Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF2): Analyzing and Interpreting Ratings from Multiple Raters Melissa A. Messer1, MHS, Jennifer A. Greene1, MSPH, Peter K. Isquith2, PhD, Gerard Gioia3, PhD, Lauren Kenworthy, PhD, and Steven Guy, PhD Background Results The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF2) is the first revision of the BRIEF, originally published in 2000 (Gioia, Isquith, Guy & Kenworthy, 2000). It is a parent, teacher and self-report rating scale designed to assess everyday behaviors associated with executive functions in the home and school environments. The BRIEF2 scales are combined to form three indexes (Behavior Regulation, Emotion Regulation, Cognitive Regulation) and one overall composite (Global Executive Composite). The majority of items are parallel across forms. Objective: We examined interrater reliability of the BRIEF2 among interrater dyad samples of both typically developing (TD) children and children with clinical and developmental disorders (i.e., autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disorder). The correlations between raters are moderate to strong for TD children and low to moderate for clinical groups. Parent/Parent, Parent/Teacher, and Parent/Self raters had the strongest correlations in the TD sample. Teacher/Teacher, Parent/Parent raters had moderate correlations in the clinical sample. The mean differences between BRIEF2 scores are relatively small. Effect sizes ranged from .03 to .21 in the typically developing sample and from .00 to .33 in the clinical sample, indicating very small differences between raters. For parent and teacher ratings, 53-59% of cases reported scores within 10 T-score points. As expected the agreement of the Parent–Parent sample was higher, with 67-76% of being within 10 T-score points. Agreement in the Teacher–Teacher sample was even higher, with 70-76% of cases bring within 10 T-score points of each other. Agreement within 10 T-score points for adolescents when compared to parents and teachers ratings was 59-63% and 52-59% of cases, respectively. Correlations between Dyad Scores Sample Pair BRI ERI CRI GEC Parent/Parent Clinical .63* .61* .57* .56* TD .75* .73* .88* .86* Teacher/Teacher .70** .52** .58** .62** .45** .27** .47** Parent/Teacher .32** .36** .30** .72** .60** Parent/Self-Report .33 .28* .35* .25* .62* .59* .74* .71* Teacher/Self-Report .24* .14* .20* .13* .51* .42* Mean Differences and Effect Sizes for Dyad Scores Sample Pair BRI ERI CRI GEC Mean Difference d Parent/Parent Clinical 1.77 .14 2.37 .18 1.53 .15 2.02 .20 TD .52 .13 .34 .04 .27 .03 .46 .05 Teacher/Teacher .39 .01 .00 1.22 1.20 .94 .10 1.14 .12 Parent/Teacher .75 3.34 3.12 .28 3.07 1.90 .21 2.18 .24 1.84 1.93 Parent/Self-Report .57 1.86 .16 3.58 .33 3.25 1.45 .99 .11 1.47 1.41 Teacher/Self-Report 2.57 3.21 .29 .23 2.62 .26 1.17 2.28 .25 1.76 .19 Methods Participants: Reliability was assessed within five dyads: Parent/Teacher, Parent/Self-Report, Teacher/Self-Report, Parent/Parent & Teacher/Teacher. Methods: Correlations, mean differences & effect sizes for each index were examined. Effect size, Cohen’s d, was calculated based on the mean difference and pooled standard deviation for each pair’s index scores In addition, percentages of these samples that obtained various T-Score differences on the Index scores and GEC score were calculated. Parent/ Parent Teacher/ Teacher Self-Report C TD n 287 149 583 115 1,426 632 458 472 343 372 Gender Male 64.8 46.3 71.2 50.4 68.5 47.2 59.0 48.3 56.7 47.3 Female 35.2 53.7 28.8 49.6 31.5 52.8 41.0 51.7 41.3 52.7 Age (years) M 11.4 10.8 12.4 13.9 11.0 11.5 14.7 14.6 14.4 SD 3.4 3.8 3.2 3.0 4.0 2.1 2.3 Note. C = clinical sample; TD = typically developing sample Percentages of Dyad Scores within 10 T-Score Points (Clinical Samples only) Sample Pair BRI ERI CRI GEC Parent/Parent 68% 67% 75% 76% Teacher/Teacher 72% 73% 70% Parent/Teacher 55% 53% 59% 57% Parent/Self-Report 63% 62% Teacher/Self-Report 52% BRIEF2 Indexes/Composite Behavior Regulation Index (BRI) Regulate and monitor behavior effectively, reflecting inhibitory control and self-monitoring. Emotion Regulation Index (ERI) Regulate emotional responses, adapt to changes and shift set appropriately reflecting the Shift and Emotional Control scales. Cognitive Regulation Index (CRI) Control and manage cognitive processes; to initiate, plan, organize and monitor problem solve effectively, holding goals and plans in working memory. Global Executive Composite (GEC) Overall summary incorporating all aspects of executive functioning captured on the BRIEF-2. Conclusions Pairs of raters with similar perspectives, namely, Parent–Parent and Teacher–Teacher, tend to be correlated more highly than raters who see the child from different perspectives. The lowest correlations were seen between adolescent and either parents or teachers. Gathering multiple perspectives in the assessment of a child’s functioning provides a more comprehensive set of data. An interpretive strategy that includes comparison of dyads or triads of raters’ views is desirable. 1Psychological Assessment Resources; 2Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College; 3Children’s National Medical Center