Search

Executive dysfunction is present in children, adolescents, and adults with a wide range of clinical conditions. A growing body of literature has demonstrated the usefulness of rating scales designed to gauge executive functioning in everyday life. In this article, we discuss evidence supporting the use of such rating scales to assess intervention outcome, how they may inform development of interventions, and how comparing rater perspectives can assess awareness of cognitive dysfunction. We provide an example of how an executive function rating scale helped define intervention targets and measured outcomes in a recently published real-world intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder. Rating scales of executive function provide valuable information with respect to treatment planning and assessment of intervention outcome.

Amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is characterized by impaired episodic memory, although subtle executive problems have been noted on neuropsychological tests. Recent research also has described a group of healthy, non-depressed older adults with significant cognitive complaints (CC) but normal performance on neuropsychological testing. These individuals show structural and functional brain changes intermediate between those seen in MCI and healthy older adults without such complaints (HC). We evaluated executive functions in MCI and CC using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A), a newly developed self- and informant report questionnaire in 29 patients with amnestic MCI, 28 CCs, and 30 demographically matched HCs. MCI and CC participants reported significant difficulties with selective aspects of executive functioning relative to HCs despite clinically normal performance on neuropsychological tests of this cognitive domain. Scores were generally in the pattern of MCI>CC>HC, and findings were most pronounced for working memory. Additionally, MCI and CC participants were more likely than their informants to report clinically meaningful executive problems, though informants identified a similar pattern of difficulty overall. Results failed to reveal strong relations between the BRIEF-A and standardized neuropsychological tests of executive function. Overall findings indicate that the BRIEF-A is sensitive to subtle executive changes in MCI and CC and suggest the need for research to determine if executive complaints are predictive of clinical course.

Evidence for the validity of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) based on internal structure was examined in a sample of children with mixed clinical diagnoses via maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Four alternative factor models of children's executive function, based on current theories that posit a unidimensional versus fractionated model (Rabbitt, 1997; Shallice & Burgess, 1991), using the revised 9-scale BRIEF configuration that separates two components of the Monitor scale, were examined for model fit. A 3-factor structure best modeled the data when compared directly with 1-, 2-, and 4-factor models. The 3-factor model was defined by a Behavior Regulation factor consisting of the BRIEF Inhibit and Self-Monitor scales, an Emotional Regulation factor consisting of the Emotional Control and Shift scales, and a Metacognition factor composed of the Working Memory, Initiate, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, and Task-Monitor scales. The findings support a fractionated, multi-component view of executive function as measured by the BRIEF.

Executive function profiles were examined within and between several clinical disorders via the multi-domain Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000). Parent ratings of children with Inattentive and Combined types of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD-I, ADHD-C), Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD), moderate and severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Reading Disabilities (RD) were compared with controls. Profile analysis revealed significant (p<.01) and substantial (eta2>.10) differences in global elevations and in profile of scale elevations between diagnostic groups. ASD, ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups exhibited greater elevations across the BRIEF scales than did RD and Severe TBI groups, who were in turn more elevated than Moderate TBI and Control groups. The ADHD-C group was unique in its frequency and severity of inhibitory deficits, while the ASD group was distinguishable by its deficits in flexibility. Within diagnostic groups, relative risk for executive dysfunction was calculated with variability present in the frequency of clinically elevated scales. While the BRIEF captures executive profiles characteristic of specific disorders in the clinical setting, it is not diagnostic in its own right and is best used within the context of a broad based evaluation.