CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 197Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version in Healthy Adults and Application to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Open access
Roth, R. M., Lance, C. E., Isquith, P. K., Fischer, A. S., Giancola, P. R.·2013·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1093/arclin/act031PMC PMC3711374
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) is a questionnaire measure designed to assess executive functioning in everyday life. Analysis of data from the BRIEF-A standardization sample yielded a two-factor solution (labeled Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition). The present investigation employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate four alternative models of the factor structure of the BRIEF-A self-report form in a sample of 524 healthy young adults. Results indicated that a three-factor model best fits the data: a Metacognition factor, a Behavioral Regulation factor consisting of the Inhibit and Self-Monitor scales, and an Emotional Regulation factor composed of the Emotional Control and Shift scales. The three factors contributed 14%, 19%, and 24% of unique variance to the model, respectively, and a second-order general factor accounted for 41% of variance overall. This three-factor solution is consistent with recent CFAs of the Parent report form of the BRIEF. Furthermore, although the Behavioral Regulation factor score in the two-factor model did not differ between adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a matched healthy comparison group, greater impairment on the Behavioral Regulation factor but not the Emotional Regulation factor was found using the three-factor model. Together, these findings support the multidimensional nature of executive function and the clinical relevance of a three-factor model of the BRIEF-A.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/arclin/act031

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 56 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In the three-factor model, the ADHD group showed greater impairment on the Behavioral Regulation factor than the healthy comparison group.

    “greater impairment on the Behavioral Regulation factor but not the Emotional Regulation factor was found using the three-factor model.”
    • Also stated in: § Factor Scores in Adult ADHD · plain
      “In contrast, analysis of the three-factor model revealed poorer executive functioning in the ADHD group as reflect by the Behavioral Regulation factort(1) ¼ 2.18, p ¼ .04,d ¼ 0.71-but not the Emotional Regulation factor-t(1) ¼ 1.19, p ¼ .24,d ¼ 0.39.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The factor structure estimated in the healthy young adult sample applies to the ADHD sample used for clinical comparisons.
    • Rests on an assumption: The ADHD and matched healthy comparison groups are comparable on depression and other clinical variables that could affect BRIEF-A scores, despite BDI-II data being available only for patients.
  • Findingown data

    In the three-factor model, the ADHD group did not differ from the healthy comparison group on the Emotional Regulation factor.

    “greater impairment on the Behavioral Regulation factor but not the Emotional Regulation factor was found using the three-factor model.”
    • Also stated in: § Factor Scores in Adult ADHD · plain
      “but not the Emotional Regulation factor-t(1) ¼ 1.19, p ¼ .24,d ¼ 0.39.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The factor structure estimated in the healthy young adult sample applies to the ADHD sample used for clinical comparisons.
    • Rests on an assumption: The ADHD and matched healthy comparison groups are comparable on depression and other clinical variables that could affect BRIEF-A scores, despite BDI-II data being available only for patients.
  • Findingown data

    The three-factor model fit better than the two-factor model.

    “that the three-factor model improved fit beyond the two-factor model (Table 3), and that adding a fourth factor did not improve the model fit, resulting in an inadmissible solution-the correlation between the Internal and External Metacognition factors was estimated to be 1.02.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In that subset, higher depression showed a trend toward worse Behavioral Regulation in the two-factor model (r=.55, p=.07).

    “a trend for greater difficulty on the Behavioral Regulation factor in the two-factor model (r ¼ .55,p ¼ .07)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The ADHD and matched healthy comparison groups are comparable on depression and other clinical variables that could affect BRIEF-A scores, despite BDI-II data being available only for patients.
  • Findingown data

    Among patients with BDI-II data, higher depression was linked to worse Metacognition factor scores (r=.76, p=.004).

    “In the subset of patients with BDI-II scores, greater depressed mood was associated with significantly worse executive function on the Metacognition (r ¼ .76,p ¼ .004)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The ADHD and matched healthy comparison groups are comparable on depression and other clinical variables that could affect BRIEF-A scores, despite BDI-II data being available only for patients.
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within the three-factor solution, unique variance contributions were 14%, 19%, and 24% for the factors, and a general second-order factor explained 41% of total variance.

    “The three factors contributed 14%, 19%, and 24% of unique variance to the model, respectively, and a second-order general factor accounted for 41% of variance overall.”
    • Also stated in: § Confirmatory Factor Analysis · plain
      “The three factors contributed 14%, 19%, and 24% of unique variance to the model, respectively, and a second-order general factor accounted for 41% of variance overall.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the two-factor model, the Behavioral Regulation factor score did not differ significantly between adults with ADHD and matched healthy comparison participants; the difference was only a trend.

    “although the Behavioral Regulation factor score in the two-factor model did not differ between adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a matched healthy comparison group”
    • Also stated in: § Factor Scores in Adult ADHD · plain
      “In the two-factor model, the group difference for the Behavioral Regulation factor was only at the level of a trend-t(1) ¼ 1.83, p ¼ .08,d ¼ 0.59.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The factor structure estimated in the healthy young adult sample applies to the ADHD sample used for clinical comparisons.
    • Rests on an assumption: The ADHD and matched healthy comparison groups are comparable on depression and other clinical variables that could affect BRIEF-A scores, despite BDI-II data being available only for patients.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In healthy young adults, a three-factor model fits the BRIEF-A self-report data better than one-, two-, or four-factor models; the factors are Metacognition, Behavioral Regulation (Inhibit and Self-Monitor), and Emotional Regulation (Emotional Control and Shift).

    “Results indicated that a three-factor model best fits the data: a Metacognition factor, a Behavioral Regulation factor consisting of the Inhibit and Self-Monitor scales, and an Emotional Regulation factor composed of the Emotional Control and Shift scales.”
    • Also stated in: § Confirmatory Factor Analysis · hedged
      “Thus, the three-factor solution appeared to best represent the data.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Results showed that a three-factor model fits the data better than either the one-, two-, or four-factor models tested.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A fourth factor did not improve fit and led to an inadmissible solution; the Internal and External Metacognition factors correlated at 1.02.

    “that the three-factor model improved fit beyond the two-factor model (Table 3), and that adding a fourth factor did not improve the model fit, resulting in an inadmissible solution-the correlation between the Internal and External Metacognition factors was estimated to be 1.02.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Every CFA model was statistically rejected by chi-square, and no model satisfied the strict RMSEA threshold.

    “The CFA indicated that all models tested were rejected statistically on the basis of the x 2 statistic and none of the models met the stringent cutoff criterion for RMSEA (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two-factor model fit better than the one-factor model, showing the BRIEF-A is not unidimensional.

    “The Dx 2 test confirmed that the BRIEF-A is not unidimensional (i.e., the twofactor model fit significantly better than did the one-factor model), that the three-factor model improved”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The three factors explained 61%, 52%, and 58% of variance in their scales, respectively, and all loadings were high and significant.

    “All factor loadings were relatively high and statistically significant with the Metacognition, Emotional Regulation, and Behavioral Regulation factors accounting for 61%, 52%, and 58% of the variance in their respective scales, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    BRIEF-A scores were positively skewed and some were also kurtotic in post hoc analyses.

    “In addition, we discovered in post hoc analyses that BRIEF-A scores were positively skewed and some were also kurtotic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The BRIEF-A is a questionnaire intended to measure executive functioning in daily life.

    “The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) is a questionnaire measure designed to assess executive functioning in everyday life.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    For the eight BRIEF scales on parent and teacher forms, exploratory factor analysis produced two factors in both typically developing children and a mixed clinical group.

    “Exploratory factor analysis of the eight scales of the parent and teacher forms of the BRIEF revealed a two-factor solution in both typically developing children and a mixed clinical sample (Gioia et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In that traumatic brain injury sample, the Inhibit scale had a stronger loading on Metacognition than on the expected Behavioral Regulation factor.

    “In a sample of children with traumatic brain injury, a two-rather than one-factor structure involving the original eight scales was reported for the BRIEF parent form, as well as finding that the Inhibit scale loaded more strongly on the Metacognition factor than the expected Behavioral Regulation factor (Donders, DenBraber, & Vos, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Donders, DenBraber, & Vos, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Gioia et al. (2002) found the Metacognition Index unchanged, but the Behavioral Regulation Index divided into Behavioral Regulation (Inhibit, Self-Monitor) and Emotional Regulation (Emotional Control, Shift) factors.

    “Although the Metacognition Index remained unchanged, the Behavioral Regulation Index broke down into a Behavioral Regulation factor consisting of the Inhibit and Self-Monitor scales, and an Emotional Regulation factor composed of the Emotional Control and Shift scales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These results suggest monitoring is not unitary; it changes with what is monitored and the context.

    “These findings indicate that monitoring is not a unitary construct, but rather varies depending on the nature of the information being monitored and the context in which monitoring tasks place.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent CFAs in a mixed healthy and clinical sample supported a nine-scale, three-factor BRIEF model with separate Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors for parent and teacher forms.

    “Finally, the recent CFAs of the BRIEF parent and teacher forms in a mixed healthy and clinical sample supported a nine-scale, three-factor model of the BRIEF including separate Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    That BRIEF-A two-factor structure held across genders and for both younger and older adults.

    “This factor structure was invariant across genders and present irrespective of whether younger or older adults were considered.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    That epilepsy study found the Monitor scale had equal loadings on the Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation indices.

    “The latter study did, however, find that the Monitor scale loaded equivalently on both the Metacognition Index and Behavioral Regulation Index, supporting the suggestion that this scale does not reflect a unitary construct (Gioia & Isquith, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Slick, Lautzenhiser, Sherman, & Eyrl, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In a mixed clinical sample, Gioia et al. (2002) reported that a three-factor model outperformed one-, two-, and four-factor models for the BRIEF parent report.

    “A three-factor solution best fits the data, as opposed to one-, two-, or four-factor models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    For children with traumatic brain injury, the original eight-scale BRIEF parent form was reported to have two factors rather than one.

    “In a sample of children with traumatic brain injury, a two-rather than one-factor structure involving the original eight scales was reported for the BRIEF parent form, as well as finding that the Inhibit scale loaded more strongly on the Metacognition factor than the expected Behavioral Regulation factor (Donders, DenBraber, & Vos, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Donders, DenBraber, & Vos, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A recent study found adults with ADHD had worse scores than healthy comparison participants on both the Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition indices, with a larger gap on Metacognition.

    “Finally, a recent study reported poorer functioning on both the Behavioral Regulation Index and Metacognition Index in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relative to a healthy comparison group, though the difference was larger for the latter index (Rotenberg-Shpigelman, Rapaport, Stern, & Hartmen-Maeir, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rotenberg-Shpigelman, Rapaport, Stern, & Hartmen-Maeir, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies using factor analysis on performance-based tests usually find more than one component or factor, which supports fractionation.

    “Factor analytic studies of performance-based tests have also supported a fractionation of executive functions, generally identifying more than one factor or component explaining variability (Busch, McBride, Curtiss, & Vanderploeg, 2005;Klenberg, Korkman, & Lahti-Nuuttila, 2001;Latzman & Markon, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Busch, McBride, Curtiss, & Vanderploeg, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Klenberg, Korkman, & Lahti-Nuuttila, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Latzman & Markon, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Prior child BRIEF parent/teacher studies and a BRIEF-A exploratory factor analysis also found Task-Monitor and Self-Monitor loading differently.

    “In this study, the BRIEF-A Task-Monitor and Self-Monitor scales loaded differentially on the Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation factors, a finding that was also obtained in prior studies using the BRIEF to examine parent and teacher reports of executive functioning in children (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010;Gioia et al., 2000), as well as an exploratory factor analysis of the BRIEF-A (Roth et al.,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gioia et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Splitting the Behavioral Regulation Index into Behavioral Regulation and Emotional Regulation factors, with the same scales, agrees with CFAs of the nine-scale child/adolescent BRIEF.

    “This separation of the Behavioral Regulation Index into two factors, and the scale composition of those factors, is consistent with the results of CFAs of the nine-scale version of the original BRIEF that was designed for use with children and adolescents (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010;Gioia & Isquith, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gioia & Isquith, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Statistically, the first-order and second-order models cannot be distinguished; they are alternative plausible representations of the same latent correlational structure.

    “Note that the FOF and the SOF model are not differentiable statistically from one another, but are merely alternative plausible representations of the same latent correlational structure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy, the eight-scale BRIEF parent report was best described by two factors rather than one or three.

    “A two-factor rather than one-or three-factor solution for the parent report form was found to be most appropriate in a sample of children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy (Slick, Lautzenhiser, Sherman, & Eyrl, 2006), although this study used the eight-rather than nine-scale model of the BRIEF (i.e., a single Monitor scale).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Slick, Lautzenhiser, Sherman, & Eyrl, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study supports a multidimensional model of executive function, consistent with the design of the BRIEF-A and its forerunner the BRIEF.

    “Overall, with these caveats in mind, this study supports a multidimensional model of executive function, consistent with the design of the BRIEF-A and its forerunner the BRIEF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The BRIEF-A validly measures the overall integrity of executive functions.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The BRIEF-A has support for convergent and discriminant validity.

    “There is support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the BRIEF-A (Roth et al., 2005) and its utility has been demonstrated in studies of clinical (Biederman et al., 2011;Chang, Davies, & Gavin, 2009;Garlinghouse, Roth, Isquith, Flashman, & Saykin, 2010;Kumbhani, Roth, Kuck, Flashman, & McAllister, 2010;Rabin et al., 2006) and non-clinical (Christ, Kanne, & Reiersen, 2010;Koven & Thomas”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Asymptotic distribution-free estimators are available for non-normal data.

    “Asymptotic distribution-free estimators are now available for non-normal data (Browne, 1984;Jo ¨reskog & So ¨rbom, 2004) but they require much larger sample sizes (in the 1,000 s; see Cortina, Chen & Dunlap, 2001;Hu, Bentler, & Kano, 1992) than was available here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Browne, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jo ¨reskog & So ¨rbom, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    BDI-II data existed for 12 patients and no matched controls.

    “Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) score was available for 12 of the patients (M ¼ 19.17, SD ¼ 9.42) but none of the matched controls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Exploratory factor analysis of the BRIEF-A indicated that older and younger adults did not differ with respect to the two-factor structure.

    “Although exploratory factor analysis of the BRIEF-A indicated that older and younger adults did not differ with respect to the two-factor structure reported (Roth et al., 2005), it is possible that age differences could be observed in the three-factor model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Healthy comparison participants were chosen pseudorandomly, matched on age and gender without knowing BRIEF-A scores, so their data were independent of the factor analysis.

    “Patients were compared with a sample of healthy adults selected pseudorandomly (i.e., matched for age and gender by one of the authors, ASF, without reference to their BRIEF-A scores) from a research database at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, ensuring that the data were independent from that used in the factor analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The BRIEF-A shows excellent internal consistency (alpha .93-.96 for the three main indices) and one-month test-retest reliability (r=.93-.94 for those indices).

    “The measure has excellent internal consistency (Cronbach a coefficients ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 for the three major indices) and 1-month test-retest reliabilities (ranging from r ¼ .93 to .94 for the three major indices; Roth et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Gender, race/ethnicity, and educational level have at most small effects on BRIEF-A scores (effect sizes generally 0.01 or less).

    “Furthermore, while at most small effects on BRIEF-A scores have been reported in relation to gender, race/ ethnicity, and educational level (effect sizes being generally 0.01 or less; Roth et al., 2005), it remains an empirical question whether such variables impact the factor structure of the measure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The present results are based on factor analysis of only the Self-Report form of the BRIEF-A.

    “In addition, although exploratory factor analyses indicated consistent factor structures for the BRIEF-A Self-and Informant-Report forms, the present results are based on factor analysis of only the Self-Report form.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    No participant scored high on the BRIEF-A validity scales Negativity, Infrequency, or Inconsistency.

    “None of the participants had elevated scores on the three validity scales included in the BRIEF-A (Negativity, Infrequency, and Inconsistency).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The factor structure estimated in the healthy young adult sample applies to the ADHD sample used for clinical comparisons.

    “A sample of 19 adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for ADHD (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), referred to our clinics for neuropsychological assessment including the BRIEF-A, was examined to assess the clinical relevance of the factor structures.”
    “Since the factor analysis indicated that the three-factor solution is preferable to the other alternate models tested here, we restricted group comparisons to scores for the two-and three-factor models.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ADHD and matched healthy comparison groups are comparable on depression and other clinical variables that could affect BRIEF-A scores, despite BDI-II data being available only for patients.

    “Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) score was available for 12 of the patients (M ¼ 19.17, SD ¼ 9.42) but none of the matched controls.”
    “Patients were compared with a sample of healthy adults selected pseudorandomly (i.e., matched for age and gender by one of the authors, ASF, without reference to their BRIEF-A scores) from a research database at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, ensuring that the data were independent from that used in the factor analysis.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The BRIEF-A validly measures the overall integrity of executive functions.

    “representing the overall integrity of executive functions as measured by the BRIEF-A”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • First model-comparison chi-square difference is miscalculated

    Minor

    The one-factor and two-factor chi-square values differ by 73.47, not the reported 71.47. The discrepancy does not change the stated direction of the comparison.

    Reported 71.47 · recomputed 73.47

  • Eight-scale study is credited with distinguishing two Monitor scales

    Minor

    The discussion cites the 2000 BRIEF analysis as prior evidence that Task-Monitor and Self-Monitor load differently. Earlier, the paper says that analysis used eight scales; it says the separate Monitor scales were introduced in a subsequent nine-scale analysis.

  • Reported t-test degrees of freedom conflict with the group comparison

    Minor

    The paper reports independent-sample comparisons involving 19 ADHD patients and a matched healthy group, but labels the t tests with one degree of freedom. That degree of freedom is inconsistent with a conventional independent-sample test of these groups; the reported p values also do not correspond to t tests with one degree of freedom.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 2010, SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE, 5, 519, 10.1080/17470911003747386 · DOI
  2. Biederman, 2011, European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 21, 508, 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Brown, 2008, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section C, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence, 14, 118, 10.1080/09297040601147605 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 1984, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 37, 62, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1984.tb00789.x · DOI
  5. Busch, 2005, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology : official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 27, 1022, 10.1080/13803390490919263 · DOI
  6. 2009, JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 23, 113, 10.1027/0269-8803.23.3.113 · DOI
  7. Chaytor, 2007, Brain injury : [BI], 21, 615, 10.1080/02699050701426949 · DOI
  8. 1991, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 347, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1991.tb00966.x · DOI
  9. Dawson, 2012, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology : official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 34, 297, 10.1080/13803395.2011.639297 · DOI
  10. 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 4, 197, 10.1348/174866409X478970 · DOI
  11. 2010, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section C, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence, 16, 326, 10.1080/09297041003601462 · DOI
  12. Garcia-Molina, 2012, Brain injury : [BI], 26, 864, 10.3109/02699052.2012.655362 · DOI
  13. Garlinghouse, 2010, Schizophrenia research, 120, 71, 10.1016/j.schres.2010.02.1067 · DOI
  14. 2012, PSYCHOLOLOGY OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS, 26, 201, 10.1037/a0025207 · DOI
  15. 2002, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 8, 229
  16. Gioia, 2002, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section C, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence, 8, 249, 10.1076/chin.8.4.249.13513 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 1999, STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING, 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hu, 1992, Psychological bulletin, 112, 351, 10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351 · DOI
  19. Jurado, 2007, Neuropsychology review, 17, 213, 10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z · DOI · Paper page
  20. Klenberg, 2001, Developmental neuropsychology, 20, 407, 10.1207/S15326942DN2001_6 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kompus, 2009, Neuroscience letters, 467, 76, 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.10.005 · DOI
  22. 2010, PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 49, 24, 10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.034 · DOI
  23. Kumbhani, 2010, Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 22, 304, 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22.3.304 · DOI
  24. 2010, Assessment, 17, 172, 10.1177/1073191109356254 · DOI
  25. 2002, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 643, 10.1093/arclin/17.7.643 · DOI
  26. 1988, Psychological bulletin, 103, 391, 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391 · DOI
  27. 2007, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 68, 1078
  28. Nigg, 2005, Journal of abnormal psychology, 114, 706, 10.1037/0021-843X.114.3.706 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 2010, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology : official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 33, 344
  30. 2006, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 721, 10.1016/j.acn.2006.08.004 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Reid, 2010, The International journal of neuroscience, 120, 120, 10.3109/00207450903165577 · DOI
  32. 2008, ISRAELI JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, 17, 77
  33. 2008, 57, 404, 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00509.x · DOI
  34. Slick, 2006, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section C, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence, 12, 181, 10.1080/09297040600611320 · DOI
  35. Stuss, 2000, Psychological research, 63, 289, 10.1007/s004269900007 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 2002, PNAS, 99, 16354, 10.1073/pnas.252521499 · DOI
  37. 1995, HANDBOOK OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, Vol 9, 125
  38. Turken, 2008, Neuroscience letters, 441, 7, 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.05.115 · DOI
  39. 2007, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1121, 528, 10.1196/annals.1401.025 · DOI
  40. Waber, 2006, Developmental neuropsychology, 29, 459, 10.1207/s15326942dn2903_5 · DOI
  41. 1991, Developmental neuropsychology, 7, 199

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roth, R. M., Lance, C. E., Isquith, P. K., Fischer, A. S., & Giancola, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Roth, R. M.
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-05-14
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
425-434
ISSN
  • 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-5843
DOI
10.1093/arclin/act031
PMC
PMC3711374
OpenAlex
W2167020848
Semantic Scholar
2dea20cbe38cb95031dacf7793c8fa61dfb2632f
Cited by
197
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01-AA-11691, R01AA011691)
  • National Center for Research Resources
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
executive function, factor structure, metacognition, behavioral regulation, emotion regulation, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, self-report measures, young adults, inhibition, self-monitoring, emotional control, cognitive flexibility
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Case-Control Studies, Executive Function, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review