Volume 16, Issue 1 (March 2018)                   Iranian Rehabilitation Journal 2018, 16(1): 25-34 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Amani M, Asady Gandomani R, Nesayan A. The Reliability and Validity of Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions Tool Teacher’s Form Among Iranian Primary School Students. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2018; 16 (1) :25-34
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-745-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Bojnord, Iran.
Abstract:   (4658 Views)
Objectives: Behavior rating scales have been developed to increase ecological validity in the measurement of executive functions. As the teachers have a lot of contact with the students in the school environment, behavioral rating scale teacher’s form can provide useful information. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the behavioral rating inventory of executive functions teacher’s form among primary school students of Iran.
Methods: The statistical population consisted of primary school students of Jajarm city who were studying in the academic year 2016-2017. Students (n=360) were selected through sampling two-stage clusters. The behavioral rating inventory of executive functions (BRIEF) teacher’s form for students was completed by their teachers, and the Wechsler’s coding subscale was completed by the students.
Results: The results showed that the internal consistency of this inventory was 0.98 and for all subscales ranged 0.75 to 0.92. Also, subscales related to each other significantly. Regarding convergent validity, Wechsler’s coding subscale had a significant correlation with the subscales of executive functions. Also, results showed that two-factor model with eight subscales were confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. 
Discussion: Given the satisfactory reliability and validity of BRIEF tool in the school environment and results of this study indicated the relationship of executive functions with academic problems; this tool could be used to examine students’ executive functions. 
Full-Text [PDF 725 kb]   (1810 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (1542 Views)  
Article type: Original Research Articles | Subject: Psychology
Received: 2017/08/12 | Accepted: 2017/12/7 | Published: 2018/03/1

1. Burgess PW, Veitch E, de Lacy Costello A, Shallice T. The cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates of multitasking. Neuropsychologia. 2000; 38(6):848–63. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00134-7 [DOI:10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00134-7]
2. Chan RC, Shum D, Toulopoulou T, Chen EY. Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2008; 23(2):201–16. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010 [DOI:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010]
3. Green MF, Kern RS, Braff DL, Mintz J. Neurocognitive Deficits and Functional Outcome in Schizophrenia: Are We Measuring the "Right Stuff"? Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2000; 26(1):119–36. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033430 [DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033430]
4. Lagattuta KH, Sayfan L, Monsour M. A new measure for assessing executive function across a wide age range: children and adults find happy-sad more difficult than day-night. Developmental Science. 2010; 14(3):481–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00994.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00994.x]
5. Miyake A, Friedman NP. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2012; 21(1):8–14. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429458 [DOI:10.1177/0963721411429458]
6. Naglieri JA, Goldstein S. Comprehensive executive function inventory. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.; 2013.
7. Harrison PL, Thomas A, National Association of School Psychologists. Best practices in school psychology. Bethesda, Maryland: National Association of School Psychologists; 2014.
8. McConaughy S, Ritter D. Best practices in multimethod assessment of emotional and behavioral disorders. In: Thomas A, Grimes J, editors. Best Practices in School Psychology, V. Bethesda, Maryland: National Association of School Psychologists; 2008.
9. Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Guy SC, Kenworthy L. Test review, behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology. 2000; 6(3):235–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin. [DOI:10.1076/chin.]
10. Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Retzlaff PD, Espy KA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a Clinical Sample. Child Neuropsychology. 2002; 8(4):249–57. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin. [DOI:10.1076/chin.]
11. Sullivan JR, Riccio CA. Diagnostic group differences in parent and teacher ratings on the BRIEF and Conners' Scales. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2007; 11(3):398-406. Available from: [DOI:10.1177/1087054707299399]
12. Lamar LR. The relationship and consistency in ratings between the conners 3 executive functioning scale and the behavior rating inventory of executive functioning [MSc. thesis]. Bowling Green, Kentucky: Western Kentucky University; 2016.
13. Slick DJ, Lautzenhiser A, Sherman EMS, Eyrl K. Frequency of Scale Elevations and Factor Structure of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in Children and Adolescents With Intractable Epilepsy. Child Neuropsychology. 2006; 12(3):181–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297040600611320 [DOI:10.1080/09297040600611320]
14. Donders J, DenBraber D, Vos L. Construct and criterion validity of the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in children referred for neuropsychological assessment after paediatric traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neuropsychology. 2010; 4(2):197–209. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/174866409x478970 [DOI:10.1348/174866409X478970]
15. Isquith P. BRIEF predictions of ADHD: clinical utility of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function for detecting ADHD subtypes in children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2000; 15(8):780–1. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6177(00)80238-3 [DOI:10.1016/S0887-6177(00)80238-3]
16. Mahone EM, Cirino PT, Cutting LE, Cerrone PM, Hagelthorn KM, Hiemenz JR, et al. Validity of the behavior rating inventory of executive function in children with ADHD and/or Tourette syndrome. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2002; 17(7):643–62. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/arclin/17.7.643 [DOI:10.1093/arclin/17.7.643]
17. San Miguel Montes LE, Allen DN, Puente AE, Neblina C. Validity of the WISC–IV Spanish for a clinically referred sample of Hispanic children. Psychological Assessment. 2010; 22(2):465–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018895 [DOI:10.1037/a0018895]
18. Wechsler D, Naglieri JA. Wechsler nonverbal scale of ability (WNV). London: Pearson; 2006.
19. Roth RM, Lance CE, Isquith PK, Fischer AS, Giancola PR. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version in Healthy Adults and Application to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2013; 28(5):425–34. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/arclin/act031 [DOI:10.1093/arclin/act031]
20. Ebrahimi AA, Kassani A, Menati R, Abedi A, Yarmohammadian A, Faramarzi S. The assessment of validity and reliability of behavior rating inventory of executive functions in iranian pre-school children. International Journal of School Health. 2015;2(4). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.17795/intjsh29022 [DOI:10.17795/intjsh29022]
21. Bouma JM, Mulder JL, Lindeboom J. [Handbook on neuropsychological diagnostics (Dutch)]. Amsterdam: Pearson; 1996.

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb