Brief Professional Manual

Brief Professional Manual

ENTER SITE »»» DOWNLOAD PDF
CLICK HERE »»» BOOK READER

File Name:Brief Professional Manual.pdf
Size: 4136 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook

Category: Book
Uploaded: 23 May 2019, 17:56 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 711 votes.

Status: AVAILABLE

Last checked: 8 Minutes ago!

In order to read or download Brief Professional Manual ebook, you need to create a FREE account.

Download Now!

eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version

✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.

✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)

✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.

✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers

Brief Professional ManualPlease enable JavaScript on your browser.Designed to assess the abilities of a broad range of children and adolescents, the BRIEF is useful when working with children who have learning disabilities and attention disorders, traumatic brain injuries, lead exposure, pervasive developmental disorders, depression, and other developmental, neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The Parent and Teacher Forms of the BRIEF each contain 86 items that measure different aspects of executive function. Separate normative tables for parent and teacher forms provide T scores, percentiles, and 90 confidence intervals for four developmental age groups by gender of the child. Theoretically and statistically derived scales measure different aspects of a child or adolescent’s behavior, such as his or her ability to control impulses, move freely from one situation to the next, modulate responses, anticipate future events, and keep track of the effect of his or her behavior on others. Purchasers should own the BRIEF Professional Manual or purchase it before use. Reports must be purchased separately. All rights reserved (N). Please enable JavaScript on your browser.The BRIEF2 is as efficient, comprehensive, and consistent with current models of executive function as its predecessor but now includes quick screening forms and enhanced features. More than 1,000 peer-reviewed articles about the BRIEF family of products have been published. Also available on PARiConnect! These PARiConnect reports have been updated to reflect a lower reading level. Qualification level: S. Learn more about the BRIEF2 Screening Forms. Open our handy decision guide ! After accessing the link, you will be prompted to create an account. A white paper describing how to use this research repository can be found here. Use of this resource is encouraged to facilitate research using the BRIEF family of products. Both the list and the white paper are available in the Resources tab above.http://cjsayles.com/~cjsayles/images/brother-pe-700-manual.xml

Tags:
• brief professional manual, brief professional manual appendix tables, brief 2 professional manual, brief professional manual, brief 2 professional manual.

A white paper on identifying emotional disturbance using PAR products, including the BRIEF2, is now available. Click the Resources tab above or here to view or download. Please see our FAQ before ordering e-Manuals. Please see our FAQ before ordering e-Manuals. Purchasers should own the BRIEF2 Professional Manual or purchase it before use. Reports must be purchased separately. Purchasers should own the BRIEF2 Professional Manual or purchase it before use. Reports must be purchased separately.All rights reserved (N). Ann Arbor are main UK distributors for many USA based psychological assessment publishers. Don't forget we offer a 'Price Match Promise' and guarantee the lowest UK price (when comparing VAT inclusive prices and delivery) Northumberland. No test forms are included. Windows 10, 8, 7, Vista or XP. CD-ROM drive for installation; Internet connection or telephone for software activation. Free U.S. shipping. The BRIEF is useful in evaluating 5- through 18-year-olds with developmental and acquired neurological conditions such as learning disabilities, ADHD, traumatic brain injury, low birth weight, Tourette’s Disorder, and autism. Separate norm tables for teacher and parent ratings provide T- scores, percentiles, and 90 confidence intervals for four developmental age groups, by gender. The BRIEF-P permits intervention at earlier stages of development. This 80-item inventory can be completed by any teen who can read at a fifth-grade level, including students with attention problems, brain injury, learning disabilities, or high-functioning autism. Scales are the same as those on the BRIEF, except that Initiate is replaced by Task Completion. The BRIEF-SR is useful in evaluating teens who have trouble with reasoning, flexibility, organization, self-monitoring, memory, or behavior regulation. It generates three useful reports.http://gomsuminhhai.com/userfiles/brother-pc-201-manual.xml An Interpretive Report gives the clinician T- scores and percentiles; intervention recommendations (educational, rehabilitative, and therapeutic); IEP objectives; and an optional ADHD diagnostic classification. A Feedback Report summarizes test results for parents, teachers, and the examinee. And a Protocol Summary Report compares results from up to four different administrations (to the same client). You must have JavaScript enabled in your browser to utilize the functionality of this website. You can either upload the document directly during the checkout process, or send it to us directly by email or fax. We reserve the right to ask for further evidence of qualification as necessary. The assessment includes rating forms for teachers and parents (for ages 5-18), and a self-report form for children and adolescents (for ages 11-18). The BRIEF-2 with UK-adapted items and US norms is available on our online testing platform, HTS 5. With the HTS 5 edition, you can administer and score the test online for immediate results. A separate report can be generated for each form completed, or all forms that were completed about a particular child can be combined into one multireport (at no extra charge). A short online guide explaining HTS 5 and the reports generated is included with each order. All users of the HTS 5 edition should also ensure that they purchase the BRIEF-2 manual, if they don't already have a copy. The HTS 5 edition is currently available without subscription or administration charges. The BRIEF-2 is also available via paper and pencil for hand-scoring and if desired, information from the paper forms could be transferred to the online system to generate digital reports. Features and benefits Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report forms are now discussed in one manual and have increased parallel structure. This content overlap, combined with the presentation of rater discrepancy base rates, makes examining multiple rater perspectives easy.http://www.drupalitalia.org/node/76818 Contains more concise scales, which reduce the burden on the parent, teacher, and adolescent respondent. Increased parallelism in item content, with most items shared between the Parent Form and Teacher Form and approximately half of the items also shared with the Self-Report Form. 12-item Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report (for ages 11-18) Screening Forms quickly indicate whether executive function assessment is needed (available for paper and pencil edition only). Test structure Improved empirical scale structure includes separate Task-Monitor and Self-Monitor scales. In addition to the two validity indicators on the original BRIEF, a new Infrequency Scale helps identify unusual responding. No new items were added to the clinical scales, allowing for consistency of data collection between the BRIEF and the BRIEF-2. Technical information Improved internal structure, with scales supported by factor analysis and three indexes consistent with widely accepted theory: Behavior Regulation, Emotion Regulation, and Cognitive Regulation. Clinical data provide support for evidence-based assessment and interpretation of clinical profiles. Reliable change statistics make it easy to measure the significance of change in scores over time. Please note that we no longer stock the old edition of the BRIEF assessment - please contact us if you need any assistance. Qualification level required: Level 2. Please see our Test User Qualifications page for guidance. This test review provides an overview of the BRIEF-P, including scale structure, administration, norms, score interpretation, current reliability and validity evidence, and provides general guidelines for clinical use. Download full-text PDF The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.https://fufolia.com/images/bridgeport-vmc-800-xp-manual.pdf The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Keywords: BRIEF-P; Preschoolers; Executive functio n; Test review; Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. In additi on, because measures of executive func- tions are administered in a structured, novel, quiet, and one-on-one testing environment, standard performance-based tests do not always allow executive deficits to emerge dur- ing administration. Standardized questi onnaires that measure executive functions outside of the clinic or laboratory setting completed by the individual or by family members therefore provide important information for the assessment of executive defi- cits. These questionnaires pr ovide unique information on the degree to which executive deficits are noticed by others and the severity of these deficits in everyday life. The BRIEF-P is intended as one component of a comprehensive evaluation to assess a broad range of childhood disorders (Gioia et al., 2003). Unlike the BRIEF, which has The authors wish to thank Helen Carlson, PhD, for assistance with references and manuscript preparation. Address correspondence to Elisab eth M. S. Sherman, PhD, Neurosciences Program, Alberta Children’s Hospital, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB Canada T3B 6A8.The overall composite index is the Global Executive Composite (GEC; Figure 1). In add ition, the BRIEF-P includes two scales designed to assess validity of responses (Inconsistency and Negativity). ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING Age Range The scale can be administered to children ag ed 2 years 0 months to 5 years 11 months. Administration Time The BRIEF-P takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Reading Level Respondents should have a fifth-grade read ing level and be proficient in English. Table 1 Overview of BRIEF-P Scales.http://melissajacksonmd.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/162878f61e18ca---calculadora-texas-instruments-ti-89-manual.pdfInstructions for respondents are printed on the front of the rating form, which can be administered to both parents and other raters such as teachers or childcare workers. Format, Instructions, and Administration Respondents are asked to rate the child’s behavior on a 3-point scale (“Never,” “Sometimes,” and “Often”) in terms of how of ten, in th e last 6 months, the particular behavior has been a problem (this differs from the BRIEF, which asks how often the behav- ior occurs; Gioia et al., 2000). This specific instruction is repeated insi de the BRIEF-P test form at the top of each page. Given that mo st preschoolers exhibit some of the behaviors included in the form, the authors also supply add itional instructions to the rater that emphasize it is the degree to which behaviors are a problem that should be rated, rather than the frequency with which the behaviors occur. The manual in cludes additional detailed instruc- tions that “may be used as a guide” for inst ructing raters (Gioia et al., 2003, p. 6). It is not uncommon for raters to inadvertently omit responses on the rating form. The manual indicates that it is important to check the form for m issi ng items at the end of the administration and have the rater fill in any missing responses. Choosing the Parent Rater The manual suggests that both parents be administered the BRIEF-P separately to obtain more information and to identify areas of disagree ment. When only one parent is available, it should be the parent with the most contact with the child in the last 6 months.Mothers and fa thers yielded equivalent scor es in the normative sample (Gioia et al., 2003), which suggests that either parent would be a suita ble rater. Data from raters with low representation in t he normative sample (e.g., grandparents) should be used with some caution in making clinical infer- ences.AVANDCIE-AUTOMATION.COM/ckfinder/userfiles/files/canon-speedlite-200e-flash-user-manual.pdf The manual does not indicate what to do with regard to diagnostic decision making when parents disagree, or when only one parent provides clinical-range ratings. Using the same rater at baseline and retest makes clinical sense so as not to introduce rater effects when interpreting changes over time.Validity scales (Incon- sistency and Negativity) are scor ed with regard to specific cu toffs indicated on the scoring form (see below for interpretation of these s cales). Omitted response can be assigned a rat- ing of 1 (“Never”) in order to calculate th e T score for the clinical scale, but the presence of three or more omitted items from a clinical scal e invalidates that particular scale. Further- more, having 13 or more omitted items from the ent ire protocol invalidates the BRIEF-P. Confidence Intervals Of note, 90 confiden ce intervals can be calculated for scales and indexes accord- ing to the procedure outlined in the manual and summarized in Table 2. For clinical scales, 90 confidence intervals typically range from 4 to 8 T -score po ints. The indexes have 90 confidence intervals ranging from 3 to 6 T -score points, whereas the GEC ranges from 3 T -score points for parent ratings to 4 T -score points for teacher ratings.Notably, T score to percentile corr espondence is not uniform across all subscales because raw score distri butions (and resulting skew) differ. Conse- quently, a T score of 65 may not always corresp ond to the normal-d istribution-based 93rd percentile, and a T score of 65 on one scale might not yield the same percentile as a T score of 65 on another scale. Because the perc entiles involve direct translation from raw score distributions, it makes sense to use percentiles as the benchmark for detecting clinically significant elevations rather than the T score. Interpretation and Score Discrepancies According to the manual, the GEC is best in terpreted when the three index scales are not significantly different from each other.https://www.infranetltd.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/162878f687041b---Calculate-critical-path-manually.pdf Parent Ratings Teacher Ratings ISCI vs.In cases with such discrepancie s, the respective index scores may provide a more accurate clinical picture than the GEC. The next level of discrepancy analysis (i.e., whether the individual index scores can be in terpreted if the clinical scales are very discrepant) has not been formally established, but the decision to interpret single clini cal scales over composite index scores should be based, in part, on the reliability of that particular scale. In the case of the BRIEF-P, many of the clinical -scale reliabilities rival or exceed some index scores (see Evidence for Reliability, below). Importantly, BRIEF-P scoring can be acco mplished by persons without formal training in psychology, but the authors em phasize that interpretation of scores and profiles requires graduate training in neur opsychology, psychology, or related fields, as well as postsecondary training in the interpre tation of psychological tests (Gioia et al., 2003). Interpreting the In consistency Scale The Inconsistency scale consists of 10 item pairs with similar but not identical content. High scores on this scale indicate that the rater responded in an inconsistent manner within item pairs compared to the nor mative sample and the clinical sample. The manual notes that calculation of the Inconsis tency scale must be made carefully because it is somewhat complex. For each pair, the absolute value of the difference between items is calculated, and the absolute differences for each item pair are summed. When a BRIEF-P protocol yields an elevated Inconsis tency score, it is important to review the items that led to the high score. Although relatively uncommon in clinical practice, this kind of protocol is not necessa rily invalid. High Inc onsistency scores could potentially be obtained if the rater was very detail oriented or concrete, or if the child ’s behavior is very situation specific.https://www.mybizwebsites.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/162878f7f70e44---calculate-ip-address-manually.pdf More res earch is needed on interpreting this scale in clinical samples. Interpreting the Negativity Scale The Negativity Scale reflects the extent of ne gative bias on the part of the respon- dent compared to thos e in the BRIEF-P normative and clinical samples. A high Negativity score indicates that the resp ondent endorsed “Often” for a sp ecific number of items on the scale (four for the parent and three for the t eacher), and that this score was found in less than 1 (parent scale) or 2 (teacher scale) of the co mbined normativ e and clinical samples. The raw score is computed for th ese items, with raw scores being “Acceptable” up to and including three for parent rating s and two for teacher ratings. The authors recommend that protocols should only be deemed invalid after a careful review of items in the context of other test scores, history, and observations, because severe executive dysfunction can be associated with an elevat ed Negativity scale. As is the case for the Inconsistency scal e, more research is needed on validity in clinical samples.Protocols w ith endorsement of “Not at all” fo r all items should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect a rater who was not fully engaged in the task, who m isunderstood the instructions, who is minimizing problems, or who has an overly positive view o f the child. NORMATIVE DATA Standardization Sample The BRIEF-P item tryout phase involved administration of a long er version (93 items) to children in preschools in the Midw est, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions of the United States. The actual standardizati on edition (63 items) was administered in Maryland, Illinois, Vermont, New Hampshire, Florida, and Texas. Children were recruited through public and private school recruitment and pediatric well-child visits; in total, 20 preschool programs were sampled. The try-out and stan dardization samples were combined to form the final normative sample.AUTOSKOLA-SCP.COM/files/canon-speedlite-200e-flash-manual.pdf A total of 460 Parent Forms were completed by respondent s in the normative sa mple; the Teacher Form was completed for 302 of these. See Table 4 for other sample characteristics. This is also the case for teacher ratings of Shift, Emotional Control, and on the FI. Therefore, separate BRIEF-P norms are provided for gender, along with age.Ethnicity Ethnicity did not have a significant impact on BRIEF-P ratings in the standardization sample (see manual; see also Conclusions and General Guidelines for Clinical Use ). Table 4 Characteristics of the BRIEF-P Normative Sample.High er correlations, particularly those over.90, are optimal for clinical decision making, whereas lower correlations (e.g.,.70), may be suitable for other purposes such as research (Strauss et al., 2006). Score stability over time is very high for the Inhibit scale, the ISC Index, and the GEC, based on 52 parent ratings and 67 teacher ratings obtained after a mean interval of about 4 week s (Gioia et al., 2003). The FI from teacher ratings demonstrates somewhat lo wer reliability than the other index scores, and the reliability of the Shift scale is only marginal. Most scales, however, demonstrate at least high reliability and are therefore of sufficient stability for clinical use. Index and composite scores shown in ita lics.Adjusted change scores are corrected for exposure effects. Change scores greater th an the values presented are considered statistically reliable at the presented conf idence interval. Adapat ed and reproduced by special perm ission of the Publisher, Ps ychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the Behavior Rating Inve ntory of Executive Function-Preschool Version by Gerard A. Gi oia, PhD, Kimberley Andrews Espy, PhD, Peter K. Isquith, PhD, Copyright 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003 by PAR, Inc. Further reproduction is pr ohibited without permission from PAR, Inc.This sample was re tested after a mean interval of 4 weeks, which makes it suitable for assessing changes over relatively short test-retest intervals. Over- all, these results indicate that the BRIEF-P is suitable for repeat assessments. Evidence for Interrater Reliability Because different kinds of raters perceive child behavior differently (e.g., parents vs. teachers), interrater reliab ility of child behavior scales should ideally be provided through multiple ratings of the same kind of rater (e.g., two daycare providers). Interrater reliability of this type is not provided in the manual. EVIDENCE FOR VALIDITY Evidence for Content Validity The BRIEF-P was constructed in much th e same way as the original BRIEF. In the case of the BRIEF-P, the original BR IEF items were rewritten for younger children and additional items were developed based on reviews of clinical interview notes from the three authors’ clinical work. In particular, two broad kinds of items were included: items reflecting concrete instances of partic ular behavioral domains along with general descriptions of the same domains. According to the authors, scale structure was ini- tially derived through literature review a nd consultation with colleagues and then veri- fied with factor analysis. Item content was based on review of interview notes of actual clinical cases in order to generate items reflecting specific behaviors and characteris- tics. Common behavior-rating scales were al so reviewed to minimize redundancy with other general scales. Item tryouts were carried out in three regions of the United States for 372 parents and 201 teachers, followed by item analysis involving item-total corre- lations and then principal factor analysis with orthogonal rotation. A full description of item derivation procedures is described in the manual.Factor Structure The manual describes results from principal factor analysis with oblique ro tation (Promax) on the normative samp le. A three-factor solution for the parent ratings emerg ed that accounted for 87 of the variance. For the teacher ratings, a three-factor solution accounted for 92 of the variance. The same factor composition was derived. See below for results of factor analyses involvi ng other behavior-rating scales. Concordance with Performance-Based Executive Tests and Nonexecutive Neuropsychological Tests To date, there is only a single study on the association between BRIEF-P scores and performance-based measures of ex ecutive functioning. Mahone and Hoffman (2007) reported that BRIEF-P scores in pr eschoolers with ADHD have low, nonsig - nificant correlations with self-ordered pointing, auditory di git span, inhibition and motor persistence, visual attention, and su stained attention. Ho wever, these correla- tions were no higher than correlations with receptive v ocabulary or sensorimotor mea- sures. The authors concluded that the BR IEF-P measures different components of executive functioning than th ose measured by performance -based executive function- ing tests. With regard to IQ, the manual indicates that there is a modest correlation between BRIEF-P Working Memory and IQ as measured by the Differential Abilities Scale (DAS).The manual highlights how children from these samples o btained almost uniformly and significantly higher ra w scores on BRIEF-P scales than matched controls. In particular, every BRIEF-P clini cal scale was highly elevated in the autism group, consistent with the conceptualization of autism as a disorder with prominent executive dysfunction. Although these data suggest that the BRIEF-P may yield “signature profiles” that might discriminate between these groups, the authors indicate that BRIEF- P profiles should not be considered the only possible scal e configuration in these groups and that a comprehensive assessment is needed for making diagnoses. Although the manual spends considerable time on the mean raw score diff erences between groups, what is of particular clinical util ity is the proportion of ch ildren in each clinical gr oup obtaining scores above a clinically significant cutoff within the differ ent diagnostic groups. For example, cli nically significant elevations on the GEC are most common in autism (81) and ADHD (71), but significantly less common in other groups. Th is lends support for the clinical utility and sensitivity of the test, because these ch ildren would be expected to have the most severe problems with executive functioning compared to the other clinical groups.CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CLINICAL USE Measuring executive functioning in the st ructured testing environment of neuropsy- chological evaluation presents a ch allenge at any age, but this challenge is especially acute in the assessment of preschoolers whose proficiency in language, memory, and motor skills are not yet established and who have diff iculty staying on task for prolonged period s. As a way of capturing parent and caregiver ratings of preschoolers across everyday settings, the BRIEF-P appears uniquely suited to providing estimates of executive func- tioning in this age group and can be seen as a crucial component of the neuropsychological assessment of preschoolers. Over all, the BRIEF-P is an extr emely well-designed, psycho- metrically sound instrument that has great potential in refining the assessment of preschool children. The BRIEF- P manual is well written, comprehensive, and detailed, and the scale’s reliability evidence supports its use for clini cal diagnostic decision making involving the presence of executive deficits in preschoolers. Although further research is needed, the validity scales (Inconsistency, Negativity) are also a welcome feature. One very important consideration for busy clinicians strapped for time and resources is whether the BRIEF-P replaces or supplements commonly used tests and scales in the assessment of preschoolers. In particular, does the s cale measure something distinct and unique comp ared to performance-based executive tests, and what is the degree of overlap of the scale with commonly used behavioral rating scales, such as those designed to measure ADHD. Thus, the issue for clinicians may not be whether to administer performance-based or behavior scales of executive functioning but rather to be cognizant of th e strength s and weaknesses of both approaches for assessing executive deficits in children (see Strauss et al., 2006, for a review of the BRIEF and discussion of this question). Until further research clarif ies the differential sensitivity of performance-based and observer-based ratings of execu tive functioning, both appear to have their place in the neuropsychological work-up of preschoolers. Second, the scale appears to contribute something unique not covered by other behavioral rating scales such as the CBCL and BASC. In addition, of the five BRIEF-P clinical scales, Shift and Emotional Control a ppear to be the scales that most tap into affective dimensions such as depression and anxiety. Whether the dim ension of Emotional Control is purely “executive” or rather reflect s aspects of mood and affect is a question worthy of further study.More research into the commonalities an d differences of the BRIEF-P and those designed to detect ADHD symptoms would be of utility. The BRIEF-P has very high conceptual and correlational overlap wi th ADHD scales, and more information on whether the scale can be used in ADHD screening would be helpful. Although the BRIEF-P has few limitations, these deserve mention. Caution is rec- ommended in interpreting BRIEF-P scores and diagnosing executive deficits in children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The number of parents from high-SES backgrounds approaches 50 in the normative sample, and mean parental education is high (almost 16 years). In the same vein, the relative underrepresentation of some minority groups in the normative sam ple also suggests caution in making diagnostic decisions involving minority children. Hispan ic children comprise 5 of the BRIEF-P normative sample, but Hispanic children now represent over 10 of children under age 5 in the United States (US Census Bureau, 2008) with trends projecting rapid increases in this age group over time. Unfortunately, guidelines do not exist on what to do when faced with discrepant info rmation from two raters, or on whether some raters are more accurate in detecting some components of behavi or than others. When disagreement exists across raters, the clinician will need to carefully consider the potential reasons for these differences and may consider administering additional ratings scales that tap executive dysfunction (e.g., ADHD scales). Teachers may have more access and exposure to a larger range of normative behaviors in children, which may have implications when faced with discrepancies across raters. Howe ver, teacher scales may not necessarily be more accurate than parent scales, particularly if the teacher is unfamiliar with the child or if subtle or nondisruptive aspects of execu tive dysfunction such as working memory prob- lems are prominent. In our expe rience, when parent and teacher scales are very discrepant, performance-based measure of executive func tioning, behavioral observations during the assessment, and corroborating evidence from other sources (e.g., other questionnaires, school records, in-classroom observations) b ecome even more impo rtant when clarifying the diagnostic conceptualization.