A Comparison of Commercially Available Parent and Teacher Rating Forms in the Concurrent Prediction of Executive Functioning Performance in Children.

Abstract

Objective: It is often argued that executive functioning (EF) tasks and EF questionnaires measure the same construct at different levels of analysis. However, item content on EF questionnaires varies by publisher/rater, indicating a striking lack of consensus on what EF represents when measured via questionnaires. In two separate samples spanning early and middle childhood, and utilizing a multi-method multi-rater approach, we systematically compare the concurrent validity of different questionnaire-based conceptualizations of EF.

Methods: Parents and teachers of children aged 8 to 12 years (N = 226) and 5 to 7 years (N = 152) completed indices marketed as EF on the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF); Conners' Rating Scale; and the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC). Their associations with performance on tasks of working memory (WM) and inhibition were compared against established indices of inattention, impulsivity, and academic underachievement on the same forms.

Results: Across samples, parent and teacher ratings of academic difficulty were most strongly associated with performance, particularly for WM. EF indices were no better (and were sometimes worse) at predicting concurrent EF than established indices of inattention/impulsivity.

Conclusions: Developers of EF scales must either improve the divergent validity of their scales against established indices of attention/impulsivity or improve the convergent validity with tests of EF. Otherwise, the clinical utility of questionnaire-based EF remains questionable. Implications for theory development and research are discussed.