Abstract

Objective

There are numerous measures of executive function (EF), yet the multiple definitions and constructions of EF suggest that these measures may not be measuring the same construct or domains within EF. The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the BRIEF and the CEFI parent and self-report forms with adolescents.

Method

Adolescent participants, ages 12–17 years, were recruited using a snowball method with recruitment targeting individuals from under-represented groups, as well as the general population. The resulting sample consisted of 52 cases with parent report. The adolescents were predominantly female (55.77%) and white (40.38%) with a mean age of 14.56 (1.72).

Results

For parent and adolescent self-report on both the BRIEF and CEFI, mean global scores were within the average range. To examine whether the two rating scales were measuring the same underlying constructs of EF, a multi-trait-multi-method (MTMM) model was conducted using correlated traits correlated methods (CTCM) and correlated traits uncorrelated methods (CTUM).

Conclusion

While the global scores obtained for the instruments measure EF similarly, there is less consistency in how the subdomains parse out and are labeled for each of the two scales. Implications for practice are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

执行功能的父母和自我报告评定量表是否测量与青少年相同的结构？

摘要

客观的

执行功能 (EF) 有多种测量方法，但 EF 的多种定义和结构表明，这些测量方法可能不是测量 EF 内的相同结构或域。本研究的目的是检查简要和 CEFI 父母和自我报告表与青少年的同时有效性。

方法

使用滚雪球法招募 12-17 岁的青少年参与者，招募对象来自代表性不足的群体以及普通人群。所得样本由 52 个带有父报告的案例组成。青少年主要是女性 (55.77%) 和白人 (40.38%)，平均年龄为 14.56 (1.72)。

结果

对于 BRIEF 和 CEFI 的父母和青少年自我报告，全球平均得分均在平均范围内。为了检查两个评分量表是否测量了相同的 EF 基础结构，使用相关性状相关方法 (CTCM) 和相关性状不相关方法 (CTUM) 进行了多性状多方法 (MTMM) 模型。

结论

虽然为仪器获得的全局分数以类似方式测量 EF，但子域如何解析并为两个尺度中的每一个进行标记的一致性较低。讨论了对实践的影响。