 29. Gets caught up in details and misses the big picture .58 100 88
13. Acts upset by a change in plans .75 100 100 35. Has good ideas but does not get job done (lacks follow-through) .76 75 66
14. Is disturbed by change of teacher or class .72 100 100 37. Becomes overwhelmed by large assignments .66 100 77
24. Resists change of routine, foods, places, etc. .68 41. Underestimates time needed to finish tasks .69 100 88
30. Has trouble getting used to new situations (classes, groups, friends) .69 75 100 49. Starts assignments or chores at the last minute .75 100 100
40. Thinks too much about the same topic .61 100 100 52. Does not plan ahead for school assignments .77 100 100
53. Gets stuck on one topic or activity .62 100 100 56. Written work is poorly organized .66 100 88
62. After having a problem, will stay disappointed for a long time .70 100 77
Organization of Materials
Emotional Control 11. Loses lunch box, lunch money, permission slips, homework, etc. .68 75 66
1. Overreacts to small problems .73 100 100 16. Cannot find clothes, glasses, shoes, toys, books, pencils, etc. .76 100 77
7. Has explosive, angry outbursts .75 100 100 20. Backpack is disorganized .76 100 88
26. Has outbursts for little reason .69 100 100 67. Cannot find things in room or school desk .82 100 88
27. Mood changes frequently .79 100 100 68. Leaves a trail of belongings wherever he/she goes .77 100 55
48. Reacts more strongly to situations than other children .77 100 100 71. Leaves messes that others have to clean up .78 100 66
51. Mood is easily influenced by the situation .73 75 77 73. Has a messy desk .79 100 44
64. Angry or tearful outbursts are intense but end suddenly .65 100 100
Monitor
66. Small events trigger big reactions .81 100 15. Does not check work for mistakes .60 100 100
72. Becomes upset too easily .74 100 100 22. Makes careless errors .61 100 88
33. Is unaware of how his/her behavior affects or bothers others .57 100 100
Initiate
3. Is not a self-starter .73 100 100 36. Leaves work incomplete .75 75 33
10. Needs to be told to begin a task even when willing .68 100 100 Does not notice when his/her behavior causes negative reactions .75 100 100
19. Does not show creativity in solving a problem .72 75 77 46. Is unaware of own behavior when in a group .76 100 100
34. Has problems coming up with different ways of solving a problem .69 75 88 54. Has poor understanding of own strengths and weaknesses .62 100 100
50. Has trouble getting started on homework or chores .69 100 100 Talks or plays too loudly .63 50 77
63. Does not take initiative .72 100 100 61 Work is sloppy .59 50 88
.68 100 100 65.
70. Has trouble thinking of a different way to solve a problem when stuck Does not realize that certain actions bother others .74 100 100
(cont I
item not rated.

40 41
scales, Working Memory and Plan/Organize, that 2 for each of the 10 pairs), was then calculated for the with no history of special education or psychotropic
clinical samples. Tables 2 and 3 provide the correla- proportions are reported for the five ethnic/racial
were stronger and more internally consistent than medication usage, and (b) no more than 10% of the
tions between the items within each item pair as well groups including White, African American, Hispanic,
their predecessors. items on the questionnaire could have missing
as the cumulative percentiles for the difference Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American/Eskimo.
During the process of refinement, 9 items were responses. Rating forms were completed by both par- A full SES distribution is represented in the Parent
scores for the Parent and Teacher Forms, respec- ents and teachers for 296 children, permitting exam-
identified that were highly consistent with each and Teacher Form samples (see Table 14) with mean
tively. Inconsistency scores of 8 or more for each form ination of agreement between raters. Only one
other, both statistically and conceptually, but that levels in the middle Hollingshead class (Parent Form
occur infrequently in the clinical samples, suggesting Parent Form and/or one Teacher Form was included
did not fit well within the other scales. Although Hollingshead Code: M = 3.2, SD = 0.94; Teacher
an unusually high degree of inconsistency. for each child in the normative sample.
these items were originally intended to be included Form Hollingshead Code: M = 2.9, SD = 1.00). In
in the Organization scale, they reflect a child's abil- Negativity Scale A total of 1,419 Parent Form rating forms were addition, 26.5% of children were from an urban set-
ity to organize his or her materials and environment, The clinical data sets for the Parent and Teacher completed for children ages 5 through 18 years. ting, 59% from suburban settings, and 14.5% from
rather than his or her thinking and problem-solving Forms were explored to identify items on each rating With respect to gender, the Parent Form sample rural settings.
processes. Given the conceptual and statistical dif- form that received the least frequent ratings of Often rated 815 girls (57%) and 604 boys (43%). The
ferences between the new PlanJOrganize scale items (i.e., item score of 3). The Negativity raw score is cal- Influence of Demographic Characteristics of
Teacher Form sample consisted of 720 teacher Respondent and Child
and these "other" organization-related items, the culated by summing the number of Often ratings respondents rating 403 girls (56%) and 317 boys
"other" items were separated from the Plan/Organize across the nine items that were identified. The dis- Respondent Characteristics
(44%). A more specific breakdown of the Parent and
scale. Given their importance to a child's everyday tribution of Often ratings (see Tables 4 and 5) across Teacher Form normative samples by age and gender Characteristics of the Parent Form normative
functioning and the frequency of complaints about a these nine items reveals that more than four such is presented in Table 11. sample were examined. The mean education of the
child's organization of things and spaces (e.g., back- ratings occurs infrequently, and more than six such parent respondent was 14.2 years (SD = 2.57
pack, locker, room, desk, homework), these items ratings is highly infrequent. This suggests that a Weighting of the Parent and Teacher Form samples years). This level of education was consistent
were retained in a separate, concise scale. The high profile with a Negativity raw score of 5 or 6 should be was conducted to reflect estimated proportions for eth- whether the respondent was the mother or the
internal consistency of this new scale, Organization reviewed carefully, and that a score of 7 or more nicity and gender in the U.S. population (U.S. Census father. However, the majority (83.2%) of parent
of Materials, allowed for its brevity. likely indicates an excessively negative perception on Bureau, 1999). Tables 12 and 13 present the actual respondents were mothers (n = 1,185), which is con-
the part of the rater, although the possibility of and weighted ethnicity and gender distributions of sistent with the typical respondent in a clinical envi-
Table 9 presents the final items in each scale the normative sample for the Parent and Teacher
extreme executive dysfunction must also be consid- ronment and on other rating scales. Fathers
within the Parent Form along with item-total corre- Forms respectively. Actual and census-weighted
ered (see the discussion of clinical interpretation in represented 11.4% of the sample (n = 163); the
lations, expert rater agreement, and author agree-
chapter 3).
ment. Table 10 presents the same data for the final
scales within the Teacher Form. Table 11
Validity Scales STANDAR,DIZATION Normative Sample Sizes by Age and Gender for the
To assist with assessing the validity of BRIEF Demographic Characteristics BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms
scale profiles, two additional scales were developed The goal of the sampling procedure for the norma- Parent Form Teacher Form
Child's age
within the Parent and Teacher Forms. The tive group was to approximate the population of the (years) Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Inconsistency scale was designed to screen for an United States according to key demographic vari-
unusual, or infrequent, degree of inconsistency in 5 34 40 74 8 12 20
ables: gender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity,
rater responses. The Negativity scale was designed age, and geographical population density. The nor- 6 50 59 109 24 17 41
to screen for an infrequent pattern of high ratings, mative data samples were obtained through public 7 60 62 122 46 41 87
suggesting the possibility of excessively negative and private school recruitment in urban, suburban. 8 44 79 123 30 43 73
respondent ratings. and rural settings in the State of Maryland, which 9 42 62 104 34 38 72
Inconsistency Scale has a full range of ethnicities, socioeconomic classes, 10 59 71 130 21 33 54
and population densities. A total of 25 schools were
For each of the Parent and Teacher Forms, the 11 61 111 172 42 66 108
sampled, including 12 elementary, 9 middle, and 4
clinical data sets were explored to identify item pairs 12 58 87 145 31
high schools. A small subgroup of ratings of adoles- 49 80
with the strongest correlations. A set of 10-item pairs 13 48 64
cents (n = 18) was obtained from the normal control 112 34 38 72
was selected for each form of the BRIEF. Although a
group in a study of patients with traumatic brain 14 39 64 103 25 24 49
correlation coefficient would most accurately meas-
injury at Case Western Reserve University in 15 44 49 93 13 21 34
ure rater consistency, a simpler manual calculation
was devised for hand scoring. The Inconsistency raw Cleveland, Ohio (Turkstra, 2000). 16 39 37 76 4 6 10
score is obtained by summing the absolute value of Questionnaires were sent to parents and teacher, 17 23 24 47 5 14 19
the difference in ratings for each of the 10 item pairs. for voluntary participation. The following criteri:, 18 3 6 9 0 1 1
The frequency of scores, ranging from a possible score were used for inclusion in the normative sample
Total 604 815 1,419 317 403 720
of 0 (i.e., perfect consistency) to 20 (i.e., differences of (a) the child was between the ages of 5 and 18 yeal
42
43
 Table 12 Respondent ratings in the Teacher Form norma- p < .001, were found for the Teacher Form. Exami-
Normative Sample Composition and Weighting by Ethnicity and Gender for the BRIEF Parent Form
tive sample were also examined with respect to how nation of the univariate analyses indicated signifi-
long (in months) and how well (Not Well, Moderately cant differences between boys and girls on all scales
African Asian/Pacific Native American/ Well, Very Well) they reported having known the stu-
Eskimo except Shift and Organization of Materials on the
White American Hispanic Islander
dent they were rating; 91% reported knowing the Parent Form. A significant interaction between age
Actual Wt. Actual Wt. Actual Wt. student Moderately Well or Very Well, and the
Actual Wt. Actual Wt. and gender was found on the Parent Form for the
0/0 remainder reported not knowing the student well. scales comprising the Behavioral Regulation Index:
Gender n °/.0 °/0 n °/0
4 0.3 0.4 Examination of these three groups revealed differ- Emotional Control, F(3, 1532) = 3.58, p < .02; Inhibit,
35.0 70 5.2 5.7 18 1.3 6.0 16 1.2 1.8
Boys 462 34.5 ences only on the Shift and Emotional Control scales F(3, 1532) = 5.10, p < .002; and Shift, F(3, 1532) =
6.7 6.5 24 1.8 5.7 35 2.6 2.0 3 0.2 0.4
Girls 616 46.0 36.5 90 (p < .05) between the Not Well and Very Well groups. 3.47, p < .02 (with boys demonstrating a dramatic
71.7 160 11.9 12.2 42 3.1 11.6 51 3.8 3.8 7 0.5 0.7 Although teachers indicating a low knowledge of the
Totals 1,078 80.5 decrease in reported problems with increasing age).
student rated the student lower on these two scales, Similarly, a significant interaction was found for the
Note. Wt. = Weighting based on U.S. population estimates for 1999 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999). the magnitude of the difference was very small, Inhibit scale, F(3, 712) = 2.63, p < .05, on the Teacher
accounting for less than 1% of the variance. With Form. Overall, the need for separate normative
Table 13 respect to the length of time teachers reported hav- scales by age and gender was indicated for each form.
Normative Sample Composition and Weighting by Ethnicity and Gender for the BRIEF Teacher Form ing known the student, the median length was 4
The distributions of BRIEF scale and index scores
months; 94% of the sample indicated having known
African Asian/Pacific Native American/ for boys and girls across the age span (5 to 18 years)
Eskimo
the student for less than 11 months. Pearson corre-
White American Hispanic Islander were then examined to determine the most appropri-
lations between the length of time knowing the stu-
Actual Wt. Actual Wt. ate age groupings. Unique developmental trends
Actual Wt. Actual Wt. Actual Wt. dent and BRIEF scale scores were significant for five
were found on each form. The relevant developmen-
% n °/0 °/0 0/0 0/0 n 0/0 0/0 n % % of eight scales; however, even the highest correla-
Gender n °/0 Il
tal trends were best represented by the formation of
3.6 1.9 1 0.2 0.3 tion (with Working Memory) was quite small (r =
197 31.2 33.7 32 5.1 5.6 11 1.7 5.6 23 four age groups for each of the two BRIEF forms:
Boys -.14, p < .001) and accounted for less than 2% of the
8.4 6.5 16 2.5 5.7 22 2.5 1.9 1 0.2 0.3 ages 5 to 7, 8 to 10, 11 to 13, and 14 to 18 years for
Girls 258 40.9 35.9 53 variance. Overall results indicate that these teacher
27 4.2 11.6 45 6.1 3.8 2 0.4 0.7 the Parent Form; ages 5 to 6, 7 to 8, 9 to 13, and 14
Totals 455 72.1 71.7 85 13.5 12.2 respondent characteristics have little substantial
effect on the BRIEF scores. to 18 years for the Teacher Form. Significant differ-
Note. Wt. = Weighting based on U.S. population estimates for 1999 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999). ences between the scores of boys and girls were con-
Characteristics of the Rated Child sistently found for the four age groupings across the
Educational level of the Parent Form normative Ethnic group membership of the rated child had two forms, justifying the need for age- and gender-
Table 14 no significant effect on BRIEF scores. Pearson corre- specific norms. Means and standard deviations for
sample was examined to determine its relationship
Normative Sample Distribution of lations between the BRIEF scale scores and the SES boys and girls within each age group are presented in
Socioeconomic Status (SES) Classification (if any) to BRIEF scale scores. Low but significant
level of the child/family were calculated. Low but Tables 15 and 16 for the Parent Form and Tables 17
for the BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms correlations with BRIEF scale scores were found.
significant correlations for seven of eight scales were and 18 for the Teacher Form.
Importantly, even the highest correlation accounted
Parent Teacher found; however, SES accounted for only 5% of the
for only 5% of the variance in the scores, indicating
Form Form variance at most (e.g., Inhibit Scale, r = -.23). Again,
that educational level of the parent has a relatively CONSTRUCTION OF SCALE NORMS
the direction of the correlations suggested that child-
SES classification small relationship with ratings on the BRIEF. T scores (M = 50, SD = 10) and percentile nouns
ren from lower SES households tended to be rated as
Upper 42 3.0 53 7.4 Interestingly, correlations were in the negative direc- were developed for each of the eight BRIEF scales, the
having more problems with executive function.
309 21.8 143 20.0 tion, indicating that the lower the education level of two indexes, and the GEC. The T scores were gener-
Upper-Middle
36.1 199 28.0 the parent, the higher the rated problem with execu- ated as a linear transformation of the raw scores. The
Middle-Middle 512 DEVELOPMENT OF THE
21.0 tive function; this is consistent with previous percentiles were assigned according to the distribution
Lower-Middle 451 31.8 153
research on parent behavioral ratings of social NORMATIVE GROUPS
6.2 18 2.5 of raw scores for each scale, index, and the GEC. As is
Lower 88
emotional functioning (Achenbach, McConaughy. Gender and age differences were examined to typical of behavior rating scales, the distributions of
Unassigned 17 1.2 154 21.0
Howell, 1987). Again, the size of the correlations determine whether separate normative groups would the BRIEF scales are positively skewed, with the
indicates only a small amount of variance in the rat- be required within the BRIEF Parent and Teacher majority of cases clustering at the lower (nornial) end
ings accounted for by the parent's educational level. Forms. Examination of the multivariate analyses of of each scale and scores in the tail representing devia-
remaining 4.7% included grandparents and Therefore, parent's educational level should not be \ ariance revealed gender and age to be significant tions from the norm. T scores for the Parent Form were
considered a major factor in the interpretation of Factors with respect to BRIEF scores for both forms. derived from weighted data, as census weighting
foster/adoptive parents. Analysis of the BRIEF rat-
BRIEF scale scores. Parent caretakers from a variet -\ lain effects for gender, F(8, 1525) = 20.14, p < .001, resulted in small differences in some groups. T scores
ings indicated no significant differences between
mother and father respondents with respect to level of educational backgrounds are appropriate to com- and age, F(24, 4424) = 14.52, p < .001, were found for for the Teacher Form were not appreciably affected by
of scale scores, indicating comparability of respon- plete the BRIEF without a clinically significant sys- he Parent Form. Similarly, main effects for gender, weighting and thus, were derived from unweighted
S' 705) = 4.72, p <.001, and age, F(24, 2405) = 4.95, data to reflect the actual distributions.
dents' ratings. tematic effect on the scores.
44 45
 Table 15 Table 17
Normative Sample Mean Scale/Index/GEC Scores and Standard Deviations Normative Sample Mean Scale/Index/GEC Scores and Standard Deviations
for Boys by Age Group on the BRIEF Parent Form for Boys by Age Group on the BRIEF Teacher Form

Age group Age group

5-7 yearsa 8-10 yearsb 11-13 yearsc 14-18 yearsd 5-6 yearsa 7-8 yearsb 9-13 years' 14-18 yearsd

Scale/Index SD SD SD SDole/Index SD SD SD SD

Inhibit 16.40 4.53 15.64 4.49 13.91 3.94 12.62 3 .311ibit 15.41 6.53 15.92 7.02 12.78 4.43 11.89 3.69
Shift 11.96 3.00 11.99 2.92 11.42 2.77 10.86 2.71ift 12.59 3.73 13.89 4.59 12.21 3.68 11.11 2.34
Emotional Control 16.25 4.20 16.37 4.55 14.81 3.74 13.83 4.1-notional Control 11.41 3.69 12.74 4.98 10.78 3.25 10.36 2.93
Initiate 12.40 3.16 12.93 3.24 13.01 3.41 12.19 3.0 itiate 9.72 3.21 11.45 3.88 9.66 3.34 8.72 2.43
Working Memory 15.88 4.03 16.32 4.50 15.45 4.54 13.92 3.7 orking Memory 13.94 4.26 16.68 5.62 12.94 4.28 12.17 2.91
Plan/Organize 18.00 4.58 19.99 4.74 19.53 5.64 18.77 5.6 an/Organize 13.63 4.21 15.84 4.68 13.48 4.73 12.53 3.42
Organization of Materials 11.12 3.10 11.46 3.17 11.44 3.42 10.38 3.4rganization of Materials 9.22 3.49 10.33 4.08 8.77 3.08 7.89 1.52
Monitor 13.82 3.16 15.06 3.18 13.78 3.35 12.64 31,.onitor 15.03 4.58 16.71 5.57 13.80 4.28 12.74 3.54
Behavioral Regulation 44.61 10.02 43.99 10.34 40.15 8.86 37.32 8.9ehavioral Regulation 39.41 12.29 42.55 15.31 35.77 10.06 33.36 8.12
Metacognition 71.53 15.96 75.79 15.51 73.02 18.05 68.04 17.71etacognitio11 61.53 17.48 71.01 21.58 58.65 18.18 54.06 12.01
Global Executive Composite 115.83 24.24 119.76 24.20 113.36 24.34 105.22 23.7101)al Executive Composite 100.94 27.46 113.57 34.85 94.41 26.46 87.43 17.81

Note. Means and standard deviations are based on weighted data. roie. Means and standard deviations are based on unweighted data.
an = 144. b n = 145. en = 167. d n = 148. = 32. bn = 76. en = 162. dn = 47.

Table 16 Table 18
Normative Sample Mean Scale/Index/GEC Scores and Standard Deviations Normative Sample Mean Scale/Index/GEC Scores and Standard Deviations
for Girls by Age Group on the BRIEF Parent Form for Girls by Age Group on the BRIEF Teacher Form

Age group Age group

5-7 yearsa 8-10 yearsb 5-6 yearsa 7-8 yearsb 9-13 yearsc 14-18 yearsd
11-13 yearsc 14-18 yearsd
Scale/Index SD sc3cale/Index SD SD SD SD
SD SD
Inhibit 14.78 4.06 14.09 3.F Inhibit 11.62 3.11 12.90 4.68 11.17 2.54 11.08 2.94
4.08 13.20 3.82 13.17
Shift 11.34 2.57 11.90 12.21 3.31 12.10 3.06 11.24 2.51 10.92 1.96
3.40 11.34 2.83 11.76
2.10 10.99 3.27 10.12 2.52 9.83 2.22
Emotional Control 15.80 4.07 16.39 4.58 15.41 4.17 15.42 412 Emotional Control 10.24
Initiate 11.64 2.50 3.2-1 nit late 9.48 2.82 9.46 3.01 8.95 2.62 8.52 2.43
12.27 3.16 12.15 3.02 12.19
Working Memory 15.23 3.84 v,Working Memory 13.17 4.18 13.75 4.90 11.71 2.91 11.61 3.07
14.93 4.54 14.03 4.10 13.71
Plan/Organize 16.57 3.87 Plan Organize 12.69 3.29 13.35 4.24 12.33 3.27 12.12 3.16
18.33 5.17 17.34 4.88 17.16
Organization of Materials 11.31 2.91 Organization of Materials 8.34 3.00 9.17 3.57 7.74 1.68 7.58 1.55
11.57 3.45 11.21 3.38 11.15
Monitor 12.79 2.74 Monitor 12.83 3.20 13.60 4.01 12.40 2.83 11.73 2.76
13.23 3.48 12.41 3.26 11.99
Behavioral Regulation 41.92 9.39 Ilr!illvioral Regulation 34.07 6.68 35.99 9.54 32.53 6.72 31.83 6.49
42.38 10.58 39.95 9.52 40.35
Metacognition 68.12 111(-t acognition 56.52 14.77 59.32 18.31 53.13 11.68 51.55 11.81
13.19 70.35 17.44 67.40 16.19 65.46
Global Executive Composite 109.46 20.96 23.{: Global Executive Composite 90.59 19.83 95.31 25.76 85.66 16.98 83.38 16.93
112.73 26.68 107.10 24.27 106.56
Note. Means and standard deviations are based on weighted data. Means and standard deviations are based on unweighted data.
an = 161. bn = 212. en = 262. dn = 180. - 29. bn = 84. en = 224. dn = 66.

46 47
 REL A IILITY AND VALIDITY
This chapter presents technical data on the relia-
bility and validity of the BRIEF Parent and Teacher
Forms. Reliability studies include measures of inter-
nal consistency, test-retest reliability, and interrater
agreement. Validity studies include convergent and
divergent validity via correlations with other rating
scales, construct validity via exploratory and confir-
matory factor analysis of the BRIEF alone and of the
BRIEF with other rating scales, and BRIEF scale
profiles within several diagnostic groups. Table 19
describes the clinical samples used in the validity
studies.
RELIABILITY
Three measures of reliability, or stability and
consistency, are important for a behaviorally
anchored scale such as the BRIEF: internal
consistency, interrater reliability, and test-retest reli-
ability. Both the general clinical and normative data
sets were examined for each of these properties.
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency reflects the degree to which
items in a single scale are measuring the same
underlying construct. The typical internal consis-
tency statistic is Cronbach's (1951) alpha (a), the
mean correlation of all possible sets of scales within
a scale. For both Parent and Teacher Forms of the
BRIEF, internal consistency was high, ranging from
.80 to .98. Table 20 shows the alpha coefficients for
the scales, indexes, and GEC for the Parent and
Teacher Forms of the normative and combined clini-
cal samples.
Interrater Reliability
Interrater reliability assesses the degree to which
\\ 0 independent observers rate a child in a similar
manner. This measure provides an indication of scale
stability across raters and, in this case, across set-
tings. It is important to understand the relationship
between teacher and parent ratings of the same
child. The correlation (reliability coefficient) between
parent and teacher ratings of the same child is typi-
cally lower (i.e., .30-.50) than parent-parent or
teacher-teacher interrater reliabilities for rating
scales (Achenbach et al., 1987) because the home and
school settings are typically different. Table 21 shows
the correlations between teacher and parent ratings
on like scales of the BRIEF for a subset of the nor-
mative sample (n = 296). The correlations between
parent and teacher raters were moderate (overall
mean r = .32) for the normative group. Correlations
between parent and teacher ratings for two of the
scales were notably lower: Initiate (r = .18) and
Organization of Materials (r = .15). Such findings
likely reflect differences in environmental structure
between home and school. Specifically, initiation
deficits may not be readily seen in schools where
tasks, particularly for younger children, are organ-
ized and presented in a stepwise fashion, with
prompting from teachers to begin work, readily
available supervision, and a work "culture." Children
may also have less need to organize their environ-
ments and materials in school than at home (i.e.,
they may be assigned lockers or desks and materials
may be organized for them in advance).
Differences between the level of Parent and
Teacher Form scale and index scores were exam-
ined. Consistent with the literature on parent and
teacher ratings (e.g., Offord et al., 1996), parents
rated both boys and girls as having significantly
greater problems on all scales as compared with the
teacher ratings.
49
 Table 20
(17‘
7771
;)
d) O Internal Consistency (a) Coefficients for the BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms
-,9
r:21- ,-,' ,--;
cf,' ,- p., cp Parent Form a Teacher Form a
g.. cp O -0 ;•., 7, a)
E -o 0 cip p -
•gCD,_E -col g cy o '-7
rJ 0
-- 47; a
- Clinical Normative Clinical Normative
C.) '70 g
cu p p
'-i•-.•' Z •C
.--4 0 7..., l.) cg cO) ci: Scale/Index samplea sampleb sample sampled
as 'F-1) Cg i..1 Cl) ai
a) ? Cl) -0 ow
-cd o▪ op a) cn ,.-. Cl) a) a) a) a) Cl
g
a) -dg cu a) 00 a) cl)
s•-. Cl) ;.• Cl)Cl)
CD
•
6) 6
) ;•-•, En u) Inhibit .94 .91 .95 .96
ton a) 6, s•-. co
Cl) cn
czi Cl) ci)
b.0 Cl) (i) En
a) W a) g C-
a)
a) a5 a)Cl)cti Cl) ,--. co ,--. Shift .88 .81 .91 .91
Cl)
0 (5 •4-4 o ccs 0 cd
•-4-
•
.--i C4-4 0 .-C-t:$ C.)
. 4-4
CI) -4,
C. cf)
•,
g i-4 CID a a) g z 5.0
,,,_., -0
, Emotional Control .92 .89 .94 .93
-.5
_,a) a) -KE ,,Bccs. ,_8<0, „Fs
.°
O .,-.. .0 7.1S CcL. ha
Initiate .82 .80 .84 .90
,..sz -6., rn .-5 Cl) .(5 Cl)- 5 • ,--.c' cn 4
O C)
• .4
0 Q
., u
-C ,..+
›, p t.) ifb. g [6 .O C/)... 0Cl) › • o
0 , 0 . Cl)
..--4 rr cc 6) cn F.' P. a. Working Memory .92 .89 .90 .93
a) `1)
cmi s•-. a..
'F.)
-44 Cl) (5 q ccf o g cn- • •-
0, q as 0
P
..) ET)
-• rn 0 C) g' C6 0
t'' 0 > ''c. ;-,
c) •
-.,-
g a)7-, ;.. Plan/Organize .91 .90 .87 .91
• i•-4 ;--, C6 g • g C• ct
as n -T. O 0 E .1.1] 61 a.4
.4 6) 44 CU
E • .=.'
•-4-,
,--i g Cl) C6' ° '0 3 -4-= 2 TT, Organization of Materials .88 .87 .90 .92
Cn aZi ...0 0 7:1 a)_ N
a)Z s.-.a)
• ; -e
a a
C.1 ccs 4' 4" › i Cq
• Z g P
cn "0 g a) a a) ci) Monitor .85 .83 .89 .90
a) • ,-. a) • --. a) 4.., a) Cc C.) 4-1 (Z) ,-0 ccs -0 c ▪a Cl)
a) cc ..S--.) 1. 4-' (1)
-0• ▪ cd tn . ,--. ..... U g CSS Z - •., _,, •,-, _,
g c.) Z . - 4_,at.. •.. _e, • o. .4, U5 C) ',- - a Behavioral Regulation .96 .94 .97 .97
cc '-_, -a ,.. 0 tn' w U o C.) o
-tA w 00 C...) 0 C.)0
Metacognition .96 .96 .96 .98
7-1 .2
Cl cc as 0 Global Executive Composite .98 .97 .98 .98
C=, r-I -P Cl) =
1-1 -cn "'"
CC1 (5 a)
-0 g
c) a.)
an = 852. bn = 1,419. Cl/ = 475. = 720.
>"
Cl ).CD z
0 cc cc
,4 0-
c--)

:0 Test-Retest Reliability with repeated administration of the Parent and

cr) g Teacher Forms. T-score stability across multiple
cc .71.1 Cl 7:5
Test-retest reliability indicates the stability of a
-c C) •
measure over time for behaviors that are presumed administrations is relevant for several clinical pur-
CL)
as sr-. cc cc c•Nq 7-1 Cl) poses, including monitoring recovery (e.g., posttrau-
as c..0 ';--"=, 00 a) b`° to remain relatively constant (i.e., behavioral traits
CD U) Osi
cj1) vs. states). Test-retest reliability was examined in matic, post-surgical) and treatment (e.g., cognitive,
Ct3
c:t Paj ca c) both clinical and normative subsamples for the behavioral, medication) over time. Table 22 also
Parent Form, and in a subsample of the normative presents mean test-retest T-score differences for the
-o
co 0 ccCa)
:a •,•-•
7_, sample for the Teacher Form (see Table 22). Within normative and clinical subsamples of the Parent
C.) o o Form and the normative subsample of the Teacher
0.? o the parent normative subsample (n = 54), the mean
kr3
co
co test-retest correlation across the clinical scales was Form. Overall, there was little change in T scores
0_ Cl)
›,. .81 (range = .76-.85) over an average interval of 2 over the test-retest period (mean intervals = 2 weeks
Cr) 0 Lo
0 cc
Cl a4),;)- cc weeks. The test-retest correlations were .84 for the for the Parent Form normative subsample, 3 weeks
- •-`) 15 Behavioral Regulation Index, .88 for the Metacognition for the Parent Form clinical subsample, and 3.5
P-1 o
CD. ccgCl) g 1-4 Index, and .86 for the Global Executive Composite. For weeks for the Teacher Form normative subsample).
cc; CID ;=1
C0
cc cc rrt cc , II
the parent clinical subsample (n = 40), the mean test- The average T-score change for the clinical scales of
g • --. cip
0 7: 3 retest correlation for the clinical scales was .79 the Parent Form normative subsample was 1 point (0
00 g g
cc (range =.72-.84) over an average interval of 3 weeks.
6$ 6)
points for the Behavioral Regulation and Metacog-
CI) CU ,,T)
The test-retest correlations were .80 for the Behavioral nition Indexes and the Global Executive Composite);
- c' C')
CO Cl Cl Cl
C ci5) cz .a Regulation Index, .83 for the Metacognition Index, and the average T-score change was 3 points for the clin-
Cl baa
g Cf) d a) .81 for the Global Executive Composite. The test-retest ical scales, indexes, and Global Executive Composite
o correlations were strongest for the clinical scales on of the Parent Form clinical subsample. The T scores
II the Teacher Form (mean r = .87, range = .83-.92) over on the Plan/Organize scale had the greatest change
Combine d clinical sample

o pc)
• Cl) ,
an average 3.5-week interval. The test-retest corre- for both Parent Form subsamples, dropping 3 points
Combin ed clinical sa

BRIEF/BASCTRS

lations were .92 for the Behavioral Regulation Index,

BRIEF/BASCPRS

for the normative sample and 7.5 points for the

BRIEF/Co nners'

• •p -9 0 for the Metacognition Index, and .91 for the

cn clinical sample. Examination of the test-retest corre-
4
BRIE F/C BCL

x Global Executive Composite. lations for the Teacher Form normative subsample
8 '5
ci)
u) a) T-score differences in the test-retest samples were revealed similar findings to those of the Parent Form
7 e) II e \arnined to determine the degree of change in scores normative subsample with an average T-score
cc
51
50
 Table 22
0
Test-Retest Reliability Correlations and Absolute Mean Differences in
0 0
• g T Scores for the BRIEF Parent and Teacher Forms
• hi)
• cg)cc C--4 CO '.:14 CO CO 0 CCI
Cr) CI.
CO CO. CO M. 00. t- Fr!, ;.a Test-retest correlations Absolute mean T-score differences
.-,
4-4
Parent Parent Teacher Parent Parent Teacher
Scale/Index clinicala normativeb normative clinicala normativeb normative
`7V 0,1 41. (0 •
C a)
CO C- bo
cl co Inhibit .76 .84 .91 4.4 0.6 0.4
a) -a Shift .72 .78 .83 1.9 1.0 1.9
-ca)
ci)
b.0 Emotional Control .79 .79
• 44' .92 2.2 0.6 0.0
CZ CS) r-4 CO ..44 4.4 .z.f.
C., CZ -8 4 Initiate .77 .80 .87 2.7 1.2 0.8
-0 cz
Working Memory .82 .85 .86 1.8 0.6 3.1
o Plan/Organize .80 .85 .88 7.5 3.0 0.0
-0
ci.) II
1.0 CZ CO CO CV CA '4•-•I CV CV CO CO Organization of Materials .84 .79 .83 1.9 0.0 1.5
0 (°. °°. N N: Q9. °°.
cn
ou El)
txp
Monitor .80 .76 .87 2.7 1.3 1.8
fa, 5
0.) Behavioral Regulation .80 .84 .92 3.3 0.4 0.8
ct
C',1 "Tr C‘I ln .7t. CZ Metacognition .83 .88 .90 2.6 0.0 1.6
0 DI CSD M
CV 0
4-1 Global Executive Composite .81 .86 .91 3.0 0.1 0.8
---
a)
'Time 2 (retest) for the Parent Form clinical subsample (n = 40) occurred approximately 3 weeks after Time 1 (initial test
p, administration). bTime 2 for the Parent Form normative subsample (n = 54) occurred approximately 2 weeks after Time 1. cTime
110 CD kr: C-- CC -c14
00
C°. °Q. ED N,CC, CY', C°. co co 2 for the Teacher Form normative subsample (n = 41) occurred approximately 3.5 weeks after Time 1.
CD C.)
• g
•-:;1
cz
c2)
I-i a) change of 1 point for the clinical scales, indexes, and As a measure of content validity, agreement was
CZ oq to 0 co to c-- az co
(C). Ix? cx--) cc. • 0
CD C.)
Global Executive Composite. The T scores on the sought among several pediatric neuropsychologists
-4 Working Memory scale exhibited the greatest change
;-+
CD
. and among the authors as to the fit of each item
Cla)) (3.1 points lower on retest). The stability of the T within the intended scale. As described in chapter 4,
4:1)
Ca CD 00 -4cf4 CA 1-4 110 00 CO CO CO c`I
scores over the 2- to 3-week interval supports the an expert panel of 12 pediatric neuropsychologists
-CCCCCC, cCC
° . C.)
cp
repeat administration of the BRIEF with no signifi- independently assigned each potential questionnaire
• b.0 cant degree of variability expected due to the instru- item to a primary scale and, if necessary, to a sec-
Ca
0 • ,-,
0 •C:1 ment itself. ondary scale. This allowed for the theoretical pre-
CO CD
CA rzt, Cs1 CO 0) CD C, CD W.)
O -4, sumption that executive functions are not entirely
•
-1,0
Ca independent or mutually exclusive. The authors also
1-, 0 VALIDITY
Ca independently assigned items in the same manner.
0 '0
Validity refers to the accuracy with which an Items with poor agreement across all experts were
CC (7.) C) 00 CO C., C.0 cc'":34 CC
CD. . N: • cp
-4 En
instrument measures the intended construct. There flagged but not immediately eliminated from the
c.0 C..)
are several types of validity, each appropriate for dif- scales. As scales were refined via item-total correla-
a) ot
Ha)
ferent types of measures or experimental procedures. tions, interrater agreement served as an external
g ct
CO Ci c's g
In this case, the BRIEF was developed as a measure conceptual check as to scale membership for each
".:14 Cq cc CO CD ol
1t0 CD 10 -71'4
10.
'63 t- V with good content and construct validity. item. Most of the items retained in the scales have
•Ca II ry
Content Validity high interrater agreement indicating that the item
f2k tcs'
Global Executive Composite

a) c n content within each scale samples the intended

Organization of Materials

cz Content validity reflects the degree to which an

executive function domain adequately, thus support-
BehavioralRegulation

EL-2,
. instrument's item content reflects the constructs it is ing the content validity of the BRIEF. Tables 9 and
intended to measure. The BRIEF was developed to
EmotionalControl

Working Memory

Ca)
10 show the interrater agreement ratings for each
have strong content validity. Items were selected
Metacognition

a) Ca item within each scale for the expert raters, as well

Ca z. co
cn
trom clinical interviews with parents and teachers to as the authors' independent ratings.
b.o )
C.)
capture common descriptions and complaints that
rOlect behavioral expressions of executive functions.
Shift

Ca o 8
,4c2
53
52
Construct Validity
One of the most important types of validity for the
BRIEF is construct validity. One method for evaluat-
ing the construct validity of a newly developed
instrument is to examine correlations between the
new measure and existing similar measures of the
same traits. Because there were no extant rating
scale measures of executive function in children, the
multitrait-multimethod matrix (Campbell & Fiske,
1959) was used to examine convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of the BRIEF with other presumably
related versus unrelated measures.
In essence, a table of correlations demonstrating
higher associations between the BRIEF scales and a
variety of other measures with which it theoretically
should correlate and lower associations with scales
with which it should not correlate would be a step
toward construct validation. Although the BRIEF
could not be compared with existing rating scales of
executive function (i.e., none were available), it could
be compared with more general measures of behav-
ioral functioning in children. Given the presumed
impact of executive function on behavior across spe-
cific domains, certain scales within existing behavior
rating scales that measure those behaviors should
correlate, or converge, with related BRIEF scales.
For example, because working memory theoretically
underlies attentional functioning, the BRIEF Work-
ing Memory scale should correlate with other meas-
ures of attention, such as the Attention scale of the
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC;
Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992), or the Attention
Problems scale of the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL; Achenbach, 1991a). Similarly, the BRIEF
Inhibit scale should correlate with other measures of
more externalizing behaviors, such as the BASC
Hyperactivity scale and the CBCL Aggression scale.
At the same time, the BRIEF scales should not cor-
relate with measures of unrelated constructs, such as
measures of anxiety and somatic complaints.
To explore the convergent and divergent validity of
the BRIEF, the individual scales and summary
indexes were correlated in a variety of clinical sam-
ples with other rating scale measures of attentional
and behavioral functioning (see Table 19).
ADHD-Rating Scale-IV
Parents of 100 clinically referred children com-
pleted the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-IV;
DuPaul, Power, Anastopoulos, & Reid, 1998) along
54
with the Parent Form of the BRIEF. As shown in the BRIEF. Again, a variable pattern of correlations
Table 23, the BRIEF scales correlated with the revealed the expected convergent and discriminant
ADHD-IV Inattention scale in a logical fashion, with relationships. The Initiate scale correlated most
strongest correlations for the BRIEF Working strongly with the CBCL Withdrawn (r = .50, p < .01),
Memory (r = .60, p < .01), Plan/Organize (r = .63, Anxious/Depressed (r = .52, p < .01), and Attention
p < .01), Initiate (r = .55, p < .01), and Monitor (r Problems (r = .50, p < .01) scales, as seen in Table 24.
.54, p < .01) scales. The Metacognition Index also Working Memory correlated strongly with the CBCL
correlated with the ADHD-IV Inattention scale (r Attention Problems scale (r = .64,p < .01). Most other
.67, p < .01). As expected, the Behavioral Regulation BRIEF scales also showed strong correlations with
Index and the three scales that comprise it strongly the Attention Problems scale, and it should be noted
correlated with the ADHD-IV Hyperactivity that this scale incorporates items that reflect inat-
Impulsivity scale (Inhibit, r = .73, p < .01; Shift, r = tention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. The Inhibit
.59, p < .01; and Emotional Control, r = .56, p < .01). scale correlated strongly, in a conceptually consistent
Overall, the pattern of correlations suggests that one fashion, with the CBCL Attention Problems (r = .58,
set of BRIEF scales (i.e., Metacognition Index p < .01) and Aggressive Behavior (r = .73, p < .01)
scales) reflect constructs related to inattention, scales, as did Shift (r = .57, p < .01) and Emotional
and a different set (i.e., Behavioral Regulation Control (r = .67, p < .01) with the CBCL Aggressive
Index scales) reflects constructs related to impul- Behavior scale. Low correlations (rs = .11-.28)
sivity and hyperactivity. between the BRIEF scales and the CBCL Somatic
Complaints scale revealed some divergence.
Table 23 Teacher's Report Form
Correlations of BRIEF Parent Form Scales and In similar fashion to the CBCL, teachers of 192
Indexes With the ADHD-Rating Scale-IV a (ADHD-IV) clinically referred children completed the Teacher
ADHD-IV scale Form of the BRIEF and the Teacher's Report Form
(TRF; Achenbach, 1991b). Table 25 presents the cor-
Hyperactivity- relations between the BRIEF and TRF scales. Very
BRIEF scale/index Inattention Impulsivity strong relationships were revealed between the TRF
Inhibit .42** .73** Aggressive Behavior scale and the BRIEF Inhibit
.59** (r = .83, p < .01), Shift (r = .70, p < .01), Emotional
Shift .39**
Control (r = .81, p < .01), and Monitor (r = .71, p <
Emotional Control .39** .56**
.01) scales. The BRIEF Initiate (r = .69, p < .01),
Initiate .55** .36** Working Memory (r = .74, p < .01), and Plan/
Working Memory .60** .44** Organize (r = .67, p < .01) scales were strongly corre-
Plan/Organize .63** .33** lated with the TRF Attention Problems scale. The
Organization of Materials .49** .15 TRF Social Problems scale was correlated with all of
Monitor .54** .45** the BRIEF scales (rs = .35-.63), consistent with the
Behavioral Regulation .44** .70** observation that children with self-regulatory diffi-
culties often have resulting social difficulties.
Metacognition .67** .38**
Behavior Assessment System for Children
Global Executive Composite .63** .60**
Parents of 80 clinically referred children com-
Note. n = Parents of 100 clinically referred children. pleted the BRIEF and the age-appropriate BASC
aDuPaul, Power, Anastopoulos, & Reid, 1998. Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) Parent Rating Scales
**p < .01. 'PRS), and teachers of 27 referred children com-
pleted the appropriate BASC Teacher Rating Scales
TRS). The pattern of correlations suggested strong,
Child Behavior Checklist (xpected relationships between several BRIEF and
Parents of 200 clinically referred children com- B C scales, as shown in Tables 26 and 27. For the
pleted the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL: BRIEF Parent Form and BASC PRS, the Behavioral
Achenbach, 1991a) along with the Parent Form oi RL'gulation Index scales correlated strongly with the
Aggression (r = .76, p < .01) and Hyperactivity (r =
.63, p < .01) scales on the PRS, but relatively less so
with the Attention Problems scale (r = .48, p < .01)
and not at all with the Conduct Problems scale (r =
.14, p > .05). The BASC scales separate impulsivity
and hyperactivity problems from the inattention
items that comprise the Attention Problems scale,
facilitating interpretation of the relationships. The
Initiate (r = .64, p < .01), Working Memory (r = .69,
p < .01), Plan/Organize (r = .62,p < .01), and Monitor
(r = .54, p < .01) scales were all strongly correlated
with Attention Problems and modestly correlated
with Aggression (rs = .39-.47, ps < .01) on the PRS.
Importantly, correlations between the BRIEF scales
and Somatization and Conduct Problems were gen-
erally low. This is conceptually consistent, as rela-
tively lower executive contribution to these problems
would be expected. The Anxiety, Withdrawal, and
Atypicality scales of the PRS had variable relation-
ships to the BRIEF scales.
A similar, but more elevated, pattern of relation-
ships emerged from the correlations between the
BRIEF Teacher Form and the BASC TRS. Of inter-
est, most of the BRIEF scales correlated strongly
with the BASC Aggression (rs = .49-.84, ps < .05),
Conduct Problems (rs = .52-.80, ps < .01), Hyper-
activity (rs = .47-.81, ps < .05), and Attention
Problems (rs = .47-.65, ps < .05) scales, whereas cor-
relations with Anxiety and Somatization were few
and none, respectively. The BRIEF scales were
strongly correlated with the BASC Learning
Problems scale (rs = .41-.69, ps < .05) and, to a lesser
extent and in the inverse direction, with the Study
Skills scale (rs = —.30 - —.54), consistent with the
assumption that children with greater executive dys-
function might be expected to have greater problems
with classroom learning and poorer study skills.
Conners' Rating Scale
Parents of 25 clinically referred children com-
pleted both the Parent Form of the BRIEF and the
93-item Conners' Rating Scale (CRS; Conners, 1989).
Table 28 presents the correlations between the
BRIEF and the CRS scales. Correlations revealed a
mixed pattern of generally moderate correlations,
the strongest of which were between the BRIEF
Behavioral Regulation Index and its underlying
scales, and the CRS Restless-Disorganized (r = .71,
p < .01), Conduct Disorder (r = .77, p < .01), and
Hyperactive-Immature (r = .57, p < .01) scales. No
significant correlations emerged between the BRIEF
scales and the CRS Obsessive-Compulsive and
55
 Table 24
Correlations of BRIEF Parent Form With the Child Behavior Checklista (CBCL)
CBCL scale

Anxious- Social Thought Attention Delinquent Aggressive

Somatic
Depressed Problems Problems Problems Behavior Behavior
BRIEF scale/index Withdrawn Complaints
.35** .47** .35** .58** .58** .73**
Inhibit .15* .11
.56** .57** .48** .59** .43** .57**
Shift .41** .14
.16* .51** .48** .40** .57** .48**
Emotional Control .32**
.23** .52** .49** .26** .50** .37**
Initiate .50**
.40** .44** .34** .64** .39** .44**
Working Memory .42** .20**
.28** .48** .47** .31** .56** .35**
Plan/Organize .47**
.14 .31** .25** .23** .40** .25**
Organization of Materials .24**
.42** .54** .34** .65** .40** .54**
Monitor .35** .18*
.52** .57** .45** .65** .57**
Behavioral Regulation .31** .15*
.26** .51** .50** .34** .63** .41**
Metacognition .19**
.57** .60** .44** .72** .54** .68**
Global Executive Composite .50** .23**

Note. n = Parents of 200 clinically referred children.

aAchenbach, 1991a.
"p < .05. **p <.01.

Table 25
Correlations of BRIEF Teacher Form With the Teacher's Report Forma (TRF)

TRF scale

Somatic Anxious- Social Thought Attention Delinquent Aggressive

BRIEF scale/index Withdrawn Complaints Depressed Problems Problems Problems Behavior Behavior
Inhibit .01 .06 .24** .50** .42** .63** .67** .83**
Shift .34** .23** .59** .63** .55** .49** .52**
Emotional Control .17* .16* .50** .62** .49** .49** .62**
Initiate .41** .22** .33** .49** .30** .69** .38**
Working Memory .22** .14 .18 .44** .32** .74** .29**
Plan/Organize .30** .22** .33** .45** .29** .67** .40** .41**
Organization of Materials .12* .12 .17* .35** .28** .60** .40**
Monitor .18* .20'''* .30** .58** .43** .78** .57**
Behavioral Regulation .18* .16* .47** .64** .53** .60** .67** .86**
Metacognition .31** .20** .29** .51** .35** .80** .43**
Global Executive Composite .26** .21** .42** .65** .50** .80** .63** .78**
Note. n = Teachers of 192 clinically referred children.
aAchenbach, 1991b.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
 Table 26
Correlations of BRIEF Parent Form With the Behavior Assessment System for Children-Parent Rating Scalesa (BASC-PRS)
BASC-PRS scale
Attention
Conduct
Depression Somatization Atypicality Withdrawal Problems
Aggression Problems Hyperactivity Anxiety
BRIEF scale/index
.08 .39** .20 .39** .09
Inhibit .72** .14 .68**
.46** .43** .52** .44** .47**
Shift .58** .05
.62** .62** .38** .37** .25*
Emotional Control .69** .15 .48**
.50** .35** .33** .45** .64**
.41** -.05 .26* .37**
Initiate
.25* .27 .17 .41** .20
Working Memory .43** .12 .36**
.47** .44** .28* .33** .37**
Plan/Organize .39** -.03 .18
.15 .24 .24* .17 .20
Organization of Materials .34** -.08 .25*
.30** .19 .30** .27* .54**
.47** .10 .30** .27*
Monitor
.58** .58** .37** .46** .28*
Behavioral Regulation .76** .14 .63's*
.43** .43** .30** .37** .36**
Metacognition .48** -.01 .30**
.53** .53** .36** .45** .39**
Global Executive Composite .65** .07 .48**

Note. n = Parents of 80 clinically referred children.

'Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 27
Correlations of BRIEF Teacher Form With the Behavior Assessment System for Children-Teacher Rating Scalesa (BASC-TRS)

BASC-TRS scale
Conduct Attention Learning
BRIEF scale/index Aggression Problems Hyperactivity Anxiety Depression Somatization Atypicality Withdrawal Problems Problems Study Skills
Inhibit .06 .67** .23 .58** .59** .54** .41* -.30
Shift .68** .80** .53** .32 .81** .10 .56** .711** .50** .66** -.44*
Emotional Control .84** .78** .66** .22 .81** .29 .52** .59** .47* .56** -.31
Initiate .41* .30 .63** .12 .46* .66** .55** .69**
Working Memory .49* .52** .55** .34 .53** .07 .66** .64** .65** .61** -.45*
Plan/Organize .62** .70** .54** .44* .77'"' .13 .52'"'s .78** .60" .68** -.54**
Organization of Materials .33 .61** .34 .48* .57**
Monitor .70** .71** .65** .19 .71** .16 .55** .72** .57** .61** -.41*
Behavioral Regulation .73** .20 .81** .22 .59** .68** .54** .58** -.38
Metacognition .61** .66** .56** .39* .70** .17 .59** .74** .64" .68** -.54**
Global Executive Composite .75** .77** .68** .30 .79** .20 .62** .75** .62** .66**
Note. n = Teachers of 27 clinically referred children.
'Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
 Antisocial scales; most of the remaining correlations combined clinical subsamples. The third dataset was
were in the moderate range. employed not only to examine the convergent and
Collectively, these correlational analyses provide discriminant validity of the BRIEF (as discussed ear-
* •X-
* * c
> :i 4
evidence of convergent and divergent validity for the lier) but also to help clarify its own internal structure
00 10 CV cs)
I.C.J 10 /0
Parent and Teacher Forms of the BRIEF. Executive by explicitly increasing variability with the addition
functions, as measured on the BRIEF, correlated in of nonexecutive behavioral variables. The reader is
an expected fashion with other measures of general referred to Table 19 for the demographic characteris-
behavioral functioning, and typically correlated less tics of the subsamples.
*
* *
• r-i CO CM strongly or not at all with measures of emotional Parent Form
• • C.0 "di c0.
functioning. The patterns of relationships were diffi- PFA was performed on the 1,419 protocols in the
cult to assess and grasp without further analysis. Parent Form normative sample. The intercorrelation
Therefore, the correlation matrices reported here matrix can be found in Table 21. Because of the high
*
were subjected to factor analysis, as described in the correlations between variables and the high commu-
* * *
▪ „
0") 0 t— c0 1-1 following section, to assist in interpreting these rela- nalities, the traditional method of determining the
t--. -70 kn. 1-7 c•f).
tionships further. number of factors (i.e., eigenvalues > 1.0) was over-
ridden in favor of theoretical considerations
(Gorsuch, 1983). A two-factor model was examined in
FACTOR ANALYSIS
all of the analyses. Solutions beyond two factors pro-
c0 c- Cq 00 •—• if) 1-1 CYJ The construct validity of the executive functions is duced factors with single variables; consequently,
GNI CD Cl CD CZ, Cr, Cs]
a complex issue given their nature as "supervisory" such solutions were not deemed viable. The selection
Functions. This complexity gives rise to a debate criterion for inclusion of a variable on a factor was
regarding acceptance of executive functions as a uni- set at a loading greater than .40. Table 29 presents
tary or a multidimensional construct. Rabbitt (1997) the factor loadings for the two-factor solution, which
CI CO 00 10 -71., 00
posits that, although the various executive functions accounted for 74% of the variance. Examination of
0-) 00 /0 0,1
CV CV cs•I.
r-i
. C).
. . . . CV
. r-4
. r-i. .
can be observed behaviorally in different tasks the solution indicated five scales (Initiate, Working
1 1 1 1 1 I
and/or situations, the underlying processes may not
be distinct or independent of each other. Yet, prag- Table 29
matically, the problem-solving process argues for Summary of Factor Loadings for
* * multiple executive process components to achieve Two-Factor Model for the BRIEF Parent Form
rrs 00 GO r."1 C.0
`11
CO CO CO `tt "Cti. 'GI', CO 00. -71', multistep performance. It may be that certain execu-
C./3 tive functions (e.g., inhibition) play a primary, under- Normative samplea Clinical sampleb
lying "enabling" role (Barkley, 1997; Burgess, 1997) Factor Factor
that facilitates sustained, strategic problem solving. Scale 1 2 1 2
* Factor analysis was used to examine the construct
Co cn .q4 N. CO LO 00 )-0 CO CO Plan/Organize .974 .969
C°.
C 't validity of the BRIEF, specifically the issue of its Working Memory .879 .817
scale structure. Initial exploratory factor analyses
Initiate .812 .713
Were conducted with normative and clinical samples
for the Parent and Teacher Forms to provide initial Organization .637 .683
.„.{. * of Materials
* * * information about the structure of the BRIEF.
.0,1 CS) cq 71-, t-- ,--I c000
-71'., Monitor .762 .582
in. ,:t,. c0. LO. cq. c0. Cq . cq. Lo. c0.
Exploratory Factor Analysis Emotional Control .995 .932
Principal factor analysis (PFA) was conducted as Shift .466 .774
the exploratory method. An oblique rotational (direct
GlobalExecutive Composite

Inhibit .487 .688

oblimin) procedure was selected given the likelihood
BehavioralRegulation

of correlated factors. Factor analyses of three data Factor correlation (r) .67 .71
,ets for the Parent and Teacher Forms were per-
EmotionalControl

Cumulative % of variance 74%

BRI E F scale index

76%
Working Memory

formed on (a) the normative subsamples, (b) com-

Plan/Organize

CS
•r, Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are retained on a
l

•-4, limed clinical subsamples, and (c) the BRIEF in

factor. Factor 1 = Metacognition; Factor 2 = Behavioral
combination with other behavioral rating scale Regulation.
C.)
• ccS measures (i.e., CBCL/TRF, BASC, ADHD-IV) for
4,
an = 1,419. b n = 852.

61
60
Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, Table 30 of the BRIEF (see Table 19 for a description of the CBCL scales. Thus, metacognition and behavioral
and Monitor) that loaded exclusively on the first fac- Summary of Factor Loadings for subsamples used).
regulation factors emerged and were separate and
tor. The Inhibit scale loaded on both the first and Two-Factor Model for the BRIEF Teacher Form Parent Form distinguishable from the "externalizing" and "inter-
second factors with a greater loading on the first fac- Normative samplea Clinical sampleb The BRIEF and CBCL sample was submitted to a nalizing" factors of the CBCL.
tor. The Shift and Emotional Control scales defined PFA with oblique rotation to allow for intercorrela-
Factor Factor The factor structure of the BRIEF Parent Form
the second factor. The two factors were correlated tion of factors. Three and four factor solutions were
2
and BASC Parent Rating Form can be found in Table
(r = .67) Scale 1 2 1 examined with selection criteria for inclusion of a 32. Four factors with eigenvalues above 1.0 were
PFA of the Parent Form clinical sample (n = 852) Plan/Organize .980 .899 variable on a factor set at a loading greater than .40. extracted and rotated obliquely, accounting for 73%
revealed 76% of the variance accounted for by the Working Memory .928 .869 The four-factor solution, which accounted for 73% of of the variance. The five BRIEF metacognition scales
two-factor solution, as shown in Table 29. The .910 .830 the variance, was selected due to its separation of the and the BASC Attention Problems scale defined
Initiate
Initiate, Plan/Organize, Working Memory, Monitor, variables in the most clinically meaningful manner. Factor 1. Factor 2 was defined by two BASC
Organization
and Organization of Materials scales defined the first of Materials .725 .881 Table 31 presents the pattern matrix of the four- Externalizing scales (Hyperactivity and Conduct
factor, and the Inhibit, Emotional Control, and Shift factor structure. Factor us defined by the BRIEF Problems) with a secondary loading for the BASC
Monitor .648 .598
scales defined the second factor. The two factors were Shift, Emotional Control, and Inhibit scales. Factor 2 Atypicality scale, whereas Factor 3 was defined by
Emotional Control 1.034 1.013
correlated (r = .71). PFA of the combined sample (n = is defined by the five BRIEF metacognition scales. the BASC Internalizing (Anxiety, Depression,
Shift .671 .865 Factor 3 is defined by the CBCL Internalizing scales
2,271) revealed a similar factor structure. The inclu- Somatization, and Withdrawal) and Atypicality
sion of the clinical sample provided greater variabil- Inhibit .548 .762 (i.e., Withdrawn and Anxious/Depressed) and the scales. Factor 4 was defined by two of the BRIEF
ity with which to model the factor structure. CBCL Social, Attention, and Thought Problems behavioral regulation scales (Inhibit and Emotional
Factor correlation (r) .62 .56
scales. Factor 4 is defined by the CBCL Externalizing Control) together with the BASC Aggression scale.
Teacher Form Cumulative % of variance 83% 79% scales (i.e., Delinquent Behavior and Aggressive The BRIEF Shift scale had only a subthreshold load-
The two-factor PFA performed on the 720 partic-
Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are retained on a factor. Behavior) and the BRIEF Inhibit scale. This analysis ing (-.39) on the fourth factor. The two BRIEF factors
ipants of the Teacher Form normative sample supports the BRIEF scales as differentiated from the
Factor loadings can exceed 1.0 with oblique rotation. Factor 1=
accounted for 83% of the variance. The intercorre- Metacognition; Factor 2 = Behavioral Regulation.
lation matrix is presented in Table 21. Table 30 an = 720. b n
presents the factor loadings for this solution.
Examination of the solution indicated that five scales Table 31
(Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organi- (i.e., typically resulting in factors defined by single Principal Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation of the
zation of Materials, and Monitor) loaded on the first variables) did not add to the interpretability of the BRIEF Parent Form With the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; n 200)
factor. The Emotional Control, Shift, and Inhibit scales. The Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize.
Factor
scales again defined the second factor. The two fac- Monitor, and Organization of Materials scales Con-
Scale 1 2 3
tors were moderately correlated (r = .62). sistently loaded on one factor. These scales in combi- 4
nation define a metacognitive problem-solving BRIEF Shift .572
Analysis of the Teacher Form clinical sample (n =
dimension. The Emotional Control, Shift, and Inhibit BRIEF Emotional Control .504
475) was conducted by principal components factor
scales, which define a behavioral regulation factor, BRIEF Inhibit .422
analysis due to the presence of a Haywood case (see .529
consistently loaded on a second factor. The Inhibit BRIEF Plan/Organize
Gorsuch, 1983, p. 102 for discussion of topic). Results .889
scale had secondary loadings on both factors in a BRIEF Working Memory
can also be found in Table 30. The two-factor solution .757
number of the solutions.
accounted for 79% of the variance. Regardless of the BRIEF Initiate .687
type of factor analysis performed, the factor struc- Principal Factor Analysis of the BRIEF and BRIEF Monitor .681
ture obtained for the clinical sample was similar to Other Behavior Rating Scales BRIEF Organization of Materials .644
the factor structure obtained for the normative sam- In order to further examine the structure of the CBCL Withdrawn
ple. The first factor was defined by the Initiate, .748
BRIEF, behavioral variables not considered to be pri -
CBCL Anxious/Depressed
Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Monitor, and marily of an executive function nature were submit - .683
Organization of Materials scales; the second factor CBCL Social Problems .533
ted to PFA along with the BRIEF scales. Addirq:
was defined by the Inhibit, Emotional Control, and behavioral variables other than those assessed (in CBCL Thought Problems .486
Shift scales. The Monitor scale had a secondary load- the BRIEF can serve to broaden the range 01 CBCL Attention Problems .420
ing on Factor 2. The two factors were moderately cor- variability in the dataset, thus facilitating further CBCL Delinquent Behavior .916
related (r = .56). differentiation of the BRIEF scales. The CBCL. CBCL Aggressive Behavior .816
In summary, the factor analyses of the Parent and BASC Parent Rating Scales, and ADHD-IV Holl''
Version were examined with the BRIEF Parelil Variance (%) 50.0 9.2 9.0
Teacher Forms consistently supported a two-factor 5.1 E = 73.3
model. Solutions with greater numbers of factors Form; the TRF was examined with the Teacher Foil" Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are retained on a factor.

62 63
 Table 32 Table 33 Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Monitor,
Principal Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation of the BRIEF Parent Form With Principal Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation and Organization of Materials scales cluster on the
the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) Parent Rating Scale (n = 80) of the BRIEF Parent Form With the same factor, metacognition. Three other BRIEF
Factor
ADHD Rating Scale-IV (n = 100) scales (Inhibit, Shift, and Emotional Control) tended
to cluster together on a separate factor, behavioral
1 2 3 4 Factor
Scale regulation. The Inhibit scale demonstrated a ten-
.904 Scale 1 2 dency to load on both the metacognition and behav-
BRIEF Working Memory
BRIEF Plan/Organize .878 Plan/Organize .894 ioral regulation factors at times, suggesting that it
.799 Working Memory .770 may have specific relationships with both factors.
BRIEF Monitor
Organization of Materials .738
Finally, behavioral regulation and metacognition
BRIEF Initiate .791
consistently demonstrated a moderate correlation
BASC Attention Problems .698 Initiate .653
with each other, consistent with their presumably
BRIEF Organization of Materials .516 Monitor .557 interactive and interdependent relationship.
BASC Hyperactivity .720 ADHD-IV Inattention .603
The emergence of externalizing and internalizing
BASC Conduct Problems .607 Inhibit -.868
factors (consistent with the CBCL, TRF, and BASC
BASC Anxiety .764 Shift -.805 structures) that clearly separate from executive fac-
BASC Depression .696 Emotional Control -.787 tors (consistent with the BRIEF's intended purpose)
BASC Somatization .661 ADHD-IV Hyperactivity/ provides evidence supporting the idea that these
Impulsivity -.765 measures tap different functions. At the same time,
BASC Atypicality .467 .531
.521 the close relationship between behavioral regulation
BASC Withdrawal Variance (%) 58.3 13.9 I = 72.2
-.769 and the CBCL and TRF externalizing scales suggests
BRIEF Inhibit
Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are retained on a some measure of convergence and is theoretically
BRIEF Emotional Control -.686 factor.
BASC Aggression -.565
Table 34
BRIEF Shift -.392
Principal Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation of the
Variance (%) 44.1 11.9 10.6 6.0 = 72.6 BRIEF Teacher Form With the Teacher's Rating Form (TRF; n = 192)

Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are retained on a factor. Factor
Scale 1 2 3 4
again differentiated well from the BASC, as they did Externalizing scales loaded on Factor 1, whereas the TRF Aggressive Behavior .872
from the CBCL. BRIEF Shift and Emotional Control scales both TRF Delinquent Behavior .712
loaded on Factor 4. The five BRIEF metacognitive
Finally, the ADHD-IV was also administered BRIEF Inhibit .679
scales all loaded together with the TRF Attention
with the BRIEF. Convergent validity was expected BRIEF Working Memory -.905
Problems scale on Factor 2. Factor 3 was defined by
in this analysis given the correlations between the BRIEF Plan/Organize -.799
the TRF Internalizing scales, as well as the TRF
BRIEF scales and the ADHD-IV Inattention and BRIEF Initiate
Social Problems and Thought Problems scales. In -.791
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity scales. Table 33 presents the
this four-factor solution, the metacognition factor BRIEF Monitor -.641
PFA results indicating that the BRIEF scales differ-
was clearly present but the behavioral regulation TRF Attention Problems -.631
entiate into the two factors (metacognition and
behavioral regulation), which account for 72% of the factor was split. Examination of a three-factor solu- BRIEF Organization of Materials -.581
variance. The Inattention scale of the ADHD-IV tion allowed for the three behavioral regulation TRF Anxious/Depressed .755
loads on the metacognition factor, whereas the scales to remain together, along with the TRF TRF Withdrawn .737
ADHD-IV Impulsivity/Hyperactivity scale loads on Externalizing scales. TRF Social Problems .533
the behavioral regulation factor. Overall, the PFA analyses provide general support TRF Thought Problems .381
Teacher Form for (a) a consistent two-factor structure for the TRF Somatic Complaints .375
The Teacher Form of the BRIEF and the TRF were BRIEF, (b) convergence with other scales of inatten - BRIEF Emotional Control -.668
submitted to a PFA. Similar to the CBCL, four tion (Working Memory) and impulsivity (Inhibit ).
BRIEF Shift
and (c) the divergence of behavioral/emotional func- -.642
factors were extracted, accounting for 77% of the
variance. The results, as presented in Table 34, tioning from executive functioning. The factor struc- Variance (%) 50.5 11.1 10.1 5.2 = 76.9
indicate that the BRIEF Inhibit scale and the TRF ture of the BRIEF consistently reveals that the Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are retained on a factor.
64 65
consistent. Children who have difficulty with inhibit- Diagnoses of ADHD were based on observations,
ing impulsive responses and flexibly managing emo- interviews, standardized behavior and ADHD rating f. d
C0 C) a.)
tions might also obtain high scores on the CBCL scales, and neuropsychological evaluation. Mean • -Try
.,_, 7:1-0
›- •--' _
.-- 0 ,.,,
-,
externalizing scales. item raw scores and standard deviations for each -1-'
o cn u, be
..'

group are presented in Table 36. Children with cl

-, "-s-,
cn •0
c-rcs a)"
be
• • ,-, .•0
,-,cz
ADHD were rated as having significantly more prob- ,4 .77' P• F.A
BRIEF PROFILES OF 0
O C-) ,_.a) c-1-1
i-z F.,
lems than controls on all but one of the BRIEF a) a) -cs
,c) a)
DIAGNOSTIC GROUPS scales. Furthermore, the Behavioral Regulation § "F-, 0 -gc.)
•.

Group profiles of children with various diagnoses Index and underlying scales differentiated ADHD- 7i r.-N 0.1 CZ
0 '.--1 0
4-)
• . cn ;•-. cn
Pre dominantly Inattentive from ADHD-Combined g -a) 0 __,
can be instructive regarding executive functioning . 4-) r-g
C.) -4- -4-
0

subtypes. In addition, the profile of executive deficits in a)a) o -4.-

characteristics within each diagnostic group relative a)
▪ a)0
g
the ADHD groups indicated symptoms and problems §;-, a
to normative groups. In addition, such comparisons • t-i c.,-, 0
•a)
.--1 rn • ,--, ._ ...,
between diagnostic groups provide empirical evi- exceeding the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria of inatten- -4- al
-4-
0., a•
0 ;•-, cn
dence for the validity and clinical utility of the tion, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Specifically, the -,0
H o 0 g
BRIEF. The results of a variety of clinical studies BRIEF identified more pervasive problems with 0 g o

incorporating the BRIEF are reported in the follow- executive function, including deficits in metacogni-
CZ CO CV
ing sections. Table 35 describes the demographic tion and emotional modulation. Broadening the scope Ci)
h CD 00
CD 0
CO CD CO
c`l c`l CS 00
acan 1- 1-1 1-1 v.1
characteristics of various diagnostic groups assessed of evaluation to include an assessment of the executive 1
c c; 1-1 1-1 C=7

in these clinical studies using the BRIEF. To date, functions in children with ADHD leads to more com- 0). CO CO r••••! 9D CO r•-•!
ca c,'S I"- 40 CD 6") cc
clinical populations that have been studied using the prehensive problem identification and more focused CYD C O'D Cr) Cr) ceS cc.3 ca cr3
CD 00 r-i
CY6 C C,S
BRIEF include children with ADHD, traumatic brain treatment for critical aspects of this syndrome.
injury, Tourette's Disorder (with and without ADHD), c) cc 0
In a separate study with the Teacher Form of the C- 00 19 c9 cc? t--•
Reading Disorder, low birth weight, high functioning G.)
r•-.1 t• CV CV 1-1
LCD
CNi
•-• Ca CV Ca
BRIEF (Pratt et al., 2000a), 120 clinically referred >••••
autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorders, and
children ages 5 to 16 years (80 boys, 40 girls) diagnosed -71-, co co C-- LCD 6 co co
Mental Retardation, as well as children with docu- 4:C cg 6 6
0 CO r-1
with either ADHD-I (n = 42) or ADHD-C (n = 78), cc; cx5 cx3 4 4 4 c6
mented frontal lesions versus extrafrontal lesions. r-I
based on observations, interviews, standardized rat-
BRIEF data for these clinical groups are presented to
ing scales, and neuropsychological evaluation, were
demonstrate the potential scale elevations to con-
compared to 101 controls (71 boys, 30 girls) matched C- CV CV
sider in the clinical evaluation of such disorders. The co
CO et et GO CO 0-)
"--1 CO co L-- L--CT) 0 CV
cq co c\I CO Ca CO 0 Ca
profiles, however, should not be considered the only on gender, age, SES, and ethnicity. The pattern of co 4 CO C-9 C.9 CC

possible scale configuration for the respective clinical findings was similar to that of the Parent Form (see
C.C) 1•••'4 1.. 1
Table 37). Children with ADHD, regardless of sub- 1•••••1 ,- ,-1 1-- CD .71, 00 CO CV CC) L"- OS C..0
groups. Any individual clinical case can vary along a 1-1 •-1 r-, CO Ca Ca Ca Ca
number of different environmental, medical, neuro- type, had significantly more reported problems than
logical, cognitive and/or behavioral dimensions, did controls on all scales of the BRIEF Teacher Form
affecting the precise manifestation of executive dys- Furthermore, the Monitor scale and the three CO CO CO CV CYD Cr) Cr) C) GO
C.9 19 LCD
function. Given that the BRIEF scales have different Behavioral Regulation Index scales differentiated CO C.9 LCD C9 L-••• C.0 CO C.9
CV CO
C.9 LCD 0- 4 CO CO
CO CO CO CO
numbers of items, and therefore different total raw ADHD-Inattentive from ADHD-Combined subtype,
scores, data for the clinical subsamples are presented with the Combined subtype scoring higher on all of t•-• LCD LCD CO
Ca Ca Ca C•1 +—I CV LCD C9 CO LCD -cf, (Jo
r-i CO CV •71•, r-i
these scales. Again, the BRIEF identified more per- r-i
instead as mean item raw scores. Thus, the means
L"- C.9 C- -0
presented range from 1 to 3, allowing for more direct vasive problems with executive function than are 04 ''':)`• CO LCD IfD
CO CO CO CO
CC CSD CZ) co
CV
Ca Ca LCD ••7I•I .7j•I <11
comparison of elevations among scales. described in the DSM-IV criteria, documenting
deficits in metacognition and problems with modula-
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder tion of emotions.
Based on BRIEF Parent Form scores, 53 children
(32 boys, 21 girls) ages 6 to 11 years who were Traumatic Brain Injury

Normative controls
The BRIEF Parent Form was completed by pm'

Normative controls

Normative controls
referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation

Normat ive controls

Parent samples
and diagnosed with either ADHD-I (n = 27) or ADHD- ents of 34 children (28 boys, 6 girls) with severe a.)
4-4 cip
Z:) -c.5)
C (n = 26) were compared to 77 normal controls (45 traumatic brain injury (TBI), 33 children (22 boys. 11 CD
0 44
boys, 32 girls) recruited from two local schools and girls) with mild to moderate TBI, 35 orthopedic con-
matched for gender, age, SES, and ethnicity (Pratt, trols (20 boys, 15 girls), and 35 normal controls (2,
Campbell-LaVoie, Isquith, Gioia, & Guy, 2000a). boys, 11 girls) matched for age, gender, and SEL' CD

66
67
 Table 35 (continued)
Demographic Characteristics of the Diagnostic Groups

Gender
Boys Girls Age (years) SESa
M SD M SD Description
Sample N n
Parent samples (continued)
Documented Brain Lesions
71 6 29 11.0 2.8 Brain lesion samples recruited from outpatient
Frontal lesion 21 15
73 3 27 11.2 2.3 clinic; controls matched for age and gender
Extrafrontal lesion 11 8
Normative controls 21 15 71 6 29 10.7 2.7

73 7 27 11.6 2.9 HFA sample recruited from hospital outpatient

High Functioning Autism (HFA) 26 19
14 78 3 22 11.2 3.3 clinic; controls matched for age and gender
Study controls 18b

78 9 22 9.2 3.4 3.0 1.4 PDD sample recruited from hospital outpatient
Pervasive Developmental 40 31
clinic (10 HFA, 17 Asperger's Disorder,
Disorders (PDD)
78 9 22 9.2 3.4 3.3 1.2 13 PDD NOS); controls matched for
Normative controls 40 31
age, gender, and SES

67 15 33 9.2 3.4 3.5 1.2 PKU sample recruited from hospital

Early-treated 45 30
outpatient follow-up clinic; controls
Phenylketonuria (PKU)
30 67 15 33 9.2 3.4 3.5 1.0 matched for age, gender, and SES
Normative controls 45

10 63 6 37 9.5 3.3 3.0 1.5 Patients recruited from outpatient

Mental Retardation 16
63 6 37 9.5 3.3 3.2 0.9 neuropsychology clinic; controls matched
Normative controls 16 10
for age, gender, SES, and ethnicity
(continued)

Table 35 (continued)
Demographic Characteristics of the Diagnostic Groups
Gender
Boys Girls Age (years) SESa
Sample N n M SD M SD Description
Teacher samples
ADHD
ADHD-I 42 29 69 13 31 9.3 2.5 Hospital outpatient clinic referrals; controls
ADHD-C 78 51 65 27 35 8.7 2.4 drawn from normative sample, matched for
Normal controls 101 71 70 30 30 8.9 2.5 age, gender, SES, and ethnicity
High Functioning Autism (HFA) 20b 14 70 5 30 11.6 2.9 HFA sample recruited from hospital outpatient
Study controls 16b 12 75 3 25 11.2 3.3 clinic (subsample of Parent sample); controls
matched for age and gender
Pervasive Developmental 26 17 65 9 35 8.3 3.0 PDD sample recruited from hospital outpatient
Disorders (PDD)
clinic sample (subsample of Parent PDD
Normative controls 26 17 65 9 35 8.5 2.9 sample), controls matched for age, gender, and
SES
'Socioeconomic status (SES) measured using the Hollingshead four factor index (Hollingshead, 1975) with the following class designations: 1= "Upper," 2 = "Upper middle,"
3 = "Middle middle," 4 = "Lower middle," and 5 = "Lower." bGender not assigned for 1 child. eSES not determined.
 Table 36 Table 38
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for ADHD, Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Control Groups
Predominantly Inattentive- and Combined-Types, and Control Groups Participant group
Participant group Severe TBI Mild/moderate TBI Orthopedic controls' Matched controls
(n = 34) (n = 33) (n = 35) (n = 35)
ADHD ADHD
Combinedb Control' Scale/Index SD SD SD SD
Inattentive'
SD SD Inhibit 1.61a 0.60 0.48 1.460 0.51 L28b 0.35
Scale/Index SD 1.51a,b
2.38b 0.49 1.55c 0.43 Shift 1.67a 0.50 1.4640 0.42 1.460 0.51 1'36b 0.32
Inhibit 1.91a 0.53
1.96b 0.46 1.53c 0.39 Emotional Control 1.71a 0.51 1.600 0.49 1.480 0.44 L35b 0.41
Shift 1.73a 0.44
2.12b 0.43 1.68a 0.42 Initiate 1.79a 0.51 1.700 0.53 1.620 0.41 1'49b 0.37
Emotional Control 1.78a 0.56
1.97a 0.45 1.59b 0.36 Working Memory 1.86a 0.47 1.61b 0.49 1.57b 0.51 L38b 0.37
Initiate 2.05a 0.43
2.37a 0.37 1.61b 0.47 Plan/Organize 1.89a 0.48 1.640 0.48 L51b 0.45
Working Memory 2.39a 0.37 1.75a,b 0.53
2.16a 0.45 1.59b 0.43 Organization of Materials 1.87a 0.61 1.96a 0.58 1.90a 0.47 1.76a 0.52
Plan/Organize 2.26a 0.44
2.45a 0.53 1.95b 0.50 Monitor 1.90a 0.43
1.78a 0.46 1.64a 0.45 1.64a 0.42
Organization of Materials 2.44a 0.55
2.41a 0.45 1.84b 0.51 Behavioral Regulation 1.67a 0.50 1.520, 0.43 1.460 0.43 1.32b 0.30
Monitor 2.23a 0.46
2.17b 0.35 1.60c 0.35 Metacognition 1.87a 0.44 0.46 1.660 0.42 1 53 0.37
Behavioral Regulation 1.82a 0.44 1.75a,b
2.26a 0.35 1.68b 0.38 Global Executive Composite 1.79, 0.44 1.660, 0.41 0.40 1i45b 0.32
Metacognition 2.27a 0.34 1.58a,b
2.22a 0.29 1.65b 0.35
Global Executive Composite 2.09a 0.35 Prorated FSH4b 100.73 20.39 98.30 19.71 102.94 16.18
Note. Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post hoc testing at p < .05. Note. Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post hoc testing at p < .05. Severe TBI is defined
a n = 27. b n = 26. Cn = 77. as lowest post-resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS; Teasdale & Jennett, 1974) score < 9; mild/moderate TBI is defined as
lowest GCS score of 9-12 or higher accompanied by CT abnormality, neurological abnormality, or a loss of consciousness for more
than 15 minutes.
Table 37 a Orthopedic controls required at least one overnight hospital stay with no symptoms of concussion. b Prorated FSIQ calculated with
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Teacher Form for ADHD, VVISC-IIIJWAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997) prorated scores; data not obtained for matched controls.
Predominantly Inattentive- and Combined-Types, and Control Groups
Participant group

ADHD ADHD ( Taylor, 2000b). Children with severe TBI had signif- girls) with ADHD only; (c) 21 children (15 boys, 6
Combinedb Control' icantly higher scores on the Working Memory scale girls) with Tourette's Disorder only (TD); and (d) 56
Inattentive'
SD SD than did children in the mild to moderate TBI and age-, gender-, and SES-matched controls (38 boys, 18
Scale/Index SD
both control groups (see Table 38). Compared to girls). Table 39 presents mean scores and standard
0.68 2.28b 0.69 1.38, 0.57
Inhibit 1.86a matched controls, the severe TBI group had signifi- deviations for each group. A diagnosis of ADHD, with
0.56 1.86b 0.58 1.30, 0.41
Shift 1.61a cantly higher scores on all of the scales comprising or without TD, was associated with significant dif-
0.63 1.94b 0.64 1.30, 0.45 the Behavioral Regulation Index, as well as a num-
Emotional Control 1.68a ferences among groups. Specifically, the ADHD only
0.56 2.18a 0.53 1.42b 0.45 ber of the metacognition scales (i.e., Initiate, Plan/ and ADHD/TD groups were similar in exhibiting sig-
Initiate 2.08a
0.54 2.21a 0.51 1.37b 0.47 Organize, and Working Memory). Thus, children nificantly higher scores on all of the behavioral regu-
Working Memory 2.16a
0.56 1.41b 0.45 with severe TBI showed global executive dysfunction lation (Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control) and
1.96a 0.53 2.11a
Plan/Organize a;; compared to matched controls. Orthopedic con- metacognition (Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/
0.61 1.89a 0.62 1.35b 0.54
Organization of Materials 1.78a trols received ratings between the matched controls
1.46c 0.48 Organize, Organization of Materials, Monitor)
2.03a 0.59 2.24b 0.53
Monitor and the TBI groups, with a single statistically signif- scales. Children with TD only were not significantly
0.55 2.02b 0.57 1.32c 0.43
Behavioral Regulation 1.72a icant difference from the severe TBI group on the different from the matched controls on any scales.
0.49 2.11a 0.49 1.391, 0.44 Working Memory scale.
Metacognition 2.01a Thus, TD alone does not appear to present greater
0.48 2.10b 0.47 1.38c 0.40 risk for executive dysfunction than that found within
Global Executive Composite 1.90a Tourette's Disorder
p < .05. the normal population.
Note. Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post hoc testing at
Mahone (2000) administered the Parent Form of
the BRIEF to parents of (a) 16 children (11 boys, 4 Reading Disorder
= 42. b n = 78. en = 101.
girls, 1 unassigned) with combined Tourette's Disorder Thirty-four clinically referred children ages 6 to 11
and ADHD (TD/ADHD); (b) 19 children (12 boys, 7 years (13 girls, 21 boys) diagnosed with Reading
71
70
 Table 39 Table 40 greater executive deficits than children without
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for burette's Disorder and Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for brain lesions. There was a tendency for children with
ADHD Combined (TD+ADHD), ADHD Only, TO Only, and Matched Control Groups Reading Disorder (RD) and Control Groups frontal lobe lesions to be more disinhibited than
children with extrafrontal lesions.
Participant group Participant group
RD (n = 34) Control (n = 77)
High Functioning Autism
ADHD onlyb TO onlyc Matched controls d
TD+ADHDa
Scale/Index Parents of 26 children (19 boys, 7 girls) with high
SD SD M SD M SD
SD SD functioning autism (HFA) seen for diagnostic evalua-
Scale/Index
1.41b 0.42 1.46b 0.47 Inhibit 1.53 0.45 1.55 0.43 tion and teachers of 20 children (14 boys, 5 girls, 1
2.00a 0.63 2.26a 0.49
Inhibit Shift
0.56 1.42b 0.40 1.40b 0.32 1.62 0.42 1.53 0.39 unassigned) with HFA completed the appropriate
1.76a 0.60 1.86a
Shift Emotional Control
0.55 1.49b 0.49 1.56b 0.47 1.63 0.45 1.69 0.42 forms of the BRIEF (Landa & Goldberg, 2000). As
Emotional Control 1.93a 0.60 2.08a
1.55b 0.44 Initiate 1.73 0.31 1.59 0.36 controls, parents of 18 children (14 boys, 3 girls, 1
2.12a 0.42 2.06a 0.46 1.42b 0.31
Initiate Working Memory*** unassigned) with no psychiatric diagnosis and teach-
0.33 1.57b 0.44 0.46 1.98 0.48 1.60 0.47
Working Memory 2.45a 0.41 2.40a "46b ers of 16 children (12 boys, 3 girls, 1 unassigned)
1.53b 0.41 1.57b 0.48 Plan/Organize*** 1.89 0.34 1.59 0.43
2.40a 0.40 2.33a 0.37 with no psychiatric diagnosis also completed the
Plan/Organize Organization of Materials
0.42 1.87b 0.48 1.94b 0.56 2.05 0.53 1.95 0.50
Organization of Materials 2.66a 0.49 2.64a appropriate BRIEF forms. Both parent and teacher
1.67b 0.43 1.73b 0.44 Monitor 2.02 0.37 1.89 0.51 ratings of the HFA group revealed significant eleva-
2.25a 0.43 2.48a 0.34
Monitor Behavioral Regulation
0.45 1.44b 0.37 1.48b 0.38 1.59 0.39 1.60 0.35 tions on all of the BRIEF scales and index scores in
Behavioral Regulation 1.91a 0.54 2.08a
1.59b 0.32 1.62b 0.41 Metacognition*** 1.92 0.30 1.69 0.38 comparison to controls (see Tables 43 and 44).
2.37a 0.30 2.37a 0.26
Metacognition Global Executive Significant deficits in behavioral regulation and
2.19a 0.35 2.26a 0.29 1.53b 0.30 1.5713 0.38
Global Executive Composite Composite* 1.80 0.35 1.65 0.35 metacognition were also reported for the HFA sam-
p < .05. ple, reflecting global executive dysfunction.
Note. Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post hoc testing at *Significant difference between RD and Control groups at
an = 16. bn = 19. en = 21. dn = 56. p < .05. ***Significant difference between RD and Control Pervasive Developmental Disorders
groups at p < .001.
The BRIEF was administered to the parents of
clinically referred children diagnosed with mixed
Disorder (RD) were compared to 77 normal controls Low Birth Weight disorders within the Pervasive Developmental
Documented Brain Lesions
(32 girls, 45 boys) recruited from local schools and The BRIEF Parent Form was administered to the Disorder (PDD) spectrum (Kenworthy, Guy, &
matched on gender, age, SES, and ethnicity (Pratt et Jacobs, Anderson, and Harvey (2000) adminis-
parents of 41 children (15 boys, 26 girls) with Wallace, 2000). Overall, 40 clinically diagnosed child-
tered the Parent Form of the BRIEF to parents of 21
al., 2000b). Compared to controls, children with RD extremely low birth weight (ELBW), 41 children (14 ren (31 boys, 9 girls) and 40 age-, gender-, and SES-
children (15 boys, 6 girls) with evidence from mag-
had significantly more deficits on the Working boys, 27 girls) with very low birth weight (VLBW), 48 matched, undiagnosed control children recruited
netic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of focal
Memory and Plan/Organize scales of the BRIEF children (14 boys, 29 girls) born at term, and 42 from local schools were included in the study. The
Parent Form (see Table 40). These findings support lesions involving the frontal lobes (9 left frontal, 9
children from the normative sample matched on age. PDD group was comprised of 10 children with HFA,
right frontal, 4 bilateral frontal) with mixed eti-
the role of executive function deficits in the manifes- gender, and SES (Taylor, 2000a). Children with 17 with Asperger's Disorder, and 13 with PDD Not
ologies (13 acquired lesions, 8 neuronal migration
tation of reading disorders. Working memory deficits ELBW had significantly higher scores on six of eight Otherwise Specified (NOS). Teachers also completed
disorder). The Parent Form was also completed by
have been demonstrated in several studies with BRIEF scales (Inhibit, Shift, Initiate, Working the BRIEF for 26 children (17 boys, 9 female) within
reading-disordered children (Swanson et al., 1990; parents of 11 children (8 boys, 3 girls) with
Memory, Plan/Organize, and Monitor) than did the the clinical group and 26 (17 boys, 9 girls) age- and
extrafrontal lesions from mixed etiologies (8 acquired
Welsh & Pennington, 1988). Working memory is two control samples. These elevations resulted in SES-matched controls. The PDD group as a whole
lesions, 3 neuronal migration disorders). Compared
likely an essential component of phonological pro- significant elevations on the Behavioral Regulation exhibited average intellectual ability on formal
to an age- and gender-matched normative sample,
cessing during reading and also plays an important Index, Metacognition Index, and Global Executive assessment. Parents and teachers of the children
both clinical groups demonstrated significantly
role in reading comprehension. That is to say, if a with PDD reported significant elevations on all
Composite (Table 41). The ELBW and VLBW groups greater problems with executive function on seven of
child is not able to hold newly decoded information BRIEF scales and indexes compared to the control
differed significantly on the Shift, Working Memory. eight BRIEF scales, as shown in Table 42. Children
actively in mind, he or she will be an inefficient or group, as can be seen in Tables 45 and 46. Children
and Monitor scales and the GEC (p < .05). Overall. 00th frontal lesions were rated as marginally more
incompetent reader. Planning may also be associated with PDD were rated as exhibiting significant
these findings indicate that children with ELBW are dii4nhibited than children with extrafrontal lesions
with the active, strategic (metacogmitive) aspects of deficits in behavioral regulation and metacognition,
at significant risk for global executive dysfunction vho, in turn, were rated as significantly more disin-
the reading process. Deficits in strategic planning reflecting global executive dysfunction despite aver-
relative to controls, and that children with VLIV hibited than the matched controls. Both lesion groups
may make it more difficult for children with reading age intellectual functioning.
may be at a slightly increased risk for metacogniti\ e had significantly higher scores than the matched con-
disabilities to compensate for their disability. The
BRIEF can be used to document secondary deficits in difficulties. In addition, the ELBW and VLB-\\ trol group on the Metacognition and Behavioral Early-Treated Phenylketonuria
executive functions that may be important when groups differed only marginally on the Initiate and Regulation Indexes, as well as on the Global The BRIEF Parent Form was administered to a
Plan/Organize scales and the Metacognition IndeN Executive Composite. Thus, regardless of lesion group of 45 children (30 boys, 15 female) with early-
designing and implementing interventions for reading-
(p < .10). focus, children with brain lesions had significantly treated phenylketonuria (PKU) and to a group of
disordered children.
72 73
 Table 43 Table 44
Table 41
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Teacher Form for
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for Low Birth Weight (LBW) and Control Groups
High Functioning Autism (HFA) and Control Groups High Functioning Autism (HFA) and Control Groups
Participant group
Participant group Participant group
Very LBW b Full termc Matched controlsd
Extremely LBW a
HFAa Controlb HFAa Control b
SD SD M SD
SD
Scale/Index Scale/Index SD M SD Scale/Index M SD M SD
0.39 1.26b 0.45 1.21b 0.27
Inhibit 1.50a 0.50 1•35a,b Inhibit***
1.29b 0.38 1.38b 0.34 2.26 0.42 1.33 0.42 Inhibit*** 2.20 0.52 1.50 0.56
1.60a 0.47 1.34b 0.37
Shift 0.39 1.47a 0.36 Shift*** 2.47 0.34 1.19 0.22 Shift***
1.49a 0.49 1.37a 0.35 1.34a 2.29 0.53 1.36 0.38
Emotional Control 0.41 1.39b 0.27 Emotional Control***
1.74a 0.57 0.41 1.47b 2.40 0.32 1.35 0.31 Emotional Control*** 2.12 0.51 1.26 0.35
Initiate 1.57a,b 0.30
1.53b 0.44 1.38b 0.45 1.33b Initiate*** 2.30 0.37 1.40 0.34
Working Memory 1.74a 0.62 Initiate** 2.02 0.57 1.52 0.51
0.42 1.45b 0.46 1.47b 0.37
1.75a 0.62 1.57a,b Working Memory*** 2.36 0.43 1.31 0.39 Working Memory*** 2.11 0.52 1.44 0.58
Plan/Organize 0.58 1.68a 0.43
1.78a 0.65 1.69a 0.47 1.68a Plan/Organize*** 2.34
Organization of Materials 0.39 1.36 0.35 Plan/Organize*** 2.07 0.50 1.47 0.53
0.42 1.46b 0.47 1.51b 0.32
1.78a 0.56 1.55b Organization of
Monitor 0.38 1.35b 0.29 Organization of
1.52a 0.45 0.35 1.30b Materials*" 2.45
Behavioral Regulation 1.36a,b 0.25 0.49 1.71 0.49 Materials*** 2.00 0.57 1.31 0.42
0.39 1.47b 0.43 1.46b
Metacognition 1.75a 0.57 1.57a,b Monitor"* 2.59 0.29 1.45 0.35
1.40b 0.40 1.42b 0.25 Monitor*** 2.28 0.50 1.55 0.54
1.66a 0.52 1.49b 0.36
Global Executive Composite Behavioral Regulation*** 2.37 0.28 1.30 0.27 Behavioral Regulation*** 2.20 0.45
21.24 1.38 0.38
85.46 21.13 92.58 21.65 106.91
Prorated FSIQe Metacognition*** 2.40 0.29 1.40 0.33 Metacognition*** 2.11 0.48 1.47 0.48
.05. Extremely LBW is
Note.
Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post hoc testing at p < Global Executive Global Executive
defined as <750g at birth, Very LBW is defined as 750-1499g at birth. Composite*** 2.39 0.24 1.38 0.29 Composite*** 2.14 0.44 1.43 0.41
n = 42. 'Prorated FSIQ calculated with WISC-HUWAIS-HI prorated scores; data not obtained for
an = 41. bn = 41. cn = 43. d an = 26. bn = 18. = 20. bn = 16.
matched controls..
***Significant difference between HFA and Control groups at "Significant difference between HFA and Control groups at
p < .001. p < .01. ***Significant difference between HFA and Control
groups at p < .001.
Table 42
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for Brain Lesion and Control Groups
Participant group age-, gender-, and SES-matched controls (Anderson MR were rated as having significantly greater
Matched controlsc & Anderson, 2000). The PKU group was found to deficits in Working Memory as compared to controls.
Frontal lesiona Extrafrontal lesionb
have significantly more behavioral problems on the On the remaining BRIEF scales, children with MR
SD SD
Scale/Index SD Emotional Control scale of the BRIEF than did the were rated similarly to controls. Parent expecta-
1.60a,b 0.52 1.28b 0.29 matched controls (see Table 47). This significant tions likely play a role in their reporting of execu-
Inhibit 1.91a 0.58
1.83a 0.45 1.34b 0.34 difference largely contributed to the significant dif- tive function problems in children with significant
Shift 1.85a 0.52
1.85a 0.61 1.42b 0.38 ference between groups on the Behavioral Regu- developmental disabilities. That is, parents of child-
Emotional Control 2.16a 0.52
1.93a 0.38 1.45b 0.33 lation Index. No differences were found between the ren with MR may have different expectations for
Initiate 2.03a 0.37
2.19a 0.37 1.31b 0.33 two groups on the Metacognition Index or its com- behaviors associated with independent executive
Working Memory 2.21a 0.44
1.92a 0.47 1.42b 0.31 ponent scales. Thus, children with early-treated function. They may not view certain behaviors as
Plan/Organize 2.11a 0.50
1.92a 0.70 1.91a 0.37 PicU appear to be more at risk for problems with "abnormal" for a child with a major developmental
Organization of Materials 2.07a 0.60
2.00a 0.52 1.55b 0.35 regulating their emotional responses than their disability and, instead, may evaluate their child's
Monitor 2.16a 0.41
1.75a 0.43 1.34b 0.29 unaffected peers. functioning based on expectations adjusted for the
Behavioral Regulation 1.98a 0.47
2.00a 0.43 1.50b 0.29 child's lower cognitive and adaptive functioning. The
Metacognition 2.12a 0.39 Mental Retardation
1.90a 0.41 1.44b 0.26 significant working memory deficits reported in the
Global Executive Composite 2.07a 0.39 Parent ratings of 16 clinically referred children (10
current sample of children with MR underscores the
Note.
Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post hoc testing at p < .05. boys, 6 girls) ages 5 to 17 years and diagnosed with
importance of using external cognitive guides and
a n = 21. b n
mild to moderate Mental Retardation (MR) based on
= 11. cn = 21. reminders to bolster working memory for task
standardized intellectual and adaptive behavior
completion. How robust the working memory deficit
assessments were compared to age-, gender-, SES-,
may actually be among children with MR remains
and ethnicity-matched controls recruited from local
unclear given the small sample size used in this
schools (Pratt & Chapman, 2000). Group means pre-
sented in Table 48 indicate that the children with study.

75
74
 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48
Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Teacher Form Mean Item Raw Scores on the Mean Item Raw Scores on the BRIEF Parent Form for
for Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) for Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) BRIEF Parent Form for Children Mental Retardation (MR) and Control Groups
and Control Groups and Control Groups With Phenylketonuria (PKU) and Control Groups
Participant group
Participant group Participant group Participant group
Matched
Matched Matched Matched MIRa controlsb
POD' controlsb PDDa controlsb PKUa controlsb
Scale/Index M SD M SD
SD M SD Scale/Index M SD M SD Scale/Index M SD M SD
Scale/Index M Inhibit 1.84 0.62 1.56 0.58
2.04 0.48 1.50 0.45 Inhibit** 1.97 0.57 1.46 0.69 Inhibit 1.66 0.49 1.57 0.45
Inhibit*** Shift 1.60 0.37 1.55 0.42
0.47 1.48 0.34 Shift*** 1.87 0.53 1.25 0.37 Shift 1.64 0.45 1.57 0.45
Shift*** 2.18 Emotional Control 1.66 0.60 1.66 0.48
0.51 1.56 0.45 Emotional Control*** 1.73 0.62 1.22 0.36 Emotional Control*** 2.00 0.53 1.62 0.48
Emotional Control*** 2.09 Initiate 1.65 0.59 1.53 0.42
0.53 1.59 0.48 Initiate*** 2.10 0.50 1.32 0.48 Initiate 1.66 0.37 1.67 0.37
Initiate*** 2.06 Working Memory** 2.17 1.55 0.50
0.51
0.45 1.55 0.48 Working Memory*** 2.13 0.52 1.38 0.42 Working Memory 1.71 0.47 1.64 0.41
Working Memory*** 2.37 Plan/Organize 1.55 0.82 1.53 0.45
2.05 0.54 1.58 0.43 Plan/Organize' 1.80 0.53 1.35 0.39 Plan/Organize 1.69 0.48 1.65 0.46
Plan/Organize*** Organization of Materials 2.08 0.66 1.78 0.52
0.53 1.87 0.56 Organization of Materials** 1.63 0.44 1.29 0.45 Organization of Materials 1.94 0.49 1.96 0.60
Organization of Materials** 2.23 Monitor 2.00 0.54 1.77 0.47
2.29 0.51 1.77 0.40 Monitor*** 2.10 0.49 1.41 0.47 Monitor 1.88 0.61 1.76 0.42
Monitor*** Behavioral Regulation 1.71 1.590.49
0.43
0.40 1.51 0.33 Behavioral Regulation*** 1.86 0.48 1.31 0.41 Behavioral Regulation* 1.78 0.38 1.59 0.40
Behavioral Regulation*** 2.10 Metacognition 1.86 0.53 1.61 0.41
2.19 0.43 1.64 0.39 Metacognition*** 1.97 0.42 1.36 0.38 Metacognition 1.76 0.39 1.71 0.38
Metacognition*** Global Executive Composite 1.80 0.48 1.60 0.40
Global Executive Global Executive
Global Executive Composite
0.35 1.60 0.34 Composite*** 1.92 0.39 1.34 0.37 1.77 0.34 1.66 0.37 FSIQc 51.9 12.0
Composite*** 2.15
an = 26. bn = 26. = 45. bn an = 16. bn = 16. 'Prorated FSIQ calculated with WISC-
IQ scores *Significant difference between PKU and matched control III/WAIS-III prorated scores; data not obtained for matched
**Significant difference between PDD and control groups at
FSIQ 94.47 15.59 -c ____
p < .01. ***Significant difference between PDD and control groups at p < .05. ***Significant difference between PKU and controls.
96.00 20.39 groups at p < .001. matched control groups at p < .001. **Significant difference between MR and matched control
VIQ
groups at p < .01.
PIQ 94.03 15.60

an = 40. bn = 40. cFSIQ, VIQ, and PIQ means and standard

deviations are not available for the matched control group.
**Significant difference between PDD and control groups at
p < .01. ***Significant difference between PDD and control
groups at p < .001.

CLINICAL UTILITY OF THE BRIEF
FOR DIAGNOSIS OF ADHD
The developing understanding of relationships
between the construct of executive function and the
diagnostic classification of attentional disorders pro-
vided an opportunity to explore the diagnostic utility
of the BRIEF. As some aspects of executive function
are thought to underlie ADHD, the BRIEF scales
may be helpful in clarifying and differentiating
ADHD subtypes. Theoretically, the Working Memory
scale should be helpful in identifying ADHD,
Predominantly Inattentive Type, and the Inhibit
scale should be helpful in distinguishing both ADHD,
Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type and
ADHD, Combined Type (Barkley, 1997).
76
At the outset, it is essential to appreciate the
distinction between executive functions and the diag-
nosis of ADHD: Executive functions are neuropsycho-
logical constructs inferred from observed behavior.
whereas ADHD is a medical diagnosis based on
cluster of observed symptoms (APA, 1994). Although
executive functions underlie the symptoms ot
ADHD, they are not synonymous with a diagnosis ol
ADHD. The relationships are not entirely clear
however, there is general agreement that different
aspects of executive dysfunction contribute to the
three ADHD subtypes: Predominantly Inattenth e
Type (ADHD-I), Predominantly Hyperactive -
Impulsive Type (ADHD-H), and Combined TYPO
(ADHD-C). Indeed, several authors have recent1\
focused on the relationship between executii
function, attention, and the diagnosis of ADHD and
its subtypes (Barkley, 1990, 1996; Isquith & Gioia,
1999; Welsh & Pennington, 1988).
Children with ADHD-I might be expected to have
difficulties with working memory (i.e., holding infor-
mation actively in mind for a sustained period of
time). Children who meet criteria for ADHD-H and
ADHD-C might be expected to have problems with
working memory in addition to difficulties with
inhibiting actions, shifting their behavior flexibly,
and self-monitoring. As discussed earlier, children
with a clinical diagnosis of ADHD-I showed signifi-
cantly greater elevations relative to matched controls
oh the Working Memory and Plan/Organize scales of
the
BRIEF. Children with a clinical diagnosis of
ADFID-C had these same elevations with additional
elevations on the Inhibit, Shift, and Emotional
Control scales. The relationship between several
attentional measures (ADHD-IV, BASC Attention
scale, CBCL and TRF Attention Problems scale) and
the BRIEF scales has also already been explored (see
chapter 5), with strong and logical correlations
between sets of BRIEF scales and other measures of
inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity.
The BRIEF Working Memory and Inhibit scales
have demonstrated strong psychometric properties:
internal consistency, stability over short periods of
time, and interrater (teacher-parent) agreement in
the appropriate range. The Working Memory scale
correlates in a logical fashion with a variety of atten-
tion scales, such as those included within the BASC,
CBCL and TRF, Conners' Rating Scales, and the
77
ADHD-IV, providing evidence for convergent valid-
ity. The Inhibit scale correlates strongly with meas-
ures of restlessness, impulsivity, overactivity,
behavior problems, and aggression, and demon-
strates secondary correlations with attention prob-
lem scales. Both the Working Memory and Inhibit
scales correlate moderately with scales reflecting
social difficulties, consistent with the observation
that children who have attention and, in particular,
impulse control problems, also have resulting social
difficulties. Equally important are the low correla-
tions with a variety of scales that reflect behavioral
and emotional difficulties that should not be related
to inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. The
pattern of low correlations with scales measuring
somatic complaints, anxiety, and depression provide
evidence of discriminant validity for the Working
Memory and Inhibit scales.
In addition to demonstrating reliability as well as
content and construct validity, predictive validity is
an important indicator of the value a scale may have
in predicting the likelihood that the rated individual
falls within a diagnostic group, such as an ADHD
subtype. Further, if a scale is to be clinically useful,
it must demonstrate both sensitivity (i.e., the ability
of a test to correctly identify individuals with a
known diagnosis) and specificity (i.e., the ability of a
test to correctly identify individuals who do not have
a known diagnosis). These aspects of validity are dis-
cussed in turn in the following sections.
Predictive Validity
To examine the utility of the Working Memory and
Inhibit scales in detecting differences between diagnos-
tic groups, overall group differences in parent ratings
were first examined for a sample of children with
clinically diagnosed ADHD, Predominantly Inatten-
tive Type (ADHD-I), ADHD, Combined Type (ADHD-
C), and a group of controls matched on age, gender,
ethnicity, and SES. Teacher ratings for a separate
sample of children with clinically diagnosed ADHD
with the same subtypes and controls were also exam-
ined for group differences. No ADHD, Predominantly
Hyperactive-Impulsive Type diagnostic group was
included because this diagnosis occurs infrequently
in clinical practice. Most children who meet the
hyperactivity and/or impulsivity criteria for the
ADHD diagnosis also meet the inattention criteria,
warranting the diagnosis of ADHD, Combined Type.
This is consistent with the model of executive func-
tion discussed in the literature (Barkley, 1997) and
78
presented here: Inhibitory control is a necessary
precursor to sustained working memory and
metacognition.
Tables 49 and 50 present mean Working Memory
and Inhibit scale T scores for ADHD-I, ADHD-C, and
matched control groups on the Parent and Teacher
Forms. The omnibus multivariate analyses of vari-
ance were significant for each scale within each form,
indicating large overall effects of diagnostic group
membership. Post hoc comparisons (Scheffe, p < .05)
revealed a similar pattern for the Teacher and
Parent Forms of the Working Memory and Inhibit
scales in each sample. Children with either subtype
of ADHD (i.e., ADHD-I or ADHD-C) received signifi-
cantly higher scores from teachers and parents on
the Working Memory scale than did controls; there
was no significant difference between ADHD-I and
ADHD-C groups. Children diagnosed with ADHD-C
received significantly higher scores from parents and
teachers on the Inhibit scale than did children in the
ADHD-I and control groups. The ADHD-I group had
somewhat elevated scores on the Inhibit scale, but
the scores were significantly less elevated than those
of the ADHD-C group.
Prediction of diagnostic group membership was
examined via logistic regression analyses. Using the
ADHD sample, the Parent Form Working Memory
and Inhibit scales were entered separately as predic-
tor variables in a logistic regression equation with
diagnostic group membership as the criterion vari-
able. Data were examined for the ADHD-I versus
control groups, and then separately for the ADHD-C
versus control groups. The same analyses were con-
ducted with the Teacher Form ADHD groups.
Table 51 presents results of the logistic regression
analyses predicting ADHD-I versus control group
membership for the Parent and Teacher Form sam-
ples. Parent ratings on the Working Memory scale
predicted 81% of diagnostic group membership cor-
rectly, whereas ratings on the Inhibit scale correctly
predicted 78%. Group membership was similarly pre-
dicted by teacher ratings: Working Memory correctb
predicted 83% and Inhibit correctly predicted 70%.
Table 52 shows the same analyses conducted With
the ADHD-C diagnostic group versus matched
controls for the Working Memory and Inhibit scales
of the Parent and Teacher Form. Again, the percent -
age of correctly predicted group membership wits
acceptable: Parent ratings on the Working Memor
Table 49
Mean T Scores on the Working Memory and Inhibit Scales of the
BRIEF Parent Form for ADHD and Control Groups
Participant group
ADHD-la ADHD-C b Matched cdntrolsc
Scale SD M SD SD
Working Memory 76.33a 9.50 75.83a 9.41 56.106 12.05
Inhibit 67.08a 15.26 80.28b 13.91
56.93, 12.28
Note. Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post
hoc testing at p < .05.
an 27.
bn = 26. en = 77.
Table 50
Mean T Scores on the Working Memory and Inhibit Scales of the
BRIEF Teacher Form for ADHD and Control Groups
Participant group
ADHD-la ADHD-Cb Matched controlsc
Scale SD M SD M SD
Working Memory 82.60a 17.49 84.22a
59.91616.67
15.19
Inhibit 75.64a 23.01 89.90b 23.55 59.12, 12.25
Note. Means in a row sharing the same subscript are not significantly different on post
hoc testing at p < .05.
an = 42. bn = 78. en = 101.
scale predicted 84% and ratings on the Inhibit scale Memory scale. Children with the combined type of
predicted 85% of group membership accurately. ADHD are rated significantly higher on the Inhibit
Teacher ratings on the Working Memory scale pre- scale by parents and teachers than children with
dicted 80% and ratings on the Inhibit scale predicted either the inattentive type of ADHD or no ADHD
79% correctly. diagnosis. Parent ratings were somewhat more accu-
rate than teacher ratings for diagnostic group mem-
The Working Memory scale was not helpful in dis-
tinguishing between ADHD-I and ADHD-C diagnos- bership, but both BRIEF forms predict ADHD-I and
tic groups. Recall that both groups demonstrated ADHD-C group membership (vs. no diagnosis) ade-
elevated scores on the Working Memory Scale. The quately. The Working Memory scale does not distin-
Inhibit scale, however, was useful in distinguishing guish between subtypes of ADHD, whereas the
children diagnosed with ADHD-C from children Inhibit scale distinguishes some 65% to 68% of cases.
diagnosed with ADHD-I on the Parent Form, such
Clinical Utility
that 68% of group membership was accurately pre-
dicted. Teacher ratings predicted 65% of group mem- In addition to predictive validity, it is helpful to
bership accurately. Table 53 shows the logistic examine possible cutoff scores where each scale (i.e.,
regression analyses for Working Memory and Inhibit Working Memory and Inhibit) is most sensitive and
specific for identifying children with a diagnosis of
"'cales for the ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups.
ADHD-I or ADHD-C. Sensitivity refers to the likeli-
In essence, children with either inattentive or com- hood that a child with the target diagnosis will score
billed types of ADHD received significantly higher above a specified point, or criterion score, on a rating
ratings from parents and teachers than children
scale. Specificity refers to the likelihood that a child
ithout an ADHD diagnosis on the BRIEF Working without the target diagnosis will score below the
79
 Table 51 Table 52
Summary of Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type Diagnosis Summary of Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting ADHD, Combined Type Diagnosis
Odds Wald Odds Wald
Statistic R % Predicteda Scale JE SE Ratio Statistic
Scale SE Ratio p R % Predicteda
Parent Form
Parent Form
24.25 .001 .43 81 Working Memory 3.65 0.76 38.7 22.8
Working Memory 3.62 0.74 37.44 .001 .43 84
.001 .25 78 Inhibit 3.24 0.65 25.58 25.4
Inhibit 1.53 0.49 4.61 16.5 .001 .45 85
Teacher Form
Teacher Form
35.9 .001 .44 83 Working Memory 2.82 0.39 16.8 53.09 .001
Working Memory 2.55 0.42 12.76 .46 80
.001 .28 70 Inhibit 3.6 0.51 6.46 49.57
Inhibit 1.16 0.30 3.18 15.34 .001 .43 79
Note. Statistics are for scales entered independently as predictors of diagnostic group.
Note. Statistics are for scales entered independently as predictors of diagnostic group.
'Refers to the number of cases accurately classified, or hit rate, for children with a diagnosis of ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive aRefers to the number of cases accurately classified, or hit rate, for children with a diagnosis of ADHD, Combined Type versus
Controls (no ADHD diagnosis).
Type versus Controls (no ADHD diagnosis).

criterion score on a rating scale. To use the BRIEF
scales for predicting ADHD diagnosis, it is important
to examine which scores on the Working Memory
scale identify the most children with ADHD-I with-
out mistakenly identifying children without the diag-
nosis. Similarly, it is important to know which scores
on the Inhibit scale will identify the most children
with the ADHD-C diagnosis without mistakenly
identifying children without the diagnosis. In other
words, it is important to know both how sensitive
and how specific the scales are.
The clinical utility of the Working Memory and
Inhibit scales was explored with the Parent Form
sample of 27 children with clinically diagnosed
ADHD-I, 26 children with clinically diagnosed
ADHD-C, and 77 matched controls. The same analy-
ses were conducted with the Teacher Form sample of
42 children with ADHD-I, 78 with ADHD-C, and 101
children with no diagnosis. The children with ADHD
diagnoses were referred and seen for neuropsycho-
logical evaluation, and the diagnoses were based on
parent and child interviews, parent and teacher
behavior and ADHD rating scales, and comprehen-
sive neuropsychological evaluations. T scores and
percentiles were calculated based on the appropriate
gender and age norms for the Parent and Teacher
Form scales. The percentage of children with either
diagnosis or no diagnosis was then calculated for
each increase in T score and percentile rank Tables
54 and 55 show the percentages of children with
ADHD-I or ADHD-C identified as having ADHD
(sensitivity) by the Parent Form Working Memory
and Inhibit scales, respectively. The percentage of
80
Table 53
children without a diagnosis of ADHD that would be Summary of Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting ADHD,
incorrectly identified (specificity) is also reflected in Predominantly Inattentive Type Versus ADHD, Combined Type Diagnosis
the tables. Similar data are shown in Tables 56 and
Odds Wald
57 for the Teacher Form Working Memory and SE
13 Ratio Statistic p R % Predicteda
Inhibit scales.
Parent Form
Examining Table 54 reveals that at a T score of 80 Working Memory -0.15 0.76 .86 .04
.84 .01 0
(98th %ile) on the Parent Form Working Memory Inhibit
-1.75 0.62 5.74 8.05 .01 .29
scale, 41% of children with ADHD-I were correctly 68
identified, whereas 3% of controls were incorrectly Teacher Form
identified. This cutoff level fails to adequately iden- Working Memory -0.18 0.37 .83 .25 .62 .01
0
tify diagnosed children. Using a T score of 70 as a Inhibit -0.85 0.42 2.43 9.04 .01 .21 65
cutoff correctly identified 74% of children with
Note. Statistics are for scales entered independently as predictors
ADHD-I, but incorrectly identified 13% of control:s. of diagnostic group.
'Refers to the number of cases accurately classified, or hit rate, for children with a diagnosis of ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive
Thus, a T score of 70 might provide an acceptable Type versus ADHD, Combined Type.
balance between failing to identify children with
ADHD-I and incorrectly identifying children without
the diagnosis (i.e., balance between sensitivity and the number of controls (children with no diagnosis) sensitivity, and specificity for detecting a likely diag-
specificity). misidentified to 20%. Thus, a T score of 75 may be nosis of ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type
the most appropriate cutoff for detecting ADHD-I in (ADHD-I); ADHD, Combined Type (ADHD-C); or no
For the Parent Form Inhibit scale (Table 55), most instances.
clinical diagnosis. The Working Memory scale dis-
T score of 70 may be most clinically useful. At that
A T score of 70 on the Teacher Form Inhibit scale criminated between children with no ADHD diagno-
level, 85% of children with diagnosed ADHD-C were
correctly identified 78% of children with ADHD-C, sis and those with either ADHD-I or ADHD-C, and
correctly identified, and only 13% of controls were
but incorrectly identified 21% of children with no the Inhibit scale further distinguished between
misidentified. However, this level of sensitivity also
diagnosis, as shown in Table 57. Choosing a higher controls and children with ADHD-C, offering evi-
incorrectly identified 48% of children diagnosed with
cutoff criterion (i.e., a T score of 80) correctly identi- dence of the predictive validity of the scales. Using
ADHD-I as likely having ADHD-C.
fied 69% of children with ADHD-C, but incorrectly the BRIEF Working Memory and Inhibit scales as
For the Teacher Form, a T score of 75 on the Identified 13% of children with no diagnosis. In this an aid to screening and clinical diagnosis of ADHD
Working Memory scale (see Table 56) correctly iden- ease, a slightly higher cutoff criterion may be ade- allows for more efficient clinical data collection. It
tified 71% of children with ADHD-I, 72% of children quate for identifying children with ADHD-C, but it is is of paramount importance that all relevant data be
with ADHD-C, and 15% of controls. Lowering the also more conservative than a lower cutoff criterion. considered in the context of clinical judgment before
cutoff criterion to a T score of 70 increased the reaching a diagnostic decision. Although parent and
ADHD-I identification rate to only 74% and the In summary, the Parent and Teacher Form scales teacher rating scales are helpful in collecting infor-
ADHD-C identification rate to 78%, but increased of the BRIEF exhibit adequate predictive validity, mation from different settings in an efficient manner,
81
 Table 54 Table 55
Sensitivity and Specificity of BRIEF Parent Form Sensitivity and Specificity of BRIEF Parent Form
Working Memory Scale for Identifying ADHD Diagnosis Inhibit Scale for Identifying ADHD Diagnosis
Percentage identified Percentage identified
ADHD- ADHD- No diagnosis ADHD- ADHD- No diagnosis
T score Inattentive Typea Combined Typeb (Controls) T score Inattentive Type' Combined Typeb (Controls)°
100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
95 0 0 0 95 0 19 1
90 4 8 0 90 4 27 3
85 15 12 1 85 11 38 3
80 41 27 3 80 26 58 6
75 56 65 10 75 37 73 8
70 74 77 13 70 48 85 13
65 89 88 25 65 52 88 21
60 93 92 36 60 59 88 36
an = 27. bn = 26. CT/ = 77. an = 27. bn = 26. Cr/ = 77.

such ratings typically serve best as screening tools and typically less strongly or not at all with meas-
for either suggesting a diagnosis or ruling out a ures of emotional functioning. Table 56
diagnosis. Given the psychometric properties of the Sensitivity and Specificity of BRIEF Teacher Form
Factor analyses of the Parent and Teacher Forms
BRIEF Working Memory and Inhibit scales, they Working Memory Scale for Identifying ADHD Diagnosis
consistently supported a two-factor model. A consis-
may be helpful as such tools and can add valuable
tent Metacogmition factor emerged, including the
information to an interview and/or a more compre- Percentage identified
Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organiza-
hensive assessment for ADHD.
tion of Materials, and Monitor scales. The Inhibit. ADHD- ADHD- No diagnosis
Shift, and Emotional Control scales consistently T score Inattentive Typea Combined Typeb (Controls)tm
SUMMARY loaded on a second factor, identified as Behavioral 100 21 21 2
Regulation. The two factors consistently demon- 95 26
The BRIEF scales demonstrate appropriate relia- 23 2
strate a moderate correlation with each other, indi- 90
bility: internal consistency is high, the measure is 45 49 6
cating a relationship between Metacognition and
stable over a 2- to 6-week period, and teacher and 85 48 54 8
Behavioral Regulation.
parent ratings are moderately correlated. On the 80 62 68 8
Parent Form, the mean test-retest correlation for the Examination of the BRIEF Parent and Teachei. 75 71 72 15
normative sample across the scales was .82, ranging Forms with a variety of clinical diagnostic samples
70 74 78 20
from .76 to .88 over an average 2-week time span. illustrates differing profiles of executive function:
65 86
For the parent clinical sample, the mean correlation this further supports the ability of the BRIEF to di, 87 25
criminate among clinical groups. Finally, the predic- 60 90 92 32
was .80, ranging from .72 to .84 over an average
3-week period. Teacher Form . test-retest correlations tive validity and clinical utility of the Working Memm an = 42. bn = 78. cn = 101.
were strong for the nonnative sample (M = .88, range = and Inhibit scales, in particular, were explored with
.83 to .92) over an average 3.5-week time period. regard to the ability of these scales to identify children
Correlational analyses with other behavior rating with a diagnosis of ADHD. On the BRIEF Parent anii
scales (CBCL, TRF, BASC PRS and TRS, ADHD-IV, Teacher Forms, both Working Memory and Inhibii
and CRS) provide evidence of convergent and diver- exhibit adequate predictive validity, sensitivity, and
gent validity for the BRIEF Parent and Teacher specificity for detecting a likely diagnosis of ADED:
Forms. Executive functions, as measured on the Predominantly Inattentive Type; ADHD, Combine('
BRIEF, correlated in an expected fashion with other Type; or no clinical diagnosis.
measures of attentional and behavioral functioning,

82
83
 Table 57
Sensitivity and Specificity of BRIEF Teacher Form
Inhibit Scale for Identifying ADHD Diagnosis
Percentage identified

ADHD- ADHD- No diagnosis

Inattentive Typea Combined Typeb (Controlsr
T score
19 50 8
100
95 21 51 9 REFERENCES
36 59 11
90
40 62 12
85
69 13
80 50 Achenbach, T. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity
73 17
75 50 Checklist and 1991 profile. Burlington: University disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment.
78 21 of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
70 52 New York: Guilford Press.
60 81 28
65 Achenbach, T. (1991b). Manual for the Teacher's Barkley, R. A. (1996). Linkages between attention
83 33
60 62 Report Form and 1991 profile. Burlington: and executive functions. In G. R. Lyon & N. A.
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory and executive
an = 42. bn = 78. Cr/ = 101.
Achenbach, T., McConaughy, S., & Howell, C. (1987). function (pp. 307-326). Baltimore: Paul H.
Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional prob- Brookes.
lems: Implications of cross-informant correlations Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-
for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, control. New York: Guilford Press.
101, 213-232.
Bernstein, J. H., & Waber, D. P. (1990). Develop-
American Education Research Association, American mental neuropsychological assessment: The sys-
Psychological Association, & National Council on temic approach. In A. A. Boulton, G. B. Baker, &
Measurements in Education. (1985). Standards for M. Hiscock (Eds.), Neuromethods: Vol. Neuropsy-
educational and psychological testing. Washington, chology (pp. 311-371). Clifton, NJ: Humana.
DC: American Psychological Association.
Braswell, D., Hartry, A., Hoornbeek, S., Johansen, A.,
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic Johnson, L., Schultz, J., & Sohlberg, M. M. (n.d.).
and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Profile of Executive Control System (PRO-EX).
ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Puyallup, WA: Association for Neuropsychological
Anderson, P., & Anderson, V. (2000). [Behavior Research and Development.
Rating Inventory of Executive Function parent Brouwers, P., Riccardi, R., Poplack, D., & Fedio, P.
ratings for children with early-treated phenylke- (1984). Attentional deficits in long-term survivors
tonuria (PKU)]. Unpublished raw data. of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Anderson, V. (1998). Assessing executive functions in Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology,, 6, 325-336.
children: Biological, psychological and develop- Brown, A. L. (1975). The development of memory:
mental considerations. Neuropsychological Rehabi- Knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowing
litation, 8, 319-349. how to know. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in
A•iarnow, R. F., Satz, P., Light, R., Lewis, R., & child development and behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 103-
Neumann, E. (1991). Behavior problems and adap- 152). New York: Academic Press.
tive functioning in children with mild and severe Burgess, P. (1997). Theory and methodology in exec-
Closed head injury. Journal of Pediatric Psycho- utive function research. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.),
logy, 16, 543-555. Methodology of frontal executive function. East
Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

85
84
Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1984).
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Service.
SPSS for Windows (Version 8.0.2) [Computer soft-
ware]. (1998). Chicago, IL: Author.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1986). The frontal lobes.
New York: Raven.
Swanson, H. L., Cochran, K. F., & Ewers, C. A.
(1990). Can learning disabilities be determined
from working memory performance? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 23, 59-67.
Taylor, H. G. (2000a). [Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function Ratings in children with low
birthweight]. Unpublished raw data.
Taylor, H. G. (2000b). [Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function Ratings in children with trau-
matic brain injury]. Unpublished raw data.
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974). Assessment of
coma and impaired consciousness. Lancet, ii, 81-84.
Turkstra, L. (2000). [Study of adolescent patients
with traumatic brain injury]. Unpublished raw
data.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Resident population
estimates of the United States by sex, race, and
Hispanic origin: April 1, 1990 to November 1,
1999. Washington, DC: Author.
88
Vaughn, B. E., Kopp, C. B., & Krakow, J. B. (1984).
The emergence and consolidation of self-control
from eighteen to thirty months of age: Normative
trends and individual differences. Child Develop-
ment, 55, 990-1004.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale— APPENDIX A
Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
T-SCORE AND PERCENTILE CONVERSION TABLES
Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing
frontal lobe functioning in children: Views from AND 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL VALUES FOR THE
developmental psychology. Developmental Neuro- BRIEF PARENT FORM: BOYS BY AGE GROUP
psychology,, 4, 199-230.
Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Grossier, D. B.
(1991). A normative-developmental study of execu-
tive function: A window on prefrontal function in
children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 131-
149.
Wong, B. L. (1991). The relevance of metacognition to
learning disabilities. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning
about learning disabilities (pp. 231-258). New
York: Academic Press.
Ylvisaker, M., Szekeres, S., & Hartwick, P. (1992).
Cognitive rehabilitation following traumatic brain
injury in children. In M. G. Tramontana & S. R.
Hooper (Eds.), Advances in child neuropsychology
(pp. 168-218). New York: Springer Verlag.
89
 Table Al
Parent Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 5 to 7 Years
Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Scale
Scale T %Ile T %He T %Ile raw
Toile T %ile T %ile T %Ile
raw T %ile T score rank score rank score rank score
score rank score rank score rank score rank
score score rank
89 99 36
36 99 35
87
35 99 34
85
34 99 33
83
33 99 32
81
32 99 31
78
31 76 98 30
83 99 85 99
30 80 99 29
99 83 99 74 97
29 78 99 80 28
78 99 80 98 72 95
28 76 98 27
76 99 78 98 70 93
27 73 98 26
98 75 98 67 93
26 71 97 73 25
96 73 97 65 92
25 69 96 71 99 24
70 95 63 89 82
92 90 99 68 95 87 99
24 67 86 79 99 23
66 94 84 99 68 94 61
23 65 89 87 99 99 22
65 92 59 84 76
87 83 99 64 91 80 99
22 62 73 99 21
88 77 99 63 89 57 79
21 60 85 80 98 61 20
86 54 72 70 98
77 98 59 83 74 98 60
20 58 81 66 96 19
57 73 71 96 58 81 52 68
19 56 77 73 97 63 92 18
94 55 72 50 58 72 99
54 67 70 96 54 66 68
18 50 69 96 60 88 17
52 58 65 90 53 66 48
17 51 59 67 94 80 16
50 63 46 43 66 92 57
50 63 91 49 53 61 89
16 49 63 88 54 70 15
46 58 81 48 52 43 34
15 47 43 60 87 47 14
42 41 27 59 83 51 56
57 78 45 36 55 76 45
14 45 38 76 47 43 13
52 68 43 34 39 17 56
13 42 28 53 68 42 31 12
24 37 10 53 69 44 29
20 50 60 40 23 49 57 40
12 40 50 55 41 23 11
44 38 17 46 43 38 14
11 38 17 47 36 38 15 10
7 42 30 35 6 46
10 36 10 43 36 35 11
43 28 35
40 24 39 24
40 19 32 7
37 12 36 10
37 12
33 4 6
6
±6 90% CI
90% CI

Table Al (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 5 to 7 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Regulation Metacognition
Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 88 99 97 66 92 62 67 96 44 30
131 87 99 96 65 92 61 66 94 43 28
130 87 99 95 65 91 60 65 92 43 26
129 86 99 94 64 89 59 64 90 42 23
128 85 99 93 63 89 58 63 89 42 21
127 85 99 92 63 86 57 62 86 41 19
126 84 99 91 62 86 56 61 85 40 17
125 84 99 90 62 86 55 60 82 40 14
124 83 99 89 61 85 54 59 81 39 12
123 82 99 88 60 85 53 58 73 38 11
122 82 99 87 60 85 52 57 70 38 10
121 81 99 86 59 85 51 56 65 37
120 80 99 85 58 84 50 55 64 37
119 80 99 84 89 99 58 82 49 54 62 36
118 79 99 83 88 99 57 81 48 53 61 35
117 78 98 82 87 99 57 78 47 52 59 35
116 78 97 81 86 99 56 77 46 51 58 34
115 77 97 80 85 99 55 73 45 50 56 33
114 77 97 79 84 99 55 72 44 49 52 33
113 76 97 78 83 99 54 69 43 48 49
112 75 97 77 82 99 53 68 42 47 44
111 75 97 76 81 99 53 66 41 46 43
110 74 97 75 80 99 52 64 40 45 38
109 73 97 74 79 99 52 63 39 44 35
108 73 96 73 78 99 51 59 38 43 31
107 72 96 72 77 99 50 56 37 42 27
106 72 96 71 76 99 50 53 36 41 25
105 71 96 70 75 99 49 50 35 40 21
104 70 96 69 74 99 48 49 34 39 18
103 70 96 68 73 99 48 47 33 38 14
102 69 95 67 72 99 47 45 32 37 13
101 68 95 66 71 99 47 41 31 36 12
100 68 94 65 70 99 46 39 30 35
99 67 93 64 69 98 45 36 29 34
98 67 92 63 68 97 45 34 28 33
90% CI ±3 4 ±3 ±4 ±3 90% CI
 Table Al (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 5 to 7 Years
T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
Total T %ile Total
rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
raw score score rank raw score score
76 98 142 61 84 105 46 38
216 91 99 179
76 98 141 60 84 104 45 36
215 91 99 178
75 98 140 60 84 103 45 33
214 90 99 177
75 97 139 60 83 102 44 31
213 90 99 176
74 97 138 59 82 101 44 30
212 90 99 175
74 97 137 59 82 100 43 29
211 89 99 174
74 97 136 58 81 99 43 27
210 89 99 173
73 97 135 58 81 98 43 25
209 88 99 172
73 97 134 57 79 97 42 22
208 88 99 171
97 133 57 78 96 42 21
207 88 99 170 72
97 132 57 76 95 41 21
206 87 99 169 72
72 97 131 56 74 94 41 20
205 87 99 168
71 97 130 56 71 93 41 20
204 86 99 167
71 96 129 55 70 92 40 18
203 86 99 166
96 128 55 70 91 40 17
202 86 99 165 70
70 96 127 55 69 90 39 17
201 85 99 164
69 96 126 54 67 89 39 15
200 85 99 163
69 96 125 54 65 88 39 13
199 84 99 162
69 94 124 53 64 87 38 12
198 84 99 161
68 93 123 53 63 86 38 11
197 83 99 160
68 92 122 53 61 85 37 10
196 83 99 159
67 92 121 52 58 84 37
195 83 99 158
157 67 91 120 52 57 83 36
194 82 99
156 67 91 119 51 56 82 36
193 82 99
66 90 118 51 54 81 36
192 81 99 155
154 66 90 117 50 51 80 35
191 81 99
153 65 90 116 50 50 79 35
190 81 99
152 65 90 115 50 49 78 34
189 80 99
151 65 89 114 49 48 77 34
188 80 99
150 64 89 113 49 47 76 34
187 79 99
149 64 89 112 48 46 75 33
186 79 99
148 63 88 111 48 46 74 33
185 79 99
63 87 110 48 45 73 32
184 78 99 147
62 86 109 47 44 72 32
183 78 99 146
77 98 145 62 85 108 47 43
182
77 98 144 62 85 107 46 41
181
76 98 143 61 84 106 46 39
180
_3 _3 90% CI
90% CI ±3

Table A2
Parent Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 8 to 10 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize
Scale Org. of Materials Monitor
raw T %ile T %ile T Scale
%ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %Ile raw
score score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
36 84 99 36
35
82 99 35
34 80 99 34
33 77 99 33
32 75 98 32
31
73 98 31
30 82 99 80 99 80 99 71 97 30
29 80 98 78 99 78 99 69 94 29
28 78 98 76 98 76 98 67 93 28
27 75 98 73 98 74 98 65 91 27
26 73 97 71 98 72 97 63 90 26
25 71 96 69 96 69 96 61 87 25
24 69 96 91 99 67 92 84 99 67 95 58 83 78 99 24
23 66 94 88 99 65 91 81 99 65 90 56 76 75 99 23
22 64 92 84 99 62 90 78 99 63 88 54 70 72 98 22
21 62 91 81 99 60 86 75 98 60 85 52 66 69 98 21
20 60 85 77 99 58 81 72 98 58 81 50 59 66 96 20
19 57 80 74 98 56 73 69 98 56 77 48 51 62 91 19
18 55 75 71 97 54 70 66 93 54 69 46 44 71 99 59 83 18
17 53 68 67 96 51 64 63 88 52 64 44 35 67 96 56 79 17
16 51 57 64 92 49 55 59 84 49 61 42 27 64 92 53 69 16
15 49 48 60 85 47 51 56 79 47 52 39 19 61 83 50 54 15
14 46 46 57 79 45 39 53 70 45 44 37 10 58 78 47 42 14
13 44 38 53 74 43 29 50 62 43 33 35 5 55 74 44 32 13
12 42 34 50 66 40 22 47 49 40 24 33 3 52 63 40 24 12
11 40 27 47 53 38 14 44 36 38 13 49 45 37 10 11
10 37 14 43 35 36 6 41 22 36 7 45 35 34 5 10
40 24 38 11 42 25 31 5
36 9 35 6 39 18 28 3
36 11
6
33 7 6
90% CI ±6 90% CI
 Table A2 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 8 to 10 Years
Behavioral Behavioral
Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Regulation Metacognition Index
Index Index
%ile %ile raw %ile %ile
raw %ile %ile raw rank
T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score
score T score rank T score rank score
64 90 62 67 95 41 19
132 86 99 97
63 88 61 66 94 40 18
131 86 99 96
62 87 60 65 93 40 15
130 85 99 95
62 85 59 65 92 39 11
129 84 99 94
61 83 58 64 92 39 10
128 84 99 93
60 82 57 63 89 38 9
127 83 99 92
60 81 56 62 87 37 8
126 82 99 91
59 80 55 61 86 37 6
125 82 99 90
59 78 54 60 84 36 5
124 81 99 89
58 77 53 59 83 35 4
123 80 99 88
57 75 52 58 81 35 3
122 80 99 87
57 73 51 57 80 34 3
121 79 99 86
56 72 50 56 76 33 2
120 79 99 85
99 55 70 49 55 72 33 2
119 78 99 84 89
99 55 67 48 54 68 32 2
118 77 99 83 88
54 65 47 53 66 31 2
117 77 99 82 87 99
99 53 64 46 52 63 31 2
116 76 98 81 86
99 53 63 45 51 59 30 1
115 75 98 80 85
99 52 61 44 50 57 30 1
114 75 98 79 84
78 83 99 51 60 43 49 54
113 74 98
77 82 99 51 59 42 48 49
112 73 98
76 81 99 50 57 41 47 46
111 73 98
75 80 99 49 55 40 46 39
110 72 98
74 79 99 49 53 39 45 35
109 71 97
73 78 98 48 51 38 44 34
108 71 96
72 77 98 48 48 37 43 32
107 70 96
71 76 97 47 47 36 42 29
106 69 96
70 75 97 46 46 35 41 22
105 69 96
69 74 97 46 44 34 40 20
104 68 95
68 73 96 45 42 33 39 16
103 68 95
67 72 96 44 38 32 38 14
102 67 95
66 71 96 44 32 31 37 11
101 66 94
65 70 96 43 28 30 36 7
100 66 92
64 69 96 42 25 29 36 5
99 65 91
68 95 42 22 28 35 2
98 64 90 63
±4 ±4 90% CI
90% CI ±4 ±4

Table A2 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 8 to 10 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
216 90 99 179 74 97 142 59 81 105 44 33
215 89 99 178 74 97 141 59 80 104 43 31
214 89 99 177 74 97 140 58 79 103 43 29
213 89 99 176 73 97 139 58 79 102 43 28
212 88 99 175 73 97 138 58 79 101 42 27
211 88 99 174 72 97 137 57 78 100 42 25
210 87 99 173 72 97 136 57 78 99 41 21
209 87 99 172 72 97 135 56 77 98 41 18
208 86 99 171 71 97 134 56 74 97 41 17
207 86 99 170 71 96 133 55 74 96 40 16
206 86 99 169 70 95 132 55 72 95 40 16
205 85 99 168 70 95 131 55 71 94 39 14
204 85 99 167 70 95 130 54 67 93 39 13
203 84 99 166 69 95 129 54 66 92 39 11
202 84 99 165 69 94 128 53 66 91 38 9
201 84 99 164 68 94 127 53 65 90 38 7
200 83 99 163 68 94 126 53 64 89 37 6
199 83 99 162 67 94 125 52 61 88 37 6
198 82 99 161 67 94 124 52 58 87 36 6
197 82 99 160 67 94 123 51 58 86 36 6
196 82 99 159 66 93 122 51 57 85 36 5
195 81 99 158 66 93 121 51 55 84 35 4
194 81 99 157 65 92 120 50 54 83 35 4
193 80 99 156 65 92 119 50 53 82 34 3
192 80 99 155 65 91 118 49 51 81 34 3
191 79 99 154 64 90 117 49 50 80 34 2
190 79 99 153 64 90 116 48 50 79 33 2
189 79 98 152 63 90 115 48 49 78 33 2
188 78 98 151 63 90 114 48 47 77 32 2
187 78 98 150 62 89 113 47 45 76 32 1
186 77 98 149 62 89 112 47 44 75 32 1
185 77 98 148 62 87 111 46 42 74 31 1
184 77 98 147 61 87 110 46 40 73 31 1
183 76 98 146 61 84 109 46 40 72 30 1
182 76 98 145 60 82 108 45 38
181 75 98 144 60 82 107 45 37
180 75 98 143 60 81 106 44 35
90% CI ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 90% CI
 1

Table A3
Parent Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 11 to 13 Years
Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Scale
Scale %He T %Ile raw
T %ile T %ile T %ile T
raw T %ile score rank
%lie score
T rank score rank score
rank score rank score rank score rainik
%
score score rank score
79 99 36
36 35
77 99
35 34
76 98
34 33
74 96
33 32
72 95
32 31
70 94
31 30
99 82 99 69 93
30 91 99 91
99 67 92 29
88 99 80
29 88 99 28
99 78 98 65 91
28 86 99 85
97 63 88 27
83 99 75
27 83 99 26
99 73 96 61 86
26 81 98 80 25
98 71 95 60 83
25 78 98 77
94 58 81 81 99 24
98 95 99 75 97 82 99 69
24 76 78 99 23
72 97 79 99 67 94 56 78
23 73 98 92 99 22
64 93 54 75 75 99
97 88 99 69 96 76 99
22 71 72 97 21
94 73 97 62 91 53 67
21 68 95 85 99 67
87 51 61 69 97 20
91 81 99 64 92 70 96 60
20 65 66 93 19
88 68 94 58 83 49 55
19 63 88 77 99 61
47 47 69 99 63 90 18
97 59 84 65 90 56 80
18 60 86 74 60 84 17
62 85 53 68 46 42 66 94
17 58 83 70 96 56 76
62 44 36 63 87 57 78 16
80 67 96 53 70 59 83 51
16 55 83 54 69 15
56 78 49 52 42 29 60
15 53 74 63 91 51 63
40 22 57 78 51 63 14
82 48 53 53 73 47 47
14 50 68 59 48 53 13
63 45 40 38 13 55 71
13 48 59 56 75 45 43 50
35 37 8 52 65 45 40 12
52 65 42 34 47 52 42
12 45 48 42 27 11
40 40 30 49 52
11 43 40 48 57 40 26 44
46 40 39 19 10
47 37 11 41 25 38 19
10 40 23 45 9
15 43 32 36
41 34 38
40 23 33 3
38 17 35 6
37 14
34 5 6
6
6 ±7 90% CI
90% CI

Table A3 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 11 to 13 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation
Index Index Metacognition
Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score Tscore rank Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank
132 83 99 97 63 89 62 75 96 44 34
131 82 99 96 63 88 61 74 96 43 33
130 82 99 95 62 88 60 72 96 43 30
129 81 99 94 62 87 59 71 96 42 27
128 80 99 93 61 86 58 70 95 42 25
127 80 99 92 61 84 57 69 94 41 22
126 79 99 91 60 81 56 68 94 41 21
125 79 99 90 59 80 55 67 93 40 16
124 78 99 89 59 80 54 66 92 39 14
123 78 99 88 58 79 53 65 91 39 13
122 77 99 87 58 78 52 63 90 38 11
121 77 99 86 57 77 51 62 90 38 10
120 76 99 85 57 76 50 61 88 37 9
119 75 98 84 99 99 56 75 49 60 85 37
118 75 98 83 98 99 56 74 48 59 84 36
117 74 98 82 97 99 55 72 47 58 81 36
116 74 97 81 96 99 54 68 46 57 81 35
115 73 97 80 95 99 54 68 45 55 77 34
114 73 96 79 94 99 53 66 44 54 75 34
113 72 95 78 93 99 53 65 43 53 72
112 72 95 77 92 99 52 63 42 52 70
111 71 95 76 90 99 52 63 41 51 65
110 70 95 75 89 99 51 60 40 50 59
109 70 95 74 88 99 51 59 39 49 56
108 69 94 73 87 99 50 58 38 48 52
107 69 93 72 86 99 49 55 37 46 46
106 68 93 71 85 99 49 53 36 45 40
105 68 93 70 84 99 48 52 35 44 39
104 67 93 69 83 99 48 47 34 43 32
103 67 92 68 81 99 47 46 33 42 28
102 66 91 67 80 99 47 42 32 41 24
101 66 91 66 79 98 46 41 31 40 19
100 65 90 65 78 98 46 39 30 39 13
99 64 90 64 77 98 45 37 29 37 6
98 64 89 63 76 97 44 37 28 36 2
90% CI ±3 ±3 90% Cl
 Table A3 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 11 to 13 Years
%ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
Total T %ile Total T
rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
raw score score rank raw score score
99 142 62 85 105 47 45
216 92 99 179 77
99 141 61 84 104 46 44
215 92 99 178 77
99 140 61 84 103 46 42
214 91 99 177 76
99 139 61 84 102 45 41
213 91 99 176 76
99 138 60 83 101 45 39
212 91 99 175 75
98 137 60 81 100 45 36
211 90 99 174 75
98 136 59 81 99 44 34
210 90 99 173 75
74 98 135 59 80 98 44 33
209 89 99 172
98 134 58 80 97 43 31
208 89 99 171 74
73 98 133 58 79 96 43 30
207 88 99 170
73 97 132 58 78 95 42 28
206 88 99 169
97 131 57 77 94 42 27
205 88 99 168 72
96 130 57 75 93 42 25
204 87 99 167 72
72 95 129 56 75 92 41 24
203 87 99 166
95 128 56 74 91 41 22
202 86 99 165 71
95 127 56 73 90 40 21
201 86 99 164 71
95 126 55 72 89 40 20
200 86 99 163 70
94 125 55 71 88 40 18
199 85 99 162 70
94 124 54 71 87 39 16
198 85 99 161 70
94 123 54 70 86 39 15
197 84 99 160 69
94 122 54 70 85 38 10
196 84 99 159 69
68 93 121 53 69 84 38
195 84 99 158
68 92 120 53 69 83 38
194 83 99 157
68 92 119 52 68 82 37
193 83 99 156
67 91 118 52 66 81 37
192 82 99 155
67 91 117 51 65 80 36
191 82 99 154
153 66 90 116 51 63 79 36
190 81 99
66 90 115 51 62 78 35
189 81 99 152
151 65 90 114 50 59 77 35
188 81 99
65 90 113 50 57 76 35
187 80 99 150
65 90 112 49 55 75 34
186 80 99 149
64 90 111 49 54 74 34
185 79 99 148
64 88 110 49 51 73 33
184 79 99 147
63 88 109 48 49 72 33
183 79 99 146
99 145 63 88 108 48 48
182 78
99 144 63 87 107 47 47
181 78
99 143 62 86 106 47 46
180 77
±3 ±3 90% CI
90% CI ±3 ±3

Table A4
Parent Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 14 to 18 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Scale
Scale
raw T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ilee T T %ile T %ile raw
score score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
36 81 99 36
35 79 99 35
34 77 99 34
33 75 99 33
32 74 98 32
31 72 97 31
30 103 99 89 99 93 99 70 95 30
29 100 99 87 99 90 99 68 94 29
28 97 99 84 99 87 99 66 93 28
27 94 99 82 99 85 99 65 91 27
26 91 98 79 99 82 99 63 88 26
25 88 98 77 99 79 99 61 85 25
24 84 97 98 99 75 98 89 99 77 99 59 83 82 99 24
23 81 97 94 99 72 97 86 99 74 98 58 79 79 99 23
22 78 97 91 99 70 97 83 99 71 97 56 73 76 99 22
21 75 97 87 99 67 95 79 99 69 96 54 69 73 99 21
20 72 96 83 99 65 93 76 99 66 93 52 60 71 99 20
19 69 95 80 99 63 89 73 99 63 89 50 57 68 99 19
18 66 91 76 98 60 81 69 96 61 87 49 54 72 99 65 96 18
17 63 90 72 98 58 76 66 93 58 81 47 48 69 96 62 93 17
16 60 89 69 97 55 72 63 89 56 77 45 45 66 90 59 87 16
15 57 86 65 91 53 70 59 86 53 64 43 36 63 85 57 77 15
14 54 81 61 86 50 67 56 73 50 59 41 28 60 83 54 71 14
13 51 70 58 81 48 61 53 63 48 51 40 23 58 81 51 59 13
12 48 60 54 73 46 54 49 55 45 46 38 14 55 78 48 53 12
11 45 49 51 65 43 44 46 47 42 38 52 66 45 44 11
10 42 36 47 56 41 32 43 38 40 27 49 54 43 32 10
43 41 39 27 46 45 40 24
40 24 36 12 43 36 37 15
40 22
6 37 12 6
90% CI ±5 90% CI
 Table A4 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 14 to 18 Years
Behavioral Behavioral
Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Regulation Metacognition Index
Index Index
raw `Yoile %He raw %ile ckile
raw %lie %i le
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
score T score rank T score rank
97 67 93 62 78 98 47 44
132 87 99
96 66 91 61 77 98 46 43
131 86 99
95 66 90 60 75 97 45 41
130 86 99
94 65 90 59 74 97 45 38
129 85 99
93 64 89 58 73 97 44 36
128 85 99
92 64 88 57 72 96 44 36
127 84 99
91 63 88 56 71 96 43 33
126 83 99
90 63 87 55 70 96 42 32
125 83 99
89 62 87 54 69 95 42 30
124 82 99
88 62 87 53 68 93 41 27
123 82 99
87 61 85 52 66 92 41 25
122 81 99
86 60 82 51 65 89 40 22
121 81 99
85 60 81 50 64 89 40 18
120 80 99
84 102 99 59 80 49 63 87 39 16
119 79 99
83 101 99 59 78 48 62 86 38 12
118 79 99
82 100 99 58 77 47 61 85 38 11
117 78 99
81 99 99 57 76 46 60 81 37 10
116 78 99
98 99 57 74 45 59 79 37 7
115 77 99 80
79 97 99 56 73 44 57 77 36 4
114 77 99
76 99 78 96 99 56 73 43 56 76
113
99 77 94 99 55 71 42 55 75
112 75
99 76 93 99 55 68 41 54 73
111 75
99 75 92 99 54 67 40 53 71
110 74
98 74 91 99 53 66 39 52 68
109 74
73 98 73 90 99 53 65 38 51 63
108
73 98 72 89 99 52 62 37 50 60
107
72 97 71 88 99 52 59 36 49 59
106
71 97 70 87 99 51 56 35 47 55
105
71 97 69 86 99 51 55 34 46 51
104
96 68 84 99 50 53 33 45 46
103 70
96 67 83 99 49 51 32 44 43
102 70
96 66 82 99 49 50 31 43 36
101 69
96 65 81 99 48 48 30 42 29
100 68
96 64 80 99 48 47 29 41 24
99 68
67 95 63 79 99 47 46 28 40 13
98
±4 ±3 ±4 ±3 90% CI
90% CI ±3

Table A4 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 14 to 18 Years
Total T %He Total T %He Total T %He Total T %Ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
216 97 99 179 81 99 142 65 89 105 50 55
215 96 99 178 81 99 141 65 89 104 49 54
214 96 99 177 80 99 140 65 89 103 49 52
213 95 99 176 80 99 139 64 89 102 49 51
212 95 99 175 79 99 138 64 89 101 48 48
211 94 99 174 79 99 137 63 88 100 48 47
210 94 99 173 78 99 136 63 87 99 47 46
209 94 99 172 78 99 135 63 87 98 47 45
208 93 99 171 78 99 134 62 87 97 47 44
207 93 99 170 77 99 133 62 86 96 46 43
206 92 99 169 77 99 132 61 85 95 46 42
205 92 99 168 76 99 131 61 84 94 45 40
204 92 99 167 76 99 130 60 84 93 45 40
203 91 99 166 76 99 129 60 84 92 44 39
202 91 99 165 75 99 128 60 83 91 44 36
201 90 99 164 75 99 127 59 83 90 44 34
200 90 99 163 74 98 126 59 81 89 43 32
199 89 99 162 74 98 125 58 79 88 43 32
198 89 99 161 73 97 124 58 77 87 42 30
197 89 99 160 73 97 123 57 76 86 42 29
196 88 99 159 73 96 122 57 75 85 42 29
195 88 99 158 72 96 121 57 73 84 41 28
194 87 99 157 72 95 120 56 72 83 41 25
193 87 99 156 71 95 119 56 72 82 40 22
192 86 99 155 71 95 118 55 71 81 40 20
191 86 99 154 71 95 117 55 70 80 39 18
190 86 99 153 70 94 116 55 69 79 39 16
189 85 99 152 70 93 115 54 68 78 39 14
188 85 99 151 69 93 114 54 67 77 38 13
187 84 99 150 69 93 113 53 65 76 38 11
186 84 99 149 68 92 112 53 64 75 37 9
185 84 99 148 68 91 111 52 64 74 37 8
184 83 99 147 68 91 110 52 61 73 36 6
183 83 99 146 67 91 109 52 60 72 36 2
182 82 99 145 67 90 108 51 58
181 82 99 144 66 89 107 51 58
180 81 99 143 66 89 106 50 57
90% CI ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 90% CI
 APPENDIX B
T-SCORE AND PERCENTILE CONVERSION TABLES
AND 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL VALUES FOR THE
BRIEF PARENT FORM: GIRLS BY AGE GROUP

103
 Table B1
Parent Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 5 to 7 Years
Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Scale
Scale %II e raw
T %ile %ile %ile %ile %ile %ile %ile
raw rank score
rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
score score
100 99 36
36
98 99 35
35
95 99 34
34
92 99 33
33
90 99 32
32
87 99 31
31
85 99 88 99 85 99 30
30 87 99
82 99 86 99 82 99 29
29 85 99
80 98 83 99 80 98 28
28 83 98
78 98 81 99 77 98 27
27 80 96
75 98 78 99 74 97 26
26 78 96
73 98 75 98 72 95 25
25 75 96
70 98 99 99 73 97 69 94 91 99 24
24 73 96 99 99
68 96 95 99 70 94 67 93 87 99 23
23 70 95 95 99
65 94 91 99 68 94 64 90 84 99 22
22 68 94 91 99
63 88 87 99 65 92 61 89 80 99 21
21 65 91 88 99
98 60 87 83 99 62 90 59 84 76 98 20
20 63 89 84
98 58 80 79 99 60 84 56 79 73 97 19
19 60 88 80
98 55 75 75 97 57 79 54 69 73 99 69 96 18
18 58 84 76
53 69 71 96 55 73 51 61 70 97 65 94 17
17 55 81 72 95
94 50 62 67 95 52 63 49 53 66 94 62 91 16
16 53 73 68
92 48 50 63 92 49 54 46 44 63 91 58 82 15
15 51 63 64
46 41 59 86 47 47 43 33 59 83 54 70 14
14 48 54 60 89
43 31 55 78 44 36 41 23 56 75 51 61 13
13 46 46 56 83
73 41 25 51 62 42 29 38 12 52 67 47 45 12
12 43 30 53
38 16 47 49 39 18 49 54 43 33 11
11 41 20 49 54
38 36 7 43 33 36 10 45 41 40 19 10
10 38 12 45
41 26 39 20 42 26 36 12
9
37 12 35 10 39 16 33 7
8
35 10
7
32 4 6
6
±9 ±6 ±7 ±8 90% CI
90% CI _ ±8

Table B1 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 5 to 7 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Regulation Metacognition
Index
raw %ile %ile raw 0
/oil• e
score
0/oile raw %ile %ile
T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank Tscore rank
132 98 99 97 72 96 62 71 95 45 37
131 98 99 96 71 95 61 70 95 45 33
130 97 99 95 70 94 60 69 95 44 31
129 96 99 94 70 94 59 68 95 43 28
128 95 99 93 69 94 58 67 93 42 25
127 95 99 92 68 93 57 66 93 42 20
126 94 99 91 67 93 56 65 92 41 18
125 93 99 90 67 93 55 64 92 40 15
124 92 99 89 66 93 54 63 90 39 13
123 92 99 88 65 92 53 62 88 39 12
122 91 99 87 64 91 52 61 86 38 10
121 90 99 86 64 90 51 60 84 37 8
120 89 99 85 63 89 50 59 81 36 7
119 89 99 84 95 99 62 89 49 58 80 36 6
118 88 99 83 94 99 61 89 48 56 76 35 5
117 87 99 82 93 99 61 88 47 55 75 34 4
116 86 99 81 92 99 60 86 46 54 73 33 4
115 86 99 80 91 99 59 84 45 53 70 32 2
114 85 99 79 89 99 58 81 44 52 65 32 1
113 84 99 78 88 99 57 80 43 51 61
112 83 99 77 87 99 57 79 42 50 58
111 83 99 76 86 99 56 78 41 49 52
110 82 99 75 85 99 55 75 40 48 46
109 81 98 74 84 99 54 71 39 47 43
108 80 98 73 83 98 54 68 38 46 40
107 79 98 72 82 98 53 66 37 45 37
106 79 98 71 81 98 52 64 36 44 29
105 78 98 70 80 98 51 58 35 43 25
104 77 98 69 79 98 51 56 34 42 23
103 76 98 68 78 98 50 54 33 41 20
102 76 98 67 77 98 49 50 32 39 16
101 75 98 66 76 97 48 49 31 38 11
100 74 97 65 75 97 48 45 30 37 7
99 73 97 64 74 96 47 41 29 36 5
98 73 97 63 72 96 46 40 28 35 4
90% CI ±4 ±4 ±4 ±4 ±4 90% CI
01
 Table B1 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 5 to 7 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank

216 101 99 179 83 99 142 66 91 105 48 42

215 100 99 178 83 99 141 65 91 104 47 41
214 100 99 177 82 99 140 65 90 103 47 40
213 99 99 176 82 99 139 64 89 102 46 38
212 99 99 175 81 98 138 64 88 101 46 37
211 98 99 174 81 98 137 63 88 100 45 37
210 98 99 173 80 98 136 63 87 99 45 35
209 97 99 172 80 98 135 62 87 98 45 31
208 97 99 171 79 98 134 62 87 97 44 31
207 97 99 170 79 98 133 61 87 96 44 29
206 96 99 169 78 98 132 61 86 95 43 27
205 96 99 168 78 98 131 60 86 94 43 24
204 95 99 167 77 98 130 60 85 93 42 21
203 95 99 166 77 98 129 59 84 92 42 20
202 94 99 165 76 98 128 59 84 91 41 19
201 94 99 164 76 98 127 58 82 90 41 18
200 93 99 163 76 98 126 58 81 89 40 16
199 93 99 162 75 98 125 57 79 88 40 15
198 92 99 161 75 97 124 57 77 87 39 13
197 92 99 160 74 97 123 56 75 86 39 11
196 91 99 159 74 97 122 56 74 85 38
195 91 99 158 73 97 121 56 74 84 38
194 90 99 157 73 97 120 55 73 83 37
193 90 99 156 72 97 119 55 71 82 37
192 89 99 155 72 96 118 54 69 81 36
191 89 99 154 71 96 117 54 68 80 36
190 88 99 153 71 96 116 53 66 79 35
189 88 99 152 70 96 115 53 65 78 35
188 87 99 151 70 95 114 52 63 77 35
187 87 99 150 69 94 113 52 62 76 34
186 87 99 149 69 93 112 51 60 75 34
185 86 99 148 68 93 111 51 57 74 33
184 86 99 147 68 93 110 50 54 73 33
183 85 99 146 67 92 109 50 49 72 32
182 85 99 145 67 92 108 49 48
181 84 99 144 66 92 107 49 47
180 84 99 143 66 91 106 48 44
90% CI ±3 ±3 _3 ±3 90% CI

Table B2
Parent Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 8 to 10 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate
Scale Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
raw %ile %ile %ile %ile Scale
score score rank %ile T %ile %ile %ile
score rank score rank score rank score rank score
raw
rank score rank score rank score
36
84 99 36
35
82 99 35
34
80 97 34
33
78 97 33
32
76 97 32
31
75 97 31
30 89 99 80 99 83 99 73 97 30
29 87 99 78 99 81 98 71 96 29
28 84 98 75 98 79 98 69 96 28
27 82 98 73 98 77 98 67 94
26 79 98 71 27
96 74 98 65 91
25 77 97 69 93 26
72 97 63 90 25
24 74 97 86 99 67 92 87 99 70 96 61 88 81 99
23 72 95 83 99 64 24
90 84 99 68 94 59 82
22 69 94 80 78 99 23
99 62 88 81 99 66 91 57 77
21 67 94 77 98 75 99 22
60 86 78 98 63 88 55 72
20 64 92 74 72 99 21
97 58 82 74 97 61 86 53 68
19 62 89 71 69 97 20
95 56 76 71 97 59 83 51 62
18 60 84 68 67 93 19
94 54 70 68 95 57 77 49 57
17 57 69 99 64 89 18
80 65 93 51 64 65 91 55 72 47 48 66 94 61 86 17
16 55 77 62 91 49 55 62 89 52 68 45 43 63 88 58 80 16
15 52 70 59 86 47 47 59 85 50 61 44 36 60 83 55 73 15
14 50 65 56 78 45 42 55 78 48 56 42 30 57 77 52 67 14
13 47 56 53 71 43 33 52 68 46 49 40 22 54 69 49 56 13
12 45 42 50 62 40 23 49 58 44 36 38 12 51 62 46 47 12
11 42 33 47 54 38 13 46 44 41 29 48 49 44 36 11
10 40 20 44 41 36 5 43 33 39 19 45 39 41 26 10
9 41 29 40 22
8 43 31 38 13 9
39 16 36 9
7 40 20 35 7
6 37 16
34 7 6
90% CI
±5 ±6 90% CI
 Table 62 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 8 to 10 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %He Toile raw Toile Toile raw Toile %He
Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank
score Tscore rank
132 85 99 97 65 89 62 69 92 45 40
131 85 99 96 65 89 61 68 92 45 37
130 84 99 95 64 88 60 67 92 44 34
129 84 99 94 64 88 59 66 91 43 33
128 83 99 93 63 87 58 65 91 43 29
127 82 99 92 62 87 57 64 90 42 26
126 82 99 91 62 87 56 63 89 42 24
125 81 99 90 61 86 55 62 88 41 21
124 81 99 89 61 83 54 61 87 41 19
123 80 99 88 60 82 53 60 85 40 18
122 80 98 87 60 82 52 59 83 39 16
121 79 98 86 59 81 51 58 82 39 13
120 78 98 85 58 80 50 57 80 38 12
119 78 98 84 89 99 58 78 49 56 77 38 11
118 77 98 83 88 99 57 76 48 55 76 37 8
117 77 98 82 87 99 57 75 47 54 73 37
116 76 98 81 87 99 56 75 46 53 71 36
115 76 98 80 86 99 56 73 45 52 67 35
114 75 98 79 85 99 55 72 44 52 64 35
113 74 98 78 84 99 54 71 43 51 59
112 74 98 77 83 99 54 68 42 50 56
111 73 98 76 82 99 53 65 41 49 54
110 73 98 75 81 99 53 64 40 48 50
109 72 98 74 80 98 52 62 39 47 46
108 72 98 73 79 98 52 59 38 46 42
107 71 98 72 78 98 51 58 37 45 36
106 70 97 71 77 98 50 57 36 44 32
105 70 97 70 76 98 50 55 35 43 30
104 69 96 69 75 98 49 55 34 42 25
103 69 95 68 74 96 49 52 33 41 22
102 68 94 67 73 95 48 50 32 40 18
101 68 94 66 72 95 48 49 31 39 15
100 67 91 65 71 94 47 46 30 38 11
99 66 91 64 70 94 46 43 29 37 6
98 66 89 63 69 92 46 41 28 36 3

±3 ±4 ±3 ±4 ±3 90% CI
90% CI

Table B2 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 8 to 10 Years
Total T %Ile Total T %Ile Total T %Ile Total T %Ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
216 89 99 179 75 97 142 61 86 105 47 46
215 88 99 178 74 97 141 61 85 104 47 44
214 88 99 177 74 97 140 60 84 103 46 42
213 88 99 176 74 97 139 60 83 102 46 40
212 87 99 175 73 97 138 59 80 101 46 39
211 87 99 174 73 97 137 59 80 100 45 38
210 86 99 173 73 97 136 59 80 99 45 36
209 86 99 172 72 97 135 58 79 98 44 34
208 86 99 171 72 96 134 58 78 97 44 33
207 85 99 170 71 96 133 58 77 96 44 31
206 85 99 169 71 96 132 57 77 95 43 30
205 85 99 168 71 94 131 57 75 94 43 27
204 84 99 167 70 94 130 56 74 93 43 27
203 84 99 166 70 94 129 56 72 92 42 26
202 83 99 165 70 94 128 56 72 91 42 24
201 83 99 164 69 94 127 55 71 90 41 23
200 83 99 163 69 94 126 55 71 89 41 21
199 82 99 162 68 94 125 55 70 88 41 19
198 82 99 161 68 94 124 54 70 87 40 17
197 82 99 160 68 93 123 54 69 86 40 16
196 81 99 159 67 93 122 53 68 85 40 15
195 81 99 158 67 93 121 53 66 84 39 14
194 80 99 157 67 93 120 53 65 83 39 14
193 80 99 156 66 92 119 52 65 82 38 13
192 80 99 155 66 91 118 52 64 81 38 12
191 79 99 154 65 91 117 52 63 80 38 10
190 79 99 153 65 91 116 51 61 79 37 8
189 79 99 152 65 90 115 51 59 78 37
188 78 99 151 64 90 114 50 58 77 37
187 78 98 150 64 89 113 50 57 76 36
186 77 98 149 64 89 112 50 56 75 36
185 77 98 148 63 88 111 49 55 74 35
184 77 98 147 63 87 110 49 54 73 35
183 76 98 146 62 87 109 49 53 72 35
182 76 98 145 62 87 108 48 51
181 76 98 144 62 86 107 48 50
180 75 98 143 61 86 106 47 49
90% CI ±2 ±2 2 ±2 90% CI
 Table B3
Parent Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 11 to 13 Years
Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Scale
Scale
%ile T %He T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile raw
raw T %ile T
rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
score score rank score
88 99 36
36
86 99 35
35
84 99 34
34
82 99 33
33
80 98 32
32
78 98 31
31
85 99 89 99 76 97 30
30 94 99
83 99 87 99 74 97 29
29 91 99
80 98 84 99 72 97 28
28 89 99
98 82 99 70 96 27
27 86 99 78
75 97 79 98 68 95 26
26 84 98
73 96 77 98 66 93 25
25 81 98
71 96 89 99 74 97 64 90 86 99 24
24 78 97 95 99
99 68 94 86 99 72 96 62 86 82 99 23
23 76 97 91
99 66 92 83 99 69 95 60 83 79 99 22
22 73 96 88
63 89 79 99 67 93 58 78 76 99 21
21 70 94 84 99
61 85 76 98 65 91 55 75 73 98 20
20 68 93 81 99
81 73 97 62 88 53 71 70 95 19
19 65 91 77 98 59
56 78 69 95 60 84 51 66 70 99 67 93 18
18 63 89 74 97
54 74 66 90 57 80 49 59 67 95 64 91 17
17 60 86 70 94
93 51 65 63 89 55 74 47 55 64 92 61 88 16
16 57 81 66
49 56 59 86 52 66 45 45 61 86 58 81 15
15 55 77 63 92
47 45 56 80 50 61 43 33 58 82 55 75 14
14 52 71 59 84
44 37 53 71 47 54 41 24 55 77 52 65 13
13 49 65 56 76
42 25 50 59 45 48 39 15 52 66 49 53 12
12 47 55 52 65
39 17 46 44 43 36 49 52 46 42 11
11 44 45 49 57
8 43 33 40 23 46 43 43 33 10
10 42 28 45 45 37
40 20 43 33 40 20 9
9 42 28
36 7 41 23 36 10 8
8 38 14
38 15 7
7
35 10 6
6
±6 90% CI
90% CI

Table B3 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 11 to 13 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score Tscore rank Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank
132 90 99 97 68 93 62 73 96 47 48
131 89 99 96 68 93 61 72 96 46 45
130 89 99 95 67 93 60 71 94 45 42
129 88 99 94 66 92 59 70 93 45 39
128 87 99 93 66 92 58 69 93 44 36
127 87 99 92 65 91 57 68 93 44 33
126 86 99 91 65 91 56 67 92 43 30
125 86 99 90 64 90 55 66 92 42 28
124 85 99 89 63 90 54 65 90 42 25
123 84 99 88 63 89 53 64 88 41 22
122 84 99 87 62 88 52 63 87 40 20
121 83 99 86 61 87 51 62 87 40 16
120 82 99 85 61 87 50 61 86 39 14
119 82 99 84 96 99 60 85 49 60 84 39 10
118 81 99 83 95 99 60 84 48 58 83 38 7
117 81 99 82 94 99 59 83 47 57 82 37 3
116 80 99 81 93 99 58 82 46 56 79 37
115 79 99 80 92 99 58 80 45 55 76 36
114 79 99 79 91 99 57 77 44 54 73 36
113 78 98 78 90 99 57 76 43 53 70
112 78 98 77 89 99 56 75 42 52 67
111 77 98 76 88 99 55 73 41 51 63
110 76 97 75 87 99 55 71 40 50 58
109 76 97 74 86 99 54 70 39 49 56
108 75 97 73 85 99 53 70 38 48 50
107 74 97 72 84 99 53 68 37 47 47
106 74 96 71 83 99 52 65 36 46 42
105 73 96 70 82 98 52 63 35 45 35
104 73 96 69 81 98 51 60 34 44 30
103 72 96 68 79 97 50 57 33 43 25
102 71 95 67 78 97 50 56 32 42 20
101 71 95 66 77 96 49 55 31 41 15
100 70 94 65 76 96 49 53 30 40 11
99 70 94 64 75 96 48 51 29 38
98 69 93 63 74 96 47 50 28 37
90% CI ±3 ±4 ±3 ±4 ±3 90% CI
 'ThIrmr""^

Table B3 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 11 to 13 Years
T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
Total
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank

216 95 99 179 80 99 142 64 89 105 49 55

215 94 99 178 79 98 141 64 89 104 49 53
214 94 99 177 79 98 140 64 88 103 48 52
213 94 99 176 78 98 139 63 88 102 48 50
212 93 99 175 78 98 138 63 88 101 47 47
211 93 99 174 78 98 137 62 87 100 47 47
210 92 99 173 77 98 136 62 87 99 47 44
209 92 99 172 77 97 135 61 86 98 46 43
208 92 99 171 76 97 134 61 85 97 46 40
207 91 99 170 76 97 133 61 84 96 45 38
206 91 99 169 76 97 132 60 83 95 45 37
205 90 99 168 75 97 131 60 82 94 45 35
204 90 99 167 75 97 130 59 80 93 44 33
203 90 99 166 74 96 129 59 80 92 44 32
202 89 99 165 74 96 128 59 80 91 43 30
201 89 99 164 73 96 127 58 79 90 43 28
200 88 99 163 73 96 126 58 78 89 43 26
199 88 99 162 73 96 125 57 77 88 42 24
198 87 99 161 72 95 124 57 77 87 42 22
197 87 99 160 72 95 123 57 77 86 41 19
196 87 99 159 71 95 122 56 77 85 41 18
195 86 99 158 71 95 121 56 76 84 40 17
194 86 99 157 71 95 120 55 74 83 40 15
193 85 99 156 70 94 119 55 73 82 40 12
192 85 99 155 70 94 118 54 72 81 39 10
191 85 99 154 69 94 117 54 70 80 39
190 84 99 153 69 93 116 54 69 79 38
189 84 99 152 69 93 115 53 69 78 38
188 83 99 151 68 93 114 53 67 77 38
187 83 99 150 68 93 113 52 65 76 37
186 83 99 149 67 92 112 52 65 75 37
185 82 99 148 67 92 111 52 63 74 36
184 82 99 147 66 92 110 51 62 73 36
183 81 99 146 66 92 109 51 61 72 36
182 81 99 145 66 92 108 50 60
181 80 99 144 65 91 107 50 59
180 80 99 143 65 90 106 50 58

90% CI +3 _3 ±3 ±3 90% CI

Table B4
Parent Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 14 to 18 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Scale Scale
raw T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile raw
score score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
36 91 99 36
35 89 99 35
34 87 99 34
33 84 99 33
32 82 99 32
31 80 99 31
30 98 99 85 99 92 99 78 99 30
29 95 99 82 98 89 99 76 99 29
28 92 99 80 98 87 99 74 98 28
27 90 99 78 98 84 99 71 98 27
26 87 99 75 97 82 99 69 97 26
25 84 98 73 96 79 99 67 96 25
24 81 98 88 99 70 96 86 99 77 98 65 95 91 99 24
23 78 98 85 99 68 95 83 99 74 98 63 90 88 99 23
22 75 98 82 99 66 95 80 99 71 96 61 88 84 99 22
21 72 97 79 99 63 90 77 99 69 95 58 84 81 99 21
20 70 97 75 99 61 88 74 99 66 95 56 80 77 99 20
19 67 93 72 98 59 83 71 98 64 90 54 77 74 98 19
18 64 92 69 96 56 75 68 96 61 88 52 72 71 99 71 97 18
17 61 87 66 94 54 71 65 93 58 84 50 69 68 96 67 96 17
16 58 81 63 92 51 67 62 89 56 78 47 65 65 92 64 92 16
15 55 75 60 86 49 60 59 84 53 74 45 58 62 90 60 87 15
14 52 70 57 79 47 49 56 78 51 67 43 46 59 84 57 79 14
13 50 64 54 71 44 41 53 70 48 62 41 27 56 76 53 69 13
12 47 57 51 66 42 32 49 59 46 51 39 14 53 68 50 60 12
11 44 47 48 60 40 19 46 48 43 45 50 56 47 50 11
10 41 35 45 48 37 11 43 38 40 28 47 45 43 39 10
41 31 40 28 43 33 40 28
38 19 37 14 40 25 36 12
37 18
6 34 9 6
90% CI 6 90% Cl
 Table B4 (continued)
Parent Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 14 to 18 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %He %ile raw %He %ile raw %ile %ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 95 99 97 71 97 62 73 98 48 49
131 94 99 96 71 97 61 72 98 47 48
130 94 99 95 70 96 60 71 97 46 45
129 93 99 94 69 94 59 70 97 46 41
128 92 99 93 69 94 58 69 96 45 38
127 92 99 92 68 93 57 68 96 44 35
126 91 99 91 67 92 56 67 95 44 33
125 90 99 90 67 92 55 66 93 43 31
124 90 99 89 66 91 54 64 92 42 28
123 89 99 88 65 90 53 63 90 42 25
122 88 99 87 65 88 52 62 87 41 23
121 88 99 86 64 88 51 61 87 40 21
120 87 99 85 63 87 50 60 85 40 17
119 86 99 84 96 99 63 87 49 59 81 39 13
118 86 99 83 95 99 62 87 48 58 76 38 8
117 85 99 82 94 99 61 86 47 57 74 38 7
116 84 99 81 93 99 61 84 46 56 72 37 6
115 84 99 80 92 99 60 83 45 55 70 36 4
114 83 99 79 91 99 59 82 44 54 68 35 1
113 82 99 78 90 99 58 81 43 53 66
112 82 99 77 89 99 58 80 42 52 64
111 81 99 76 88 99 57 78 41 51 61
110 80 99 75 87 99 56 76 40 50 60
109 79 99 74 86 99 56 75 39 49 57
108 79 99 73 85 99 55 72 38 48 55
107 78 99 72 83 99 54 70 37 46 50
106 77 99 71 82 99 54 67 36 45 46
105 77 98 70 81 99 53 65 35 44 43
104 76 98 69 80 99 52 65 34 43 36
103 75 98 68 79 99 52 63 33 42 33
102 75 98 67 78 99 51 59 32 41 26
101 74 98 66 77 98 50 58 31 40 18
100 73 98 65 76 98 50 55 30 39 15
99 73 97 64 75 98 49 54 29 38 11
98 72 97 63 74 98 48 52 28 37 6
90% CI ±4 ±4 ±4 ±4 ±4 90% CI

Table B4 (continued)
Parent Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 14 to 18 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
216 97 99 179 81 99 142 65 93 105 49 58
215 97 99 178 81 99 141 65 93 104 49 56
214 97 99 177 81 99 140 64 92 103 48 56
213 96 99 176 80 99 139 64 92 102 48 52
212 96 99 175 80 99 138 64 91 101 48 51
211 95 99 174 79 99 137 63 90 100 47 49
210 95 99 173 79 99 136 63 89 99 47 45
209 94 99 172 78 99 135 62 88 98 46 45
208 94 99 171 78 99 134 62 87 97 46 44
207 94 99 170 77 99 133 61 86 96 45 44
206 93 99 169 77 99 132 61 84 95 45 40
205 93 99 168 77 99 131 61 83 94 45 39
204 92 99 167 76 99 130 60 82 93 44 38
203 92 99 166 76 99 129 60 81 92 44 37
202 91 99 165 75 99 128 59 81 91 43 35
201 91 99 164 75 98 127 59 80 90 43 32
200 91 99 163 74 98 126 58 79 89 42 32
199 90 99 162 74 98 125 58 78 88 42 29
198 90 99 161 74 98 124 58 77 87 42 27
197 89 99 160 73 98 123 57 76 86 41 27
196 89 99 159 73 98 122 57 74 85 41 24
195 88 99 158 72 98 121 56 74 84 40 22
194 88 99 157 72 98 120 56 72 83 40 18
193 87 99 156 71 98 119 55 71 82 39 16
192 87 99 155 71 98 118 55 70 81 39 14
191 87 99 154 71 97 117 55 69 80 38 11
190 86 99 153 70 97 116 54 69 79 38 9
189 86 99 152 70 96 115 54 68 78 38 8
188 85 99 151 69 96 114 53 67 77 37 7
187 85 99 150 69 95 113 53 67 76 37 5
186 84 99 149 68 95 112 52 66 75 36 4
185 84 99 148 68 95 111 52 63 74 36 4
184 84 99 147 68 95 110 51 61 73 35 2
183 83 99 146 67 94 109 51 60 72 35 1
182 83 99 145 67 94 108 51 59
181 82 99 144 66 93 107 50 59
180 82 99 143 66 93 106 50 58
90% CI ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 90% CI
 APPENDIX C
T-SCORE AND PERCENTILE CONVERSION TABLES
AND 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL VALUES FOR THE
BRIEF TEACHER FORM: BOYS BY AGE GROUP

117
 Table Cl
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 5 to 6 Years
Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Scale
Scale T %ile T %ile raw
%ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile
raw T score rank score
score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank
score score rank
88 99 89 99 83 99 30
30 72 99 97 99
85 99 87 99 81 99 29
29 71 90 94 99
83 99 84 99 78 98 28
28 69 89 91 99
99 81 99 82 99 76 97 27
27 68 87 89 99 92
78 99 79 99 74 96 26
26 66 86 86 99 90 99
76 98 77 98 72 95 25
25 65 85 83 99 87 99
74 96 75 97 70 94 24
24 63 84 81 99 84 99
71 95 72 96 67 92 23
23 62 84 78 98 81 99
69 94 70 93 65 90 22
22, 60 83 75 96 79 99
99 67 93 68 90 84 99 63 88 21
21 59 82 73 91 76 95 85
82 99 64 92 65 89 81 97 61 81 20
20 57 81 70 90 73 93
79 99 62 82 63 88 78 95 59 80 19
19 56 79 67 88 71 92
76 98 60 81 60 84 75 94 56 79 18
18 54 76 64 86 68 91
97 57 80 58 82 72 93 54 75 17
17 52 74 62 84 65 89 73
70 96 55 78 56 78 69 92 52 65 16
16 51 64 59 83 62 87
66 95 52 70 53 68 67 91 50 60 15
15 49 52 56 80 60 85
63 94 50 65 51 60 64 90 48 55 14
14 48 49 54 76 57 83
60 87 48 60 49 57 61 88 46 45 13
13 46 47 51 70 54 80
57 80 45 50 46 50 58 86 43 35 12
12 45 46 48 67 52 70
54 75 43 35 44 45 55 80 41 28 11
11 43 37 46 50 49 64
55 51 65 41 30 41 40 52 70 39 13 10
10 42 33 43 40 46
45 48 54 49 63 9
9 43
45 46 47 57 8
8
42 40 44 50 7
7
±4 ±6 90% CI
90% CI ±3 ±5 ±5 ±5

Table Cl (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 5 to 6 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 90 99 97 70 94 62 68 88 50 61
131 90 99 96 70 94 61 68 87 50 58
130 89 99 95 69 94 60 67 87 49 57
129 89 99 94 69 94 59 66 87 49 54
128 88 99 93 68 93 58 65 87 48 51
127 87 99 92 67 93 57 64 87 47 50
126 87 99 91 67 93 56 63 86 47 49
125 86 99 90 66 93 55 63 86 46 47
124 86 99 89 66 92 54 62 86 46 44
123 85 99 88 65 92 53 61 86 45 39
122 85 99 87 89 99 65 92 52 60 85 45 38
121 84 99 86 88 99 64 91 51 59 85 44 37
120 83 99 85 87 99 63 91 50 59 83 43 35
119 83 99 84 86 99 63 91 49 58 81 43 32
118 82 99 83 85 99 62 90 48 57 80 42 30
117 82 99 82 85 99 62 88 47 56 78 42 29
116 81 99 81 84 99 61 87 46 55 77 41 27
115 81 97 80 83 99 61 86 45 55 75 41 20
114 80 97 79 82 99 60 82 44 54 72 40 10
113 79 97 78 81 99 59 81 43 53 71
112 79 97 77 81 99 59 80 42 52 70
111 78 97 76 80 98 58 79 41 51 65
110 78 96 75 79 98 58 78 40 50 63
109 77 96 74 78 97 57 78 39 50 62
108 77 96 73 77 97 57 77 38 49 61
107 76 96 72 77 96 56 76 37 48 58
106 75 96 71 76 96 55 75 36 47 54
105 75 96 70 75 96 55 75 35 46 50
104 74 96 69 74 95 54 74 34 46 48
103 74 96 68 73 95 54 73 33 45 44
102 73 95 67 72 94 53 70 32 44 42
101 73 95 66 72 94 53 67 31 43 37
100 72 95 65 71 93 52 65 30 42 35
99 71 95 64 70 92 51 64 29 42 25
98 71 95 63 69 91 51 62
90% CI ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 90% CI
 Table Cl (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 5 to 6 Years

Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile

raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank

219 93 99 182 80 97 145 66 91 108 53 67

218 93 99 181 79 97 144 66 91 107 52 66
217 92 99 180 79 97 143 65 91 106 52 65
216 92 99 179 78 96 142 65 91 105 51 64
215 92 99 178 78 96 141 65 90 104 51 60
214 91 99 177 78 96 140 64 90 103 51 58
213 91 99 176 77 96 139 64 90 102 50 57
212 90 99 175 77 96 138 63 89 101 50 56
211 90 99 174 77 96 137 63 89 100 50 55
210 90 99 173 76 95 136 63 89 99 49 54
209 89 99 172 76 95 135 62 88 98 49 54
208 89 99 171 76 95 134 62 87 97 49 53
207 89 99 170 75 95 133 62 87 96 48 53
206 88 99 169 75 95 132 61 86 95 48 52
205 88 99 168 74 95 131 61 85 94 47 51
204 88 99 167 74 95 130 61 84 93 47 50
203 87 99 166 74 95 129 60 84 92 47 49
202 87 99 165 73 95 128 60 83 91 46 45
201 86 99 164 73 95 127 59 82 90 46 42
200 86 99 163 73 95 126 59 81 89 46 41
199 86 99 162 72 94 125 59 81 88 45 41
198 85 99 161 72 94 124 58 80 87 45 40
197 85 99 160 72 94 123 58 80 86 45 40
196 85 99 159 71 94 122 58 80 85 44 37
195 84 99 158 71 94 121 57 79 84 44 34
194 84 99 157 70 94 120 57 79 83 43 33
193 84 99 156 70 94 119 57 78 82 43 32
192 83 99 155 70 93 118 56 77 81 43 32
191 83 99 154 69 93 117 56 76 80 42 31
190 82 99 153 69 93 116 55 75 79 42 30
189 82 98 152 69 93 115 55 75 78 42 29
188 82 98 151 68 93 114 55 75 77 41 28
187 81 98 150 68 92 113 54 74 76 41 24
186 81 98 149 68 92 112 54 73 75 41 20
185 81 98 148 67 92 111 54 72 74 40 15
184 80 98 147 67 92 110 53 71 73 40 7
183 80 98 146 66 92 109 53 70

90% CI ±2 ±2 _2 ±2 90% CI

Table C2
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 7 to 8 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Scale
Scale
raw T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile raw
score score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
30 70 99 85 99 74 99 80 99 74 99 30
29 69 93 83 99 72 97 78 99 72 97 29
28 67 89 81 99 70 96 76 98 70 96 28
27 66 86 79 99 79 99 68 94 74 97 68 93 27
26 64 84 76 98 77 96 67 93 72 96 67 90 26
25 63 82 74 97 75 95 65 90 70 95 65 88 25
24 62 81 72 96 73 95 63 88 67 94 63 85 24
23 60 80 70 95 71 94 61 87 65 93 61 83 23
22 59 78 68 94 69 93 59 80 63 92 59 81 22
21 57 77 65 90 67 92 75 99 58 75 61 87 76 99 58 79 21
20 56 75 63 85 65 91 72 97 56 73 59 83 74 98 56 77 20
19 54 70 61 82 63 90 69 95 54 70 57 75 71 96 54 75 19
18 53 69 59 80 61 87 67 93 52 65 55 67 69 94 52 68 18
17 52 66 57 77 59 84 64 90 51 55 52 61 66 93 51 58 17
16 50 63 55 75 57 80 62 86 49 50 50 56 64 87 49 54 16
15 49 60 52 70 55 76 59 80 47 47 48 50 61 84 47 50 15
14 47 57 50 65 53 68 57 70 45 40 46 47 59 79 45 45 14
13 46 53 48 60 51 65 54 65 43 35 44 40 57 76 43 30 13
12 44 50 46 55 49 60 51 59 42 30 42 30 54 72 42 25 12
11 43 45 44 45 47 55 49 53 40 25 40 20 52 69 40 20 11
10 42 30 42 25 45 50 46 48 38 10 38 10 49 65 38 10 10
43 40 44 35 47 57 9
41 30 44 50 8
7 39 20 42 40 7
90% CI 5 ±4 ±5 90% CI
 Table C2 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 7 to 8 Years
Behavioral Behavioral
Behavioral
Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Regulation Metacognition Regulation
Index Index
Index %ile %ile
raw %ile %ile raw
raw %ile %ile T score rank
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank
score T score rank T score rank
62 88 62 63 86 46 40
132 78 99 97
62 87 61 62 85 45 39
131 78 99 96
61 85 60 61 84 45 38
130 77 99 95
61 84 59 61 82 44 37
129 77 99 94
60 83 58 60 82 44 36
128 76 98 93
60 83 57 59 81 44 35
127 76 98 92
59 82 56 59 81 43 34
126 75 98 91
59 81 55 58 80 43 33
125 75 98 90
58 80 54 57 79 42 32
124 75 98 89
58 77 53 57 78 42 31
123 74 97 88
99 57 75 52 56 77 41 30
122 74 97 87 79
99 57 74 51 56 76 41 28
121 73 97 86 78
56 73 50 55 73 40 25
120 73 97 85 78 99
99 56 72 49 54 72 40 20
119 72 97 84 77
56 70 48 54 71 39 15
118 72 97 83 76 98
55 69 47 53 71 39 12
117 71 96 82 76 98
55 68 46 52 70 38 10
116 71 96 81 75 97
74 97 54 68 45 52 70 38
115 70 96 80
96 54 67 44 51 67 37
114 70 95 79 74
78 73 96 53 66 43 50 66
113 69 95
77 73 95 53 64 42 50 65
112 69 95
76 72 95 52 62 41 49 63
111 69 94
75 71 94 52 60 40 48 62
110 68 93
74 71 94 51 59 39 48 60
109 68 93
73 70 93 51 59 38 47 55
108 67 93
72 69 93 50 58 37 46 52
107 67 92
71 69 92 50 57 36 46 47
106 66 92
70 68 92 50 56 35 45 41
105 66 92
69 67 91 49 55 34 44 40
104 65 92
68 67 91 49 54 33 44 39
103 65 91
67 66 89 48 50 32 43 38
102 64 91
66 65 89 48 49 31 42 35
101 64 90
65 65 88 47 46 30 42 25
100 63 90
64 88 47 45 29 41 10
99 63 90 64
63 89 63 63 87 46 42
98
±2 90% CI
90% CI ±2 ±2

Table C2 (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 7 to 8 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %Ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
219 80 99 182 70 95 145 59 81 108 48 54
218 80 99 181 69 95 144 59 81 107 48 53
217 80 99 180 69 94 143 58 80 106 48 52
216 79 99 179 69 94 142 58 80 105 48 51
215 79 99 178 68 94 141 58 80 104 47 50
214 79 99 177 68 93 140 58 78 103 47 48
213 79 98 176 68 92 139 57 78 102 47 47
212 78 98 175 68 91 138 57 77 101 46 46
211 78 98 174 67 90 137 57 77 100 46 45
210 78 98 173 67 89 136 56 77 99 46 42
209 77 98 172 67 89 135 56 77 98 46 40
208 77 98 171 66 88 134 56 76 97 45 39
207 77 98 170 66 88 133 56 76 96 45 38
206 77 98 169 66 88 132 55 76 95 45 37
205 76 98 168 66 88 131 55 76 94 44 36
204 76 98 167 65 88 130 55 75 93 44 35
203 76 97 166 65 87 129 54 75 92 44 35
202 75 97 165 65 87 128 54 75 91 44 34
201 75 97 164 64 87 127 54 74 90 43 34
200 75 97 163 64 87 126 54 73 89 43 33
199 75 97 162 64 87 125 53 72 88 43 32
198 74 97 161 64 87 124 53 72 87 42 30
197 74 97 160 63 87 123 53 71 86 42 27
196 74 97 159 63 86 122 52 70 85 42 25
195 73 96 158 63 86 121 52 67 84 42 24
194 73 96 157 62 86 120 52 65 83 41 23
193 73 96 156 62 86 119 52 64 82 41 22
192 73 96 155 62 86 118 51 62 81 41 20
191 72 96 154 62 86 117 51 61 80 40 16
190 72 96 153 61 85 116 51 60 79 40 13
189 72 96 152 61 84 115 50 59 78 40 12
188 71 96 151 61 84 114 50 58 77 40 10
187 71 95 150 60 83 113 50 57 76 39 9
186 71 95 149 60 83 112 50 56 75 39 7
185 70 95 148 60 82 111 49 55 74 39
184 70 95 147 60 82 110 49 55 73 38
183 70 95 146 59 81 109 49 54
90% CI +2 ±2 ±2 ±2 90% CI
 Table C3
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 9 to 13 Years
Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Scale
Scale T %ile T %ile T %ile raw
T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile
raw rank score rank score rank score
rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
score score
90 99 85 99 88 99 30
30 89 99 98 99
88 99 83 99 86 99 29
29 87 99 96 99
85 99 81 98 83 98 28
28 84 99 93 99
83 99 79 97 81 98 27
27 82 98 90 99 100 99
81 99 77 96 78 97 26
26 80 97 87 99 97 99
78 98 74 95 76 97 25
25 78 96 85 99 94 99
76 97 72 94 74 96 24
24 75 96 82 99 91 99
74 94 70 93 71 95 23
23 73 94 79 98 88 99
71 93 68 93 69 94 22
22 71 93 77 97 85 99
99 69 92 66 92 90 99 67 93 21
21 69 92 74 96 81 99 84
98 66 90 64 90 86 99 64 90 20
20 66 91 71 95 78 98 81
64 89 62 86 83 98 62 87 19
19 64 90 68 93 75 97 78 97
96 62 88 60 82 80 97 60 86 18
18 62 88 66 92 72 94 75
95 59 85 57 80 77 96 57 83 17
17 60 85 63 88 69 93 72
94 57 81 55 78 73 95 55 80 16
16 57 83 60 86 66 90 69
92 55 79 53 75 70 93 53 70 15
15 55 80 58 85 63 87 66
52 74 51 70 67 92 50 65 14
14 53 78 55 80 60 85 63 89
84 50 70 49 65 64 89 48 57 13
13 51 70 52 70 57 83 60
81 48 65 47 58 60 87 46 49 12
12 48 65 49 65 54 81 57
78 45 55 45 51 57 85 43 38 11
11 46 60 47 60 51 77 54
67 43 43 43 41 54 80 41 25 10
10 44 45 44 50 48 70 51
58 51 75 9
9 45 55 48
50 48 68 8
8 45
40 44 55 7
7 42
±4 ±5 90% CI
90% CI ±5

Table C3 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 9 to 13 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 90 99 97 71 95 62 76 96 52 69
131 90 99 96 71 95 61 75 96 51 68
130 89 99 95 70 94 60 74 96 51 66
129 89 99 94 69 94 59 73 96 50 64
128 88 99 93 69 93 58 72 95 50 63
127 88 99 92 68 92 57 71 95 49 62
126 87 99 91 68 92 56 70 95 49 61
125 87 99 90 67 91 55 69 95 48 60
124 86 99 89 67 91 54 68 94 47 58
123 85 99 88 66 90 53 67 92 47 57
122 85 99 87 101 99 66 89 52 66 91 46 54
121 84 98 86 100 99 65 88 51 65 90 46 51
120 84 98 85 99 99 64 88 50 64 89 45 49
119 83 98 84 98 99 64 87 49 63 89 45 46
118 83 98 83 97 99 63 87 48 62 88 44 42
117 82 98 82 96 99 63 87 47 61 86 44 36
116 82 98 81 95 99 62 87 46 60 85 43 32
115 81 98 80 94 99 62 87 45 59 84 42 25
114 80 98 79 93 99 61 86 44 58 82 42 18
113 80 97 78 92 99 61 86 43 57 81
112 79 97 77 91 99 60 86 42 56 78
111 79 97 76 90 99 60 85 41 55 77
110 78 97 75 89 98 59 85 40 54 76
109 78 97 74 88 98 58 85 39 53 75
108 77 97 73 87 98 58 84 38 52 74
107 77 97 72 86 98 57 83 37 51 73
106 76 97 71 85 98 57 82 36 50 70
105 76 96 70 84 98 56 81 35 49 69
104 75 96 69 83 98 56 80 34 48 65
103 74 95 68 82 98 55 79 33 47 62
102 74 95 67 81 98 55 79 32 46 57
101 73 95 66 80 97 54 77 31 45 53
100 73 95 65 79 97 53 75 30 44 45
99 72 95 64 78 97 53 73 29 43 34
98 72 95 63 77 97 52 70
90% CI ±4 4 ±3 ±4 90% CI
 Table C3
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 9 to 13 Years
Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Scale
Scale %ile T %He T %ile T %fie raw
T Toile T %lie T %ile T %ile T
raw score rank score rank score rank score
rank score rank score rank score rank score rank
score score
90 99 85 99 88 99 30
30 89 99 98 99
88 99 83 99 86 99 29
29 87 99 96 99
85 99 81 98 83 98 28
28 84 99 93 99
83 99 79 97 81 98 27
27 82 98 90 99 100 99
81 99 77 96 78 97 26
26 80 97 87 99 97 99
78 98 74 95 76 97 25
25 78 96 85 99 94 99
76 97 72 94 74 96 24
24 75 96 82 99 91 99
74 94 70 93 71 95 23
23 73 94 79 98 88 99
71 93 68 93 69 94 22
22 71 93 77 97 85 99
99 69 92 66 92 90 99 67 93 21
21 69 92 74 96 81 99 84
66 90 64 90 86 99 64 90 20
20 66 91 71 95 78 98 81 98
64 89 62 86 83 98 62 87 19
19 64 90 68 93 75 97 78 97
62 88 60 82 80 97 60 86 18
18 62 88 66 92 72 94 75 96
59 85 57 80 77 96 57 83 17
17 60 85 63 88 69 93 72 95
57 81 55 78 73 95 55 80 16
16 57 83 60 86 66 90 69 94
55 79 53 75 70 93 53 70 15
15 55 80 58 85 63 87 66 92
52 74 51 70 67 92 50 65 14
14 53 78 55 80 60 85 63 89
50 70 49 65 64 89 48 57 13
13 51 70 52 70 57 83 60 84
48 65 47 58 60 87 46 49 12
12 48 65 49 65 54 81 57 81
45 55 45 51 57 85 43 38 11
11 46 60 47 60 51 77 54 78
43 43 43 41 54 80 41 25 10
10 44 45 44 50 48 70 51 67
58 51 75 9
9 45 55 48
48 68 8
8 45 50
40 44 55 7
7 42
±4 ±5 90% CI
90% CI ±5

Table C3 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 9 to 13 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Regulation Metacognition
Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %lie
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 90 99 97 71 95 62 76 96 52 69
131 90 99 96 71 95 61 75 96 51 68
130 89 99 95 70 94 60 74 96 51 66
129 89 99 94 69 94 59 73 96 50 64
128 88 99 93 69 93 58 72 95 50 63
127 88 99 92 68 92 57 71 95 49 62
126 87 99 91 68 92 56 70 95 49 61
125 87 99 90 67 91 55 69 95 48 60
124 86 99 89 67 91 54 68 94 47 58
123 85 99 88 66 90 53 67 92 47 57
122 85 99 87 101 99 66 89 52 66 91 46 54
121 84 98 86 100 99 65 88 51 65 90 46 51
120 84 98 85 99 99 64 88 50 64 89 45 49
119 83 98 84 98 99 64 87 49 63 89 45 46
118 83 98 83 97 99 63 87 48 62 88 44 42
117 82 98 82 96 99 63 87 47 61 86 44 36
116 82 98 81 95 99 62 87 46 60 85 43 32
115 81 98 80 94 99 62 87 45 59 84 42 25
114 80 98 79 93 99 61 86 44 58 82 42 18
113 80 97 78 92 99 61 86 43 57 81
112 79 97 77 91 99 60 86 42 56 78
111 79 97 76 90 99 60 85 41 55 77
110 78 97 75 89 98 59 85 40 54 76
109 78 97 74 88 98 58 85 39 53 75
108 77 97 73 87 98 58 84 38 52 74
107 77 97 72 86 98 57 83 37 51 73
106 76 97 71 85 98 57 82 36 50 70
105 76 96 70 84 98 56 81 35 49 69
104 75 96 69 83 98 56 80 34 48 65
103 74 95 68 82 98 55 79 33 47 62
102 74 95 67 81 98 55 79 32 46 57
101 73 95 66 80 97 54 77 31 45 53
100 73 95 65 79 97 53 75 30 44 45
99 72 95 64 78 97 53 73 29 43 34
98 72 95 63 77 97 52 70
90% CI ±4 ±3 ±4 90% Cl
 Table C3 (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 9 to 13 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
219 97 99 182 83 98 145 69 93 108 55 79
218 97 99 181 83 98 144 69 93 107 55 78
217 96 99 180 82 98 143 68 92 106 54 77
216 96 99 179 82 98 142 68 92 105 54 76
215 96 99 178 82 98 141 68 91 104 54 75
214 95 99 177 81 98 140 67 91 103 53 74
213 95 99 176 81 98 139 67 90 102 53 73
212 94 99 175 80 98 138 66 90 101 52 72
211 94 99 174 80 98 137 66 89 100 52 71
210 94 99 173 80 98 136 66 89 99 52 70
209 93 99 172 79 98 135 65 89 98 51 69
208 93 99 171 79 98 134 65 89 97 51 67
207 93 99 170 79 98 133 65 88 96 51 65
206 92 99 169 78 98 132 64 88 95 50 63
205 92 99 168 78 97 131 64 88 94 50 61
204 91 99 167 77 97 130 63 87 93 49 59
203 91 99 166 77 97 129 63 87 92 49 59
202 91 99 165 77 97 128 63 87 91 49 58
201 90 99 164 76 97 127 62 86 90 48 58
200 90 99 163 76 97 126 62 86 89 48 57
199 90 99 162 76 97 125 62 86 88 48 57
198 89 99 161 75 97 124 61 86 87 47 56
197 89 99 160 75 96 123 61 86 86 47 55
196 88 99 159 74 96 122 60 86 85 46 53
195 88 99 158 74 96 121 60 85 84 46 51
194 88 99 157 74 96 120 60 85 83 46 49
193 87 99 156 73 96 119 59 85 82 45 47
192 87 99 155 73 95 118 59 85 81 45 44
191 87 99 154 73 95 117 59 85 80 45 43
190 86 98 153 72 95 116 58 85 79 44 41
189 86 98 152 72 95 115 58 84 78 44 39
188 85 98 151 71 95 114 57 84 77 43 36
187 85 98 150 71 95 113 57 84 76 43 32
186 85 98 149 71 95 112 57 83 75 43 27
185 84 98 148 70 94 111 56 82 74 42 20
184 84 98 147 70 94 110 56 81 73 42 15
183 83 98 146 69 94 109 56 80
90% CI ±2 ±2 _2 ±2 90% CI

Table C4
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Boys Ages 14 to 18 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory
Scale Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
raw T %ile T %ile T %ile T Scale
%ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T
score score rank score rank score rank score %He raw
rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
30 99 99 131 99 111 99 101 99 99 99
29 96 99 126 30
99 108 99 98 99 96 99 29
28 94 99 122 99 104 99 95 99 93 99
27 91 98 118 28
99 107 99 101 99 92 99
26 90 99 27
88 97 114 99 103 99 97 99 89 99 87 98 26
25 86 96 109 99 100 98 94 99 86 99 85 98
24 83 96 105 25
99 97 98 91 99 84 99
23 82 95 24
80 95 101 99 93 97 87 99 81 98 79 94 23
22 77 95 97 98 90 97 84 98 78 97 76 93 22
21 75 94 92 98 86 96 101 99 80 98 75 97 136 99 73 92 21
20 72 94 .88 97 83 96 96 99 77 97 72 96 130 99 71 91
19 69 94 84 20
97 79 95 92 99 73 97 69 96 123 99 68 90 19
18 67 93 79 97 76 94 88 99 70 96 66 95 116 99 65 89
17 64 91 18
75 96 73 93 84 98 67 95 63 95 110 99 62 88 17
16 61 87 71 95 69 91 80 97 63 90 60 92 103 99 59 87
15 58 85 16
67 90 66 90 76 96 60 84 57 86 97 99 56 82 15
14 56 83 62 87 62 88 72 95 56 78 54 76 90 98 54 77
13 53 81 14
58 80 59 87 68 91 53 72 51 67 84 97 51 68 13
12 50 70 54 77 56 85 63 87 49 65 48 64 77 95 48 58 12
11 48 60 50 70 52 82 59 84 46 58 46 57 70 93 45 50 11
10 45 50 45 50 49 70 55 78 43 50 43 52 64 88 42 35 10
9 45 50 51 73 57 80 9
8 47 65 51 68 8
7 43 40 44 50 7
90% CI ±7 ±9 90% CI
 Table C4 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Boys Ages 14 to 18 Years

Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral

Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Regulation Index
Index Index
%He raw %lie %Ile raw %He %He
raw %Ile rank
rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank Tscore
score T score rank T score
97 86 99 62 85 98 57 73
132 115 99
96 85 99 61 84 97 56 72
131 114 99
95 84 99 60 83 97 55 71
130 113 99
94 83 99 59 82 97 54 70
129 112 99
93 82 99 58 80 97 53 70
128 112 99
92 82 99 57 79 96 52 69
127 111 99
91 81 99 56 78 96 52 68
126 110 99
90 80 99 55 77 96 51 67
125 109 99
89 79 99 54 75 95 50 66
124 108 99
88 78 99 53 74 94 49 66
123 107 99
87 116 99 77 99 52 73 93 48 65
122 107 99
86 115 99 77 99 51 72 92 47 61
121 106 99
85 114 99 76 99 50 70 91 47 54
120 105 99
84 112 99 75 98 49 69 91 46 51
119 104 99
83 111 99 74 98 48 68 90 45 47
118 103 99
82 110 99 73 98 47 67 90 44 45
117 102 99
81 109 99 72 98 46 66 88 43 43
116 102 99
80 107 99 72 97 45 64 87 42 35
115 101 99
79 106 99 71 96 44 63 87 42 25
114 100 99
99 99 78 105 99 70 95 43 62 86
113
98 99 77 104 99 69 94 42 61 86
112
97 99 76 102 99 68 93 41 59 86
111
97 99 75 101 99 67 92 40 58 86
110
96 99 74 100 99 67 91 39 57 85
109
95 99 73 99 99 66 90 38 56 85
108
94 99 72 98 99 65 88 37 54 84
107
93 99 71 96 99 64 84 36 53 83
106
92 99 70 95 99 63 82 35 52 81
105
92 99 69 94 99 62 80 34 51 79
104
91 99 68 93 99 62 79 33 50 77
103
90 99 67 91 99 61 78 32 48 70
102
89 99 66 90 99 60 77 31 47 65
101
99 65 89 98 59 76 30 46 54
100 88
87 99 64 88 98 58 75 29 45 50
99
98 87 99 63 86 98 57 74
_3 -±3 ±3 90% CI
90% CI 3

Table C4 (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Boys Ages 14 to 18 Years
Total T %He Total T %Ile Total T %Ile Total T %Ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
219 124 99 182 103 99 145 82 98 108 62 86
218 123 99 181 103 99 144 82 98 107 61 85
217 123 99 180 102 99 143 81 98 106 60 85
216 122 99 179 101 99 142 81 97 105 60 84
215 122 99 178 101 99 141 80 97 104 59 84
214 121 99 177 100 99 140 80 97 103 59 83
213 121 99 176 100 99 139 79 97 102 58 80
212 120 99 175 99 99 138 78 97 101 58 78
211 119 99 174 99 99 137 78 96 100 57 77
210 119 99 173 98 99 136 77 96 99 57 75
209 118 99 172 97 99 135 77 96 98 56 72
208 118 99 171 97 99 134 76 96 97 55 71
207 117 99 170 96 99 133 76 96 96 55 70
206 117 99 169 96 99 132 75 95 95 54 70
205 116 99 168 95 99 131 74 95 94 54 70
204 115 99 167 95 99 130 74 95 93 53 70
203 115 99 166 94 99 129 73 94 92 53 69
202 114 99 165 94 99 128 73 94 91 52 69
201 114 99 164 93 99 127 72 94 90 51 68
200 113 99 163 92 99 126 72 94 89 51 67
199 113 99 162 92 99 125 71 93 88 50 66
198 112 99 161 91 99 124 71 93 87 50 65
197 112 99 160 91 99 123 70 93 86 49 64
196 111 99 159 90 99 122 69 93 85 49 63
195 110 99 158 90 99 121 69 92 84 48 63
194 110 99 157 89 99 120 68 92 83 48 60
193 109 99 156 89 99 119 68 91 82 47 57
192 109 99 155 88 99 118 67 91 81 46 52
191 108 99 154 87 99 117 67 90 80 46 48
190 108 99 153 87 99 116 66 90 79 45 46
189 107 99 152 86 99 115 65 89 78 45 45
188 106 99 151 86 99 114 65 89 77 44 44
187 106 99 150 85 99 113 64 88 76 44 43
186 105 99 149 85 99 112 64 88 75 43 40
185 105 99 148 84 99 111 63 87 74 42 33
184 104 99 147 83 99 110 63 87 73 42 22
183 104 99 146 83 99 109 62 87
90% CI ±3 -±3 -±3 ±3 90% Cl
 APPENDIX D
T-SCORE AND PERCENTILE CONVERSION TABLES
AND 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL VALUES FOR THE
BRIEF TEACHER FORM: GIRLS BY AGE GROUP

131
 Table D1
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 5 to 6 Years
Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Inhibit Shift Scale
Scale %ile T %ile raw
%ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T
raw T score rank score
score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank
score score rank
90 99 103 99 104 99 30
30 109 99 104 99
88 99 100 99 101 99 29
29 106 99 101 99
86 98 97 99 97 99 28
28 103 99 98 99
130 99 83 97 94 99 94 99 27
27 99 99 95 99
99 81 97 91 99 91 99 26
26 96 99 92 99 125
120 99 78 96 87 99 88 99 25
25 93 99 89 99
99 76 96 84 99 85 99 24
24 90 99 86 99 116
99 74 95 81 98 82 98 23
23 87 99 83 98 111
99 71 94 78 97 79 97 22
22 83 98 80 97 106
91 99 69 93 75 96 92 99 76 95 21
21 80 97 77 96 101 99
87 99 66 92 72 95 89 99 72 93 20
20 77 96 74 95 97 99
84 99 64 90 69 94 85 98 69 92 19
19 74 95 71 94 92 99
80 98 62 88 66 92 82 97 66 90 18
18 71 94 68 93 87 98
97 77 96 59 83 63 88 79 96 63 88 17
17 67 91 64 90 82
95 73 95 57 79 60 85 75 94 60 85 16
16 64 88 61 88 77
70 94 54 77 57 80 72 93 57 80 15
15 61 84 58 83 73 93
66 90 52 70 54 70 69 92 54 70 14
14 58 82 55 80 68 92
62 83 50 66 51 66 66 91 51 65 13
13 54 78 52 70 63 90
59 75 47 55 48 60 62 90 47 60 12
12 51 70 49 65 58 80
70 55 70 45 45 45 50 59 88 44 50 11
11 48 65 46 55 54
52 65 42 35 42 35 56 85 41 20 10
10 45 50 43 45 49 65
44 50 48 60 52 80 9
9
45 50 49 50 8
8
41 35 46 35 7
7
_7 ±4 ±6 90% CI
90% CI

Table D1 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 5 to 6 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %lie raw %ile %ile
score Tscore rank Tscore rank score T score rank Tscore rank score Tscore rank Tscore rank
132 101 99 97 77 95 62 92 99 54 76
131 100 99 96 77 95 61 90 99 53 76
130 100 99 95 76 95 60 89 99 52 75
129 99 99 94 75 94 59 87 99 52 74
128 98 99 93 75 94 58 86 99 51 72
127 98 99 92 74 94 57 84 99 50 68
126 97 99 91 73 94 56 83 99 50 66
125 96 99 90 73 94 55 81 99 49 64
124 96 99 89 72 94 54 80 98 48 58
123 95 99 88 71 93 53 78 97 48 55
122 94 99 87 129 99 71 93 52 77 95 47 50
121 94 99 86 128 99 70 93 51 75 94 46 49
120 93 99 85 126 99 69 93 50 74 94 46 48
119 92 99 84 125 99 69 93 49 72 93 45 47
118 92 99 83 123 99 68 92 48 71 92 44 45
117 91 99 82 122 99 67 92 47 69 92 44 35
116 90 99 81 120 99 67 92 46 68 92 43 25
115 90 99 80 119 99 66 91 45 66 91 42 20
114 89 98 79 117 99 65 91 44 65 91 42 10
113 88 98 78 116 99 65 91 43 63 90
112 88 98 77 114 99 64 90 42 62 89
111 87 97 76 113 99 63 90 41 60 88
110 86 97 75 111 99 63 90 40 59 85
109 86 97 74 110 99 62 85 39 57 80
108 85 97 73 108 99 61 83 38 56 74
107 84 96 72 107 99 60 82 37 54 69
106 83 96 71 105 99 60 81 36 53 64
105 83 96 70 104 99 59 80 35 51 63
104 82 96 69 102 99 58 80 34 50 61
103 81 96 68 101 99 58 80 33 48 60
102 81 95 67 99 99 57 79 32 47 55
101 80 95 66 98 99 56 79 31 45 50
100 79 95 65 96 99 56 78 30 44 45
99 79 95 64 95 99 55 78 29 42 40
98 78 95 63 93 99 54 77
90% CI ±3 ±5 ±3 ±5 ±3 90% CI
 Table Dl (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 5 to 6 Years
Total T %Ile Total T %Ile Total T %Ile Total T %Ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
219 115 99 182 96 99 145 77 96 108 59 80
218 114 99 181 96 99 144 77 95 107 58 80
217 114 99 180 95 99 143 76 95 106 58 79
216 113 99 179 95 99 142 76 95 105 57 79
215 113 99 178 94 99 141 75 95 104 57 78
214 112 99 177 94 99 140 75 95 103 56 78
213 112 99 176 93 99 139 74 95 102 56 77
212 111 99 175 93 99 138 74 95 101 55 77
211 111 99 174 92 99 137 73 95 100 55 76
210 110 99 173 92 99 136 73 95 99 54 75
209 110 99 172 91 99 135 72 95 98 54 75
208 109 99 171 91 99 134 72 93 97 53 74
207 109 99 170 90 99 133 71 93 96 53 73
206 108 99 169 90 99 132 71 93 95 52 72
205 108 99 168 89 99 131 70 93 94 52 70
204 107 99 167 89 99 130 70 93 93 51 69
203 107 99 166 88 99 129 69 93 92 51 67
202 106 99 165 88 99 128 69 93 91 50 66
201 106 99 164 87 99 127 68 92 90 50 65
200 105 99 163 87 99 126 68 92 89 49 65
199 105 99 162 86 99 125 67 92 88 49 63
198 104 99 161 86 99 124 67 92 87 48 57
197 104 99 160 85 99 N 123 66 92 86 48 50
196 103 99 159 84 99 122 66 92 85 47 48
195 103 99 158 84 99 121 65 92 84 47 46
194 102 99 157 83 99 120 65 91 83 46 45
193 102 99 156 83 99 119 64 91 82 46 42
192 101 99 155 82 99 118 64 91 81 45 40
191 101 99 154 82 98 117 63 91 80 45 39
190 100 99 153 81 98 116 63 90 79 44 38
189 100 99 152 81 98 115 62 90 78 44 35
188 99 99 151 80 98 114 62 89 77 43 33
187 99 99 150 80 98 113 61 89 76 43 30
186 98 99 149 79 97 112 61 87 75 42 22
185 98 99 148 79 97 111 60 85 74 42 12
184 97 99 147 78 97 110 60 83 73 41 10
183 97 99 146 78 97 109 59 82

90% CI ±3 ±3 3 ±3 90% CI

Table D2
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 7 to 8 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory
Scale Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
raw T %He T %He T %He T Scale
%He T %He T %H e T T %Ile
score score rank score rank score rank raw
score rank score rank score, rank score rank
ile score rank score
30 86 99 109 99 83 99 89 99 91 99 30
29 84 99 105 99 81 99 87 99 88 99 29
28 82 99 102 99 79 98 85 99 86 99 28
27 80 98 99 99 99 99 77 97 82 99 83 99 27
26 78 97 95 99 96 99 75 96 80 99 81 98 26
25 76 96 92 99 93 99 73 95 78 98 78 98 25
24 74 96 89 98 90 99 71 95 75 97 76 97 24
23 72 94 86 97 87 99 69 93 73 96 73 96 23
22 69 92 82 97 84 98 67 91 70 95 71 93 22
21 67 91 79 97 81 98 88 99 65 90 68 94 83 99 68 91 21
20 65 90 76 96 78 97 85 99 63 87 66 90 80 97 66 90 20
19 63 89 73 96 75 96 82 99 61 85 63 88 78 96 63 88 19
18 61 88 69 93 71 94 78 98 59 83 61 84 75 95 61 85 18
17 59 85 66 90 68 92 75 97 57 80 59 80 72 94 58 81 17
16 57 83 63 88 65 89 72 96 55 77 56 77 69 93 56 78 16
15 54 79 59 85 62 85 68 95 53 73 54 75 66 90 54 75 15
14 52 75 56 80 59 84 65 90 51 64 52 70 64 88 51 70 14
13 50 70 53 75 56 82 62 87 48 60 49 65 61 84 49 60 13
12 48 65 50 65 53 80 58 79 46 56 47 55 58 82 46 52 12
11 46 57 46 55 50 75 55 75 44 48 44 47 55 77 44 42 11
10 44 50 43 45 47 65 52 66 42 40 42 38 52 75 41 23 10
9 44 50 48 60 50 70 9
8 45 50 47 63 8
7 42 42 44 50 7
90% CI ±6 ±4 90% CI
 Table D2 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 7 to 8 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %Ile raw 'Voile %Ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank

132 90 99 97 71 95 62 77 96 51 70
131 89 99 96 70 95 61 76 96 51 69
130 89 99 95 69 95 60 75 95 50 68
129 88 99 94 69 94 59 74 94 50 66
128 88 99 93 68 94 58 73 94 49 64
127 87 99 92 68 93 57 72 94 49 60
126 86 99 91 67 92 56 71 93 48 58
125 86 99 90 67 91 55 70 93 48 57
124 85 99 89 66 90 54 69 93 47 55
123 85 99 88 66 89 53 68 92 47 54
122 84 99 87 103 99 65 88 52 67 92 46 52
121 84 99 86 102 99 65 86 51 66 91 45 49
120 83 99 85 101 99 64 85 50 65 90 45 47
119 83 99 84 100 99 63 84 49 64 89 44 42
118 82 99 83 99 99 63 83 48 63 88 44 38
117 81 99 82 98 99 62 83 47 62 87 43 36
116 81 99 81 97 99 62 83 46 60 87 43 32
115 80 98 80 96 99 61 82 45 59 86 42 24
114 80 98 79 95 99 61 82 44 58 85 42 15
113 79 98 78 94 99 60 82 43 57 83
112 79 98 77 93 99 60 82 42 56 81
111 78 98 76 92 99 59 82 41 55 78
110 78 98 75 91 99 59 81 40 54 74
109 77 98 74 90 99 58 81 39 53 72
108 77 98 73 89 99 57 81 38 52 71
107 76 97 72 88 99 57 81 37 51 70
106 75 97 71 87 99 56 80 36 50 67
105 75 97 70 86 99 56 79 35 49 65
104 74 97 69 85 99 55 79 34 48 63
103 74 96 68 84 99 55 78 33 47 57
102 73 96 67 83 99 54 77 32 46 51
101 73 96 66 81 98 54 76 31 45 48
100 72 96 65 80 98 53 74 30 44 40
99 72 95 64 79 97 53 72 29 43 35
98 71 95 63 78 97 52 71

90% CI ±2 ±4 ±2 ±4 ±2 90% CI

Table D2 (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 7 to 8 Years
Total T %lie Total T %He Total T %He Total T %He
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank' raw score score rank
219 98 99 182 84 98 145 69 95 108 55 77
218 98 99 181 83 98 144 69 95 107 55 77
217 97 99 180 83 98 143 69 95 106 54 77
216 97 99 179 82 98 142 68 95 105 54 77
215 96 99 178 82 98 141 68 94 104 53 76
214 96 99 177 82 98 140 67 94 103 53 76
213 96 99 176 81 98 139 67 93 102 53 76
212 95 99 175 81 98 138 67 92 101 52 76
211 95 99 174 81 98 137 66 91 100 52 75
210 95 99 173 80 98 136 66 90 99 51 74
209 94 99 172 80 98 135 65 90 98 51 70
208 94 99 171 79 98 134 65 89 97 51 68
207 93 99 170 79 98 133 65 88 96 50 65
206 93 99 169 79 98 132 64 88 95 50 62
205 93 99 168 78 98 131 64 88 94 49 58
204 92 99 167 78 97 130 63 87 93 49 57
203 92 99 166 77 97 129 63 86 92 49 56
202 91 99 165 77 97 128 63 85 91 48 55
201 91 99 164 77 97 127 62 84 90 48 54
200 91 99 163 76 97 126 62 83 89 48 53
199 90 99 162 76 97 125 62 82 88 47 52
198 90 99 161 75 97 124 61 82 87 47 51
197 89 99 160 75 97 123 61 81 86 46 50
196 89 99 159 75 97 122 60 81 85 46 49
195 89 99 158 74 97 121 60 81 84 46 48
194 88 99 157 74 96 120 60 80 83 45 45
193 88 99 156 74 96 119 59 80 82 45 43
192 88 99 155 73 96 118 59 80 81 44 42
191 87 99 154 73 96 117 58 80 80 44 40
190 87 99 153 72 96 116 58 80 79 44 37
189 86 99 152 72 96 115 58 79 78 43 35
188 86 99 151 72 95 114 57 79 77 43 33
187 86 99 150 71 95 113 57 79 76 43 30
186 85 99 149 71 95 112 56 79 75 42 27
185 85 99 148 70 95 111 56 78 74 42 18
184 84 98 147 70 95 110 56 78 73 41 10
183 84 98 146 70 95 109 55 78
90% CI ±2 ±2 ±2 ±2 90% CI
 Table D3
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 9 to 13 Years

Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Scale Scale
raw T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile raw
score score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score

30 124 99 125 99 113 99 104 99 112 99 30

29 120 99 121 99 109 99 101 99 109 99 29
28 116 99 117 99 106 99 98 99 105 99 28
27 112 99 113 99 117 99 102 99 95 99 102 99 27
26 108 99 109 99 113 99 99 99 92 99 98 99 26
25 105 99 105 99 109 99 96 99 89 99 94 99 25
24 101 99 101 99 105 99 92 99 86 99 91 99 24
23 97 99 97 99 101 99 89 99 83 99 87 99 23
22 93 99 93 99 97 99 85 99 80 98 84 99 22
21 89 99 89 99 93 99 96 99 82 98 77 97 129 99 80 98 21
20 85 98 85 98 89 99 92 99 78 97 73 95 123 99 77 97 20
19 81 97 81 97 85 99 88 99 75 96 70 94 117 99 73 96 19
18 77 96 77 96 81 98 85 99 72 95 67 92 111 99 70 95 18
17 73 95 73 95 77 97 81 99 68 93 64 89 105 99 66 93 17
16 69 94 69 94 73 96 77 98 65 90 61 87 99 99 63 90 16
15 65 92 65 92 69 95 73 97 61 88 58 80 93 99 59 86 15
14 61 90 61 90 65 93 69 95 58 85 55 78 87 98 56 78 14
13 57 85 57 85 61 90 65 91 54 78 52 74 81 97 52 70 13
12 53 75 53 78 57 85 62 85 51 72 49 68 75 96 49 60 12
11 49 65 49 65 54 80 58 80 48 65 46 58 69 95 45 45 11
10 45 50 45 50 50 65 54 75 44 50 43 45 63 94 42 30 10
9 46 50 50 66 57 88 9
8 46 58 52 80 8
7 43 45 46 60 7

90% CI ±5 ±5 ±5 ±7 ±7 90% CI

Table D3 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 9 to 13 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 118 99 97 88 98 62 94 98 58 80
131 117 99 96 87 98 61 92 98 57 79
130 116 99 95 86 98 60 91 98 56 78
129 115 99 94 85 98 59 89 98 55 77
128 114 99 93 84 98 58 88 98 54 75
127 113 99 92 83 98 57 86 97 53 73
126 112 99 91 82 98 56 85 97 52 72
125 112 99 90 82 98 55 83 97 52 70
124 111 99 89 81 98 54 82 97 51 68
123 110 99 88 80 98 53 80 97 50 66
122 109 99 87 131 99 79 98 52 79 97 49 64
121 108 99 86 130 99 78 98 51 77 97 48 62
120 107 99 85 128 99 77 97 50 76 97 47 60
119 106 99 84 127 99 76 97 49 75 96 46 57
118 106 99 83 125 99 76 97 48 73 96 46 50
117 105 99 82 124 99 75 96 47 72 95 45 44
116 104 99 81 122 99 74 96 46 70 95 44 40
115 103 99 80 121 99 73 95 45 69 95 43 33
114 102 99 79 119 99 72 95 44 67 95 42 25
113 101 99 78 118 99 71 95 43 66 94
112 100 99 77 116 99 70 95 42 64 93
111 100 99 76 115 99 70 94 41 63 92
110 99 99 75 113 99 69 94 40 61 90
109 98 99 74 112 99 68 93 39 60 88
108 97 99 73 110 99 67 93 38 58 87
107 96 99 72 109 99 66 92 37 57 86
106 95 99 71 107 99 65 91 36 55 85
105 94 99 70 106 99 64 90 35 54 82
104 94 99 69 104 99 64 88 34 52 78
103 93 99 68 103 99 63 88 33 51 75
102 92 99 67 101 99 62 87 32 49 70
101 91 99 66 100 99 61 87 31 48 65
100 90 99 65 98 99 60 85 30 46 60
99 89 99 64 97 99 59 84 29 45 50
98 88 99 63 95 99 58 81
90% CI ±3 ±4 ±3 90% CI
 Table D3 (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 9 to 13 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank

219 129 99 182 107 99 145 85 98 108 63 90

218 128 99 181 106 99 144 84 98 107 63 90
217 127 99 180 106 99 143 84 98 106 62 89
216 127 99 179 105 99 142 83 97 105 61 89
215 126 99 178 104 99 141 83 97 104 61 88
214 126 99 177 104 99 140 82 97 103 60 87
213 125 99 176 103 99 139 81 97 102 60 86
212 124 99 175 103 99 138 81 97 101 59 84
211 124 99 174 102 99 137 80 97 100 58 83
210 123 99 173 101 99 136 80 97 99 58 82
209 123 99 172 101 99 135 79 97 98 57 80
208 122 99 171 100 99 134 78 97 97 57 79
207 121 99 170 100 99 133 78 96 96 56 79
206 121 99 169 99 99 132 77 96 95 56 78
205 120 99 168 98 99 131 77 96 94 55 76
204 120 99 167 98 99 130 76 96 93 54 74
203 119 99 166 97 99 129 76 96 92 54 73
202 119 99 165 97 99 128 75 96 91 53 72
201 118 99 164 96 99 127 74 96 90 53 71
200 117 99 163 96 99 126 74 96 89 52 70
199 117 99 162 95 99 125 73 96 88 51 70
198 116 99 161 94 99 124 73 96 87 51 69
197 116 99 160 94 99 123 72 96 86 50 68
196 115 99 159 93 99 122 71 95 85 50 65
195 114 99 158 93 99 121 71 95 84 49 63
194 114 99 157 92 98 120 70 95 83 48 62
193 113 99 156 91 98 119 70 95 82 48 60
192 113 99 155 91 98 118 69 95 81 47 58
191 112 99 154 90 98 117 68 95 80 47 56
190 111 99 153 90 98 116 68 95 79 46 50
189 111 99 152 89 98 115 67 95 78 45 48
188 110 99 151 88 98 114 67 95 77 45 45
187 110 99 150 88 98 113 66 94 76 44 40
186 109 99 149 87 98 112 66 93 75 44 38
185 108 99 148 87 98 111 65 92 74 43 32
184 108 99 147 86 98 110 64 92 73 43 24
183 107 99 146 86 98 109 64 91

90% CI ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 90% CI

Table D4
Teacher Form Scale Scores: Girls Ages 14 to 18 Years
Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize Org. of Materials Monitor
Scale Scale
raw T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile T %ile raw
score score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score
30 114 99 147 99 110 99 107 99 116 99 30
29 111 99 142 99 107 99 103 99 113 99 29
28 108 99 137 99 103 99 100 99 109 99 28
27 104 99 132 99 127 99 100 99 97 99 105 99 27
26 101 98 127 99 123 99 97 98 94 99 102 99 26
25 97 98 122 98 118 99 94 98 91 99 98 99 25
24 94 97 117 98 114 99 90 98 88 99 94 98 24
23 91 97 111 97 109 99 87 97 84 99 91 98 23
22 87 96 106 97 105 99 84 97 81 98 87 97 22
21 84 96 101 96 100 98 101 99 81 96 78 98 137 99 84 97 21
20 80 95 96 96 96 98 97 99 77 96 75 97 130 99 80 96 20
19 77 95 91 95 91 98 93 99 74 95 72 97 124 99 76 96 19
18 74 94 86 95 87 97 89 99 71 95 69 93 117 99 73 95 18
17 70 94 81 94 82 97 85 98 68 94 65 88 111 99 69 94 17
16 67 94 76 94 78 97 81 98 64 90 62 82 104 99 65 92 16
15 63 93 71 93 73 96 77 97 61 88 59 80 98 99 62 89 15
14 60 93 66 93 69 96 73 95 58 85 56 77 91 99 58 85 14
13 57 92 61 92 64 95 68 92 55 82 53 74 85 99 55 80 13
12 53 86 55 87 60 93 64 88 51 77 50 70 79 98 51 73 12
11 50 70 50 70 55 85 60 86 48 70 46 62 72 95 47 63 11
10 46 55 45 55 51 70 56 80 45 60 43 52 66 92 44 45 10
9 46 60 52 77 59 90 9
8 48 68 53 84 8
7 44 50 46 60 7
90% CI ±4 ±6 ±5 ±5 ±5 ±5 ±6 ±6 90% CI
 Table D4 (continued)
Teacher Form Index Scores: Girls Ages 14 to 18 Years
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition Regulation Metacognition
Index Index Index
raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile raw %ile %ile
score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank score T score rank T score rank
132 118 99 97 88 99 62 96 98 59 82
131 117 99 96 88 99 61 95 98 58 81
130 116 99 95 87 99 60 93 97 57 80
129 116 99 94 86 99 59 92 97 56 80
128 115 99 93 85 99 58 90 97 55 79
127 114 99 92 84 98 57 89 97 55 78
126 113 99 91 83 98 56 87 97 54 78
125 112 99 90 83 98 55 86 97 53 77
124 111 99 89 82 97 54 84 97 52 77
123 111 99 88 81 97 53 83 97 51 76
122 110 99 87 135 99 80 97 52 81 96 50 74
121 109 99 86 133 99 79 96 51 80 96 50 72
120 108 99 85 132 99 78 96 50 78 96 49 69
119 107 99 84 130 99 77 96 49 76 96 48 66
118 106 99 83 129 99 77 96 48 75 95 47 62
117 105 99 82 127 99 76 95 47 73 95 46 58
116 105 99 81 126 99 75 95 46 72 95 45 50
115 104 99 80 124 99 74 95 45 70 94 44 44
114 103 99 79 123 99 73 94 44 69 94 44 32
113 102 99 78 121 99 72 93 43 67 93
112 101 99 77 120 99 72 92 42 66 93
111 100 99 76 118 99 71 92 41 64 93
110 99 99 75 117 99 70 90 40 63 92
109 99 99 74 115 99 69 90 39 61 92
108 98 99 73 113 99 68 90 38 60 91
107 97 99 72 112 99 67 90 37 58 91
106 96 99 71 110 99 66 90 36 56 90
105 95 99 70 109 99 66 89 35 55 90
104 94 99 69 107 99 65 89 34 53 89
103 94 99 68 106 98 64 89 33 52 84
102 93 99 67 104 98 63 88 32 50 78
101 92 99 66 103 98 62 88 31 49 70
100 91 99 65 101 98 61 87 30 47 61
99 90 99 64 100 98 61 86 29 46 50
98 89 99 63 98 98 60 85
90% CI ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 ±3 90% CI

Table D4 (continued)
Teacher Form Global Executive Composite Scores: Girls Ages 14 to 18 Years
Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile Total T %ile
raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank raw score score rank
219 130 99 182 108 99 145 86 97 108 65 92
218 130 99 181 108 99 144 86 97 107 64 89
217 129 99 180 107 99 143 85 97 106 63 89
216 128 99 179 106 99 142 85 97 105 63 89
215 128 99 178 106 99 141 84 97 104 62 89
214 127 99 177 105 99 140 83 97 103 62 88
213 127 99 176 105 99 139 83 97 102 61 88
212 126 99 175 104 99 138 82 97 101 60 88
211 125 99 174 104 99 137 82 97 100 60 88
210 125 99 173 103 99 136 81 97 99 59 88
209 124 99 172 102 99 135 80 97 98 59 88
208 124 99 171 102 99 134 80 96 97 58 87
207 123 99 170 101 99 133 79 96 96 57 86
206 122 99 169 101 99 132 79 96 95 57 83
205 122 99 168 100 99 131 78 95 94 56 82
204 121 99 167 99 99 130 78 95 93 56 81
203 121 99 166 99 99 129 77 95 92 55 81
202 120 99 165 98 99 128 76 95 91 55 80
201 119 99 164 98 99 127 76 95 90 54 80
200 119 99 163 97 99 126 75 94 89 53 77
199 118 99 162 96 99 125 75 94 88 53 76
198 118 99 161 96 99 124 74 94 87 52 74
197 117 99 160 95 99 123 73 94 86 52 74
196 117 99 159 95 98 122 73 94 85 51 73
195 116 99 158 94 98 121 72 94 84 50 73
194 115 99 157 93 98 120 72 94 83 50 71
193 115 99 156 93 98 119 71 94 82 49 70
192 114 99 155 92 98 118 70 93 81 49 68
191 114 99 154 92 98 117 70 93 80 48 67
190 113 99 153 91 98 116 69 93 79 47 67
189 112 99 152 91 98 115 69 93 78 47 62
188 112 99 151 90 98 114 68 93 77 46 56
187 111 99 150 89 97 113 68 93 76 46 55
186 111 99 149 89 97 112 67 93 75 45 49
185 110 99 148 88 97 111 66 93 74 44 38
184 109 99 147 88 97 110 66 92 73 44 25
183 109 99 146 87 97 109 65 92
90% CI ±2 ±2 ±2 ±2 90% CI