Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment
http://jpa.sagepub.com

Test Review: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Self-Report version

Justin M. Walker and Rik Carl D’Amato
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2006; 24; 394
DOI: 10.1177/0734282906288390

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpa.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpa.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by on October 25, 2007

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Journal of Psychoeducational
Test Reviews Assessment
Volume 24 Number 4
December 2006 394-403
Guy, S. C., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2004). Behavior © 2006 Sage Publications
http://jpa.sagepub.com
Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Self-Report version. hosted at
Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. http://online.sagepub.com
DOI: 10.1177/0734282906288390

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Self-Report version (BRIEF-SR)

is the first self-report measure of executive functioning for adolescents. With the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act authorization, there is a greater
need for appropriate assessment of severely impaired children. Recent studies have demon-
strated the importance of executive functioning as a component of a complete evaluation
(D’Amato, Fletcher-Janzen, & Reynolds, 2005). The BRIEF-SR aids in the diagnosis and
treatment of problems related to executive functioning. Due to the brief nature of the form,
it can be administered without adding significant time to the assessment process and should
take about 15 min to complete. In fact, the self-report nature of this measure allows for the
form to be completed away from a typical testing setting. The structure of the test allows
for the collection of valuable information in a short period of time.

General Description
The BRIEF-SR is a standardized self-report measure of executive functioning for indi-
viduals aged 11 through 18 years who have a fifth-grade or better reading level. Because the
test items are related to potential problems with organization, planning, and attention, the
results provide valuable ecological insight that can help understand issues occurring at home
and at school. The BRIEF-SR can even be used by those with “attentional disorders, lan-
guage disorders, traumatic brain injury, lead exposure, learning disabilities, high function-
ing autism spectrum disorders, and medical conditions” (Guy, Isquith, & Gioia, 2004, p. 1).

Organization and administration. The organization of the BRIEF-SR is similar to the Brief
Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy,
2000), which serves as the developmental basis for the BRIEF-SR. The original BRIEF
released in 2000 and completed by parents or teachers appears quite promising. Indeed, recent
research suggests that it is able to discriminate between groups of children ages 6 to 12 with
and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Palencia, Wochos, D’Amato, & Allen,
2005). The BRIEF-SR is composed of 80 items that fit into eight nonoverlapping clinical
scales that measure aspects of executive functioning. The Inhibit Scale measures “inhibitory
control and the ability to stop one’s own behavior.” The Shift Scale is a representation of the
client’s ability to move between activities and problems. The Emotional Control Scale
assesses “the manifestation of executive functions within the emotional realm” and the “ado-
lescent’s ability to modulate emotional responses.” The way an “adolescent keeps track of the
effect that his or her behavior has on others” is measured by the Monitor Scale. Working
Memory measures the “capacity to actively hold information in mind for the purpose of

394

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by on October 25, 2007

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Test Reviews 395

completing a task or generating a response.” The Plan/Organize Scale “assesses the adoles-
cent’s ability to manage current and future-oriented task demands within the situational con-
text.” The extent to which the clients “assess the organization” in their daily life “with respect
to orderliness of work, play, and storage spaces” is measured by the Organization of Materials
Scale. Finally, the Task Completion Scale measures the client’s “ability to finish or complete
tasks appropriately and in a timely manner.” The Global Executive Composite (GEC) is an
overall summary score of executive functioning derived from two broad indexes, the
Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI), measuring how the adolescent regulates his or her behav-
ior, and the Metacognition Index (MI), which measures how the adolescent solves problems
with planning and organizational skills (Guy et al., 2004, pp. 19-21).
If the respondent answers any number of selected items in an unusually negative man-
ner, these items are reported in a Negativity Scale. Similarly, if alike items on the BRIEF-
SR are answered in an inconsistent manner, they are reflected on an Inconsistency Scale.
Both of these scales contribute to the validity of the BRIEF-SR and help provide accuracy
and confidence in the interpretation of scale results.

Testing materials. The BRIEF-SR assessment kit contains the professional manual, the
BRIEF-SR Rating Forms, and the two-sided BRIEF-SR Scoring Summary/Profile Forms.
The initial set contains a pad of 50 Self-Report Scoring Summaries and a package of 25 rat-
ing forms. In addition, all that is needed for administration is a pen or pencil. Directions are
briefly described on the front of the reporting form.

Test administration. Test administration is uncomplicated and straightforward. After

establishing rapport and introducing the test with general instructions, the client completes
the measure. The adolescent reads a series of 80 questions that ask about the examinee’s
experience in the past 6 months. The response choices are, “The behavior is Often (O),
Sometimes (S), or Never (N) a problem,” and the respondent circles the appropriate
response. Examinees are encouraged not to leave any items blank, and if any are found
upon completion, the examinee is prompted to return and complete the missing items.

Scoring. The scoring sheet is available after tearing the perforated edges and pulling away
the top response sheet. Directions exist in the professional manual regarding the number of
allowable missing items for each scale to still be considered valid. On the scoring sheet, a 1
refers to never, a 2 refers to sometimes, and a 3 refers to often. All responses in each column
are summed at the bottom of the scoring sheet. The raw scores for each of the eight clinical
scales are summed across the two pages of the scoring sheet and transferred to the Scoring
Summary page. To find the Behavior Regulation Index raw score, the raw scores for Inhibit,
Shift, Emotional Control, and Monitor are summed. A similar procedure summing the
remaining four clinical scales obtains the raw score for the Metacognition Index. The raw
score for the GEC is simply the sum of the raw scores for the BRI and MI.
Raw scores are then converted to T-scores using the appendix of the professional manual.
T-scores exist for each of the eight clinical scales, both broad indexes, and the GEC.
Confidence intervals are then found. The authors elected to use a 90% confidence interval
because “it is commonly used for clinical interpretation” (Guy et al., 2004, p. 9).
On the Scoring Summary sheet, there are areas to calculate inconsistency and negativity
of responses. Specifically, 10 item pairs are presented in two side-by-side columns. The

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by on October 25, 2007

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
396 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

appropriate numbered response (1, 2, or 3) for the selected inconsistency questions is put
in the box next to the item number it corresponds to. A third column to the right asks the
examiner to find the absolute value of the difference in paired item responses. The absolute
value of the 10 item-pair differences is summed to yield an Inconsistency score. If the
Inconsistency score ranges from 0 to 8, the protocol is acceptable. Conversely, if the score
is 9 or greater, the protocol is considered to have inconsistent responses.
Also on the Scoring Summary page there is a Negativity Scale. Here, 10 items have been
selected to determine a Negativity Scale and are designated by the capital letter N on the scor-
ing sheet. Each item with an N that was scored as a 3 by the examinee should be counted. The
total number of negativity items with a 3 response is summed to yield a Negativity score. If this
score ranges from 0 to 5, the protocol is considered acceptable. If the Negativity score is equal
to or greater than 6, the protocol negativity is elevated and should be interpreted with caution.
Both the Inconsistency Scale and the Negativity Scale contain simple directions on the Scoring
Summary page.
Finally, the T-scores for each of the clinical scales, both broad indexes, and the overall
GEC can be plotted on the Profile Form, which is found on the back of the Scoring Summary
sheet. The lowest horizontal line running through the plot is at a T-score of 50, the mean.
There is also a section of light shading from 60 to 64, the area in which scores are “mildly
elevated” and may reflect “areas of concern” (Guy et al., 2004, p. 12).

Interpretation. The interpretation of the BRIEF-SR is more complicated than the initial
administration or scoring. Those without formal training in psychology or related fields
should be able to administer the measure effectively after familiarization with the manual.
However, the authors strongly caution careful and provisional interpretation of the results
of the BRIEF-SR. Only those with graduate-level training in neuropsychology; clinical,
school, or counseling psychology; neuropsychiatry; behavioral neurology; developmen-
tal/behavioral pediatrics; or general pediatrics should interpret the results.
The professional manual dedicates an entire chapter to the interpretation of the BRIEF-
SR. The first section of the chapter focuses on normative comparisons of scores. Second,
the manual assesses the validity of the results. Next, an analysis of scores on the clinical
scales, broad indexes, and the GEC are reviewed. Finally, the manual reviews individual
item scores. The professional manual also provides four case illustrations of children with
ADHD (combined and predominantly inattentive types), Asperger’s disorder, and traumatic
brain injury. These cases illustrate the utility of the BRIEF-SR by providing graphed rep-
resentations of scores and elaborate clinical interpretations.

Technical Adequacy
Standardization. The standardization sample of the BRIEF-SR was designed to approx-
imate the 2002 U.S. Census Bureau data according to the following demographic vari-
ables: age, gender, race/ethnicity, parent education, and geographical population density.
Descriptions and tables representing this process are available in the professional manual.
The sample yielded 1,118 individuals, 1,000 of whom were used for analysis and stan-
dardization (those answering all often or never responses were dropped). The final sample

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by on October 25, 2007

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Test Reviews 397

consisted of 448 boys and 552 girls. There was a range of 54 participants (i.e., 11-year-old
age group) to 200 participants (i.e., 13-year-old age group) with the reminder of the age
groups having between 54 and 200 participants. Results indicated a need for separate norm
groups by age and gender.
The racial/ethnicity categories, defined as Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and
Other, did not yield a significant effect on the BRIEF-SR scores for any scales. Proportions
reported for each race/ethic group were Caucasian (67.3%), African American (14.7%), and
Hispanic (12.5%), in addition to the Other category, which included Asian/Pacific Islander
and Native American/Eskimo groups (5.5%).
Parent education level (years of completed education) was used to estimate socioeconomic
level (SEL). The largest groups for both mothers and fathers were bachelor’s degree (n = 272)
and high school degree (n = 351). The remaining categories contained less representation.

Reliability. An entire chapter of the professional manual is dedicated to providing infor-

mation regarding reliability and validity estimates. Various tables and descriptions provide
information about rationales, sample sizes, and statistical information. Reliability estimates
are provided using internal consistency, test-retest stability, and interrater agreement.
Internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha was reported for the eight clinical scales,
the two broad indexes, and the overall GEC. The internal consistency was high for the nor-
mative sample for the 80-item GEC (.96) and moderate for scales with fewer items (.72).
Test-retest stability was examined for a normative subsample (n = 59). Over an average
of 4.91 weeks, the test-retest correlations across the clinical scales ranged from .59 to .85.
For the BRI and MI, the correlations were .84 and 87, respectively, and the GEC had the
highest correlation of .89.
Interrater reliability was assessed using several methods. First, a clinical and normative
subsample (n = 243) of adolescents’ self-reports was compared with parent ratings on the
BRIEF. Scales that were alike across both forms (i.e., Inhibit and Shift) had correlations rang-
ing from .36 to .57. Strong correlations were evident in the BRI (r = .52) and MI (r = .57) as
well as the GEC (r = .56). In general, the correlations between the adolescent BRIEF-SR and
the parent ratings from the BRIEF were moderate to high.
Similarly, for the teacher scale, a combined clinical and normative subsample (n = 148)
of adolescents (BRIEF-SR) was compared using the BRIEF teacher ratings. The highest
correlation was found on the Monitor Scale (r = .41). The correlation for the GEC teacher
scale (r = .25) was lower than the parent scale but still significant. Although this may be of
concern, the authors noted that these lower correlations when compared to parent ratings
may be related to the different demand characteristics between home and school settings.

Validity. Evidence of validity based on item content, convergence, and divergence of

BRIEF-SR scores with those of other measures and the internal structure of the BRIEF-SR
is discussed in the professional manual.
To establish appropriate item content on the BRIEF-SR, items were selected to reflect the
most common accepted constructs of executive functioning. Clinical interviews with parents
and teachers helped to capture typical descriptions and complaints of behavioral expressions
of executive functioning. The resulting items were modified to be age appropriate for the
adolescent target group so this measure could function as a self-report measure. In addition,

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by on October 25, 2007

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
398 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

items were added to the item pool from clinical interviews with adolescents who were being
seen for neuropsychological evaluations.
The authors used a multitrait-multimethod (Campbell & Fisk, 1959) matrix because there
were no other self-report forms of executive functioning in which to draw correlations. As dis-
cussed earlier (see interrater reliability), the adolescent self-ratings were moderately corre-
lated (for GEC, r = .56) with parent ratings and to a lesser extent (r = .25 for GEC) with
teacher ratings. Convergent evidence of validity of the BRIEF-SR is provided by the pattern
of correlations between the BRIEF-SR and the BRIEF Parent Form and Teacher Form. The
BRIEF-SR was compared to other self-reports of behavior because executive functioning
relates to behavior, producing moderate correlations across different measures.

Conclusion and Summary

Overall, the BRIEF-SR appears to be a theoretically and psychometrically sound self-
report measure of executive functioning for adolescents. The BRIEF-SR complements the
BRIEF Parent Form and Teacher Form (Gioia et al., 2000) by providing the unique per-
spective of the adolescent client. This tool appears to be sensitive to racial differences and
can be compared to parent and teacher forms, leading to more global reliable and valid
assessment of executive functioning. The self-report form may prove useful as a research
tool in understanding parent and teacher perceptions of how executive functioning is
viewed.
Recent research supports the value of understanding executive functioning skills, and this
measure seems to offer a perspective that is not often considered. Thus, individuals who
wish to understand these skills will want to add this measure to their evaluation library. This
instrument has our recommendation for use in clinical settings as well as in the schools. The
BRIEF-SR serves as a valuable addition to a neuropsychological assessment battery and
provides important information regarding the decision-making process of adolescents.

Justin M. Walker
Rik Carl D’Amato
University of Northern Colorado

References
Campbell, D. T., & Fisk, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
D’Amato, R. C., Fetcher-Janzen, E., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of school neuropsychology.
New York: John Wiley.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Function professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Guy, S. C., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2004). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Self-Report
version professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Palencia, B., Wochos, G. C., D’Amato, R. C., & Allen, T. R., Jr. (2005, August). Evaluating executive neu-
ropsychological functioning in children with and without ADHD. Poster presented at the 113th Annual
Convention for the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by on October 25, 2007

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.