BACKGROUND: Executive function difficulties in youth with Down syndrome (DS) are well recognised using informant-report measures. However, the profile of relative challenges and strengths has not yet been evaluated using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2), which includes a new internal factor structure. METHOD: Using the BRIEF-2, profiles of everyday parent-reported executive function (EF) were evaluated in youth with DS (n = 34) and compared with age-based and sex-based norms. EF profiles were also compared across raters (parent vs. teacher, n = 20) and relative to mental age-matched typically developing controls (ns = 19 in each group). RESULTS: Although within-group differences were not revealed on indexes, significant differences were found among BRIEF-2 scales. Across raters, teachers reported significantly more difficulties than parents. Compared with mental age-matched typically developing controls, the DS group was rated more poorly on some but not all BRIEF-2 scales. CONCLUSIONS: At the scale, but not the index level, the BRIEF-2 identifies a variegated EF profile in children with DS. For several of the scales, significant differences were noted relative to both chronological age expectations (using norms) and mental-age expectations (using a developmentally matched comparison group). At the scale level, the BRIEF-2 continues to be a sensitive tool for identifying executive function difficulties as well as profiles of relative strengths and weaknesses in children with DS.
BACKGROUND: Executive function difficulties in youth with Down syndrome (DS) are well recognised using informant-report measures. However, the profile of relative challenges and strengths has not yet been evaluated using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2), which includes a new internal factor structure. METHOD: Using the BRIEF-2, profiles of everyday parent-reported executive function (EF) were evaluated in youth with DS (n = 34) and compared with age-based and sex-based norms. EF profiles were also compared across raters (parent vs. teacher, n = 20) and relative to mental age-matched typically developing controls (ns = 19 in each group). RESULTS: Although within-group differences were not revealed on indexes, significant differences were found among BRIEF-2 scales. Across raters, teachers reported significantly more difficulties than parents. Compared with mental age-matched typically developing controls, the DS group was rated more poorly on some but not all BRIEF-2 scales. CONCLUSIONS: At the scale, but not the index level, the BRIEF-2 identifies a variegated EF profile in children with DS. For several of the scales, significant differences were noted relative to both chronological age expectations (using norms) and mental-age expectations (using a developmentally matched comparison group). At the scale level, the BRIEF-2 continues to be a sensitive tool for identifying executive function difficulties as well as profiles of relative strengths and weaknesses in children with DS.