Cited by 34Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Latent Structure of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult Version (BRIEF–A) After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Donders, Jacobus, Strong, Carrie-Ann H.·2016·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Abstract

One hundred persons with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their informants completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) within 1-12 months after injury. Exploratory maximum-likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed that although a traditional 2-factor model fit the informant-report data well, a 3-factor solution fit the self-report data relatively best. These factors were labeled Metacognition, Behavioral Regulation, and Emotional Regulation. The presence of a premorbid history of outpatient psychiatric treatment was strongly predictive of higher scores (reflecting more perceived problems) on each of these 3 factors. Lower educational attainment was associated with higher scores on the Behavioral Regulation factor, whereas absence of intracranial findings on neuroimaging was associated with higher scores on the Emotional Regulation factor. It is concluded that, after mild TBI, self-report data on the BRIEF-A can be interpreted along a 3-factorial model and that high elevations on this instrument are strongly affected by premorbid complications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/arclin/acv048

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Level of performance on List Sorting is consistent with results found with other tests of working memory such as WAIS-IV and WMS-IV Working Memory Indices.

    “The level of performance is again consistent to the results found with other tests of working memory such as the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV Working Memory Indices (Carlozzi, Grech, et al., 2013; Carlozzi, Kirsch, et al., 2015; Donders & Strong, 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donders, J., & Strong, C.-A. H.
Affiliations
Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Donders, Jacobus
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Published
2015-07-23
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
29-36
ISSN
  • 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-5843
OpenAlex
W2306747663
Cited by
34
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
mild traumatic brain injury, BRIEF-A, executive function, latent structure, metacognition, behavioral regulation, emotion regulation, self-report versus informant report, educational attainment, neuroimaging findings, factor analysis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain Injuries, Cognition Disorders, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Young Adult, 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.

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