Applied Neuropsychology

ISSN: 0908-4282 (Print) 1532-4826 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hapn20

Assessment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD) Using the BASC and BRIEF

Kelly Pizzitola Jarratt, Cynthia A. Riccio & Becky M. Siekierski

To cite this article: Kelly Pizzitola Jarratt, Cynthia A. Riccio & Becky M. Siekierski (2005)
Assessment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Using the BASC and BRIEF,
Applied Neuropsychology, 12:2, 83-93, DOI: 10.1207/s15324826an1202_4

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324826an1202_4

Published online: 07 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1321

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hapn21
Applied Neuropsychology Copyright 2005 by
2005, Vol. 12, No. 2, 83–93 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
JARRATT, RICCIO,
BASC& SIEKIERSKI
AND BRIEF

Assessment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD) Using the BASC and BRIEF
Kelly Pizzitola Jarratt, Cynthia A. Riccio, and Becky M. Siekierski
Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, USA

There has been an overwhelming increase in the number of children diagnosed with atten-
tion deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). School and clinical psychologists play an impor-
tant role in the assessment of a child’s emotional and behavioral difficulties, including prob-
lems with attention. Various assessment measures, including behavioral rating forms such
as the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) and the Behavior Rating Inventory
of Executive Function (BRIEF), are often used in the assessment of a child’s behavior. The
purpose of this article is to provide more knowledge to psychologists regarding the assess-
ment of ADHD in children using the BASC and BRIEF. Results from this study indicated that
the BASC and BRIEF scales appear to be measuring similar, but different, constructs per-
taining to behaviors associated with ADHD, as well as similar study skills and learning
problems. These findings suggest that children diagnosed with ADHD are rated lower on
adaptive skills when compared to children with no diagnosis on the BASC. Use of the BASC
and BRIEF in ADHD assessment appears promising and may generate additional areas in
need of intervention.

Key words: ADHD, BASC, BRIEF, assessment

Due to the increase in diagnosis of attention deficit the increased rate of ADHD referrals, it is imperative
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, it is imper- that norm-referenced, psychometrically sound instru-
ative that school and clinical psychologists have a clear ments are being utilized to assess children with ADHD.
knowledge base regarding useful assessment measures. Despite advances in what is known about ADHD
ADHD is one of the most common disorders among and in the area of psychometrics, there is no “standard”
children and adolescents; an estimated 3%–7% of chil- or definitive test of ADHD. Diagnosis is optimally
dren are diagnosed with ADHD (American Psychiatric based on direct observation (Barkley, 1998). In lieu of,
Association [APA], 1994, 2000; Barkley, 1998); it has or in addition to, direct observation, behavior rating
become one of the primary school and clinic referrals scales completed by multiple informants are often used
(Barkley, 1998). Goldstein (1995) purported that, as in the assessment and diagnostic process (Kamphaus &
opposed to the true rate of children becoming more in- Frick, 2002). There are, in fact, multiple behavior rating
attentive and impulsive, the increase in ADHD diagno- scales available. Although some of these measures are
ses may be due to an increase in public awareness of specific to ADHD, oftentimes omnibus measures are
ADHD symptoms. This awareness has lead to more used to obtain a more comprehensive view of the
children with ADHD being referred, diagnosed, and child’s behaviors. This is particularly important given
treated. Due to the high rate of comorbidity and lack of the high rate of comorbid difficulties evidenced by chil-
specificity in discriminating between disorders, no spe- dren with ADHD.
cific pattern of impairment in children with ADHD is The Behavior Assessment System for Children
clearly evident (Goldstein, 1999). With this in mind and (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) are omnibus
parent and teacher rating scales in which children are
rated on behaviors within specific domains of emo-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kelly Pizzitola Jarratt,
Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University,
tional, behavioral, and executive functioning.
TAMU MS4225, College Station, TX 77843–4225, USA. E-mail: Specifically, the BASC includes the following
[email protected] scales: Adaptability, Aggression, Anxiety, Attention

83
 JARRATT, RICCIO, & SIEKIERSKI

Problems, Atypicality, Conduct Problems, Depression, Organize Materials, Plan/Organize, Shift, and
Hyperactivity, Leadership, Learning Problems, Social Working Memory. These scales comprise three com-
Skills, Somatization, Study Skills, and Withdrawal. posite scores: Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI),
These scales comprise five independent composite Metacognition Index (MI), and Global Executive
scores: Adaptive Skills, Behavioral Symptoms Index, Composite (GEC). Like the BASC, the BRIEF is
Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, and available in parent and teacher forms to enable the use
School Problems. The BASC has been used success- of multiple informants.
fully in making a diagnosis of ADHD in multiple stud- Although many studies have researched the useful-
ies (e.g., Doyle, Ostrander, Skare, Crosby, & August, ness of the BASC in diagnosing children with ADHD,
1997; Ostrander, Weinfurt, Yarnold, & August, 1998; little research has examined the utility of the BRIEF in
Vaughn, Riccio, Hynd, & Hall, 1997). Across studies, it ADHD assessment. The BASC and BRIEF include
was noted that adaptive skills, though not usually a fo- similar scales that measure symptoms regarding atten-
cus of intervention for children with ADHD, were im- tional functioning (i.e., Attention Problems, Hyperac-
paired relative to normal controls (Reynolds & tivity, Inhibit, Shift). There are certainly similarities to
Kamphaus, 2002). concepts of metacognition and study skills; however,
Use of the BASC is consistent with the behavioral no research to date has examined these scales in combi-
approach to diagnosis of ADHD, but may not neces- nation. The purpose of this study is to compare the re-
sarily address or measure the concepts that have been sults of these measures for a sample of children with no
proffered theoretically. According to Barkley’s (1997, clinical diagnosis versus children with ADHD to deter-
1998) theoretical model of ADHD, executive func- mine their usefulness in identifying children with atten-
tions in children may be impaired. Other authors have tion problems.
posited that underlying deficits in executive function-
ing, such as planning, evaluating, and monitoring be-
havior, may negatively impact children with ADHD
Method
and their ability to regulate behavior (Hale & Fiorello,
2001). Recent theories and studies of ADHD also
Participants
have examined the possible deficits in working mem-
ory in children with ADHD (Barkley, 1997; Karatekin Children in this study were drawn from the Mem-
& Asarnow, 1998). Karatekin and Asarnow (1998) ory, Attention, and Planning Study (MAPS Research
found that children with ADHD performed poorly on Team) at a university in the southwest. Participants for
working memory tasks, whereas Gillam (1997) found the larger study were recruited through the use of an-
that executive function deficits (attention and organi- nouncements distributed in the local community to
zational ability of new knowledge) also affected mem- physicians, local schools, a community-based coun-
ory processing. The current version of the BASC does seling center, on local bulletin boards, and in the local
not include a scale of executive function due to the newspaper. The announcement indicated that the re-
relative recent introduction of this conceptualization search study focused on memory, attention, and plan-
of ADHD, nor do other omnibus behavior rating ning/problem solving and did not directly mention
scales. With increased emphasis on executive func- ADHD. Participation was voluntary with consent ob-
tioning in children with ADHD, however, psychologi- tained from the parent and assent obtained from each
cal assessment measures that specifically assess these participant. For inclusion in the study, children had to
characteristics are being developed. obtain an IQ greater than or equal to 80 and had to
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Func- speak and read English. Additional criteria for exclu-
tion (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, sion included a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia or
2000) is a relatively new measure that specifically history of severe head injury. For purposes of this
contains scales that evaluate difficulties with attention, study, only those children who met criteria for ADHD
as well as with working memory. Executive functions (n = 42) or received no diagnosis (control, n = 26)
include the ability to control and maintain attention, were included; children with other learning or psychi-
organize and plan, problem-solve, “hold” information atric disorders who did not meet criteria for ADHD
in working memory, and formulate and manipulate were excluded. The 68 children ranged in age from 9
mental models. The BRIEF includes the following to 15 years (M age = 11.8, SD = 2.1); 47 children
scales: Emotional Control, Inhibit, Initiate, Monitor, were males and 21 were females. The sample was pre-

84
 BASC AND BRIEF

Table 1. Demographic Information for the Sample from taking stimulant medication during evaluation
No Diagnosisa ADHDb (e.g., vacations, weekends). Although every attempt
was made to obtain teacher information as well as
Gender parent information, completed and scoreable forms of
Males 11 36
one or both scales were only obtained for 49 children.
Females 15 6
Ethnicity In some cases, children were being home schooled
White Non-Hispanic 19 35 and the parent was the teacher; in other cases, parents
African American 3 4 did not want the teacher to be contacted. Diagnoses
Hispanic 3 3 were made independently by two raters based on Di-
Asian 1 0 agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Right handed 25 37
Previously retained in grade 1 10
(4th ed., American Psychiatric Association, 1994) cri-
Taking stimulant medication — 21 teria and the results of parent and teacher behavior
Services at time of evaluation 0 4 rating scales, including the BASC, as well as a diag-
Mean age in years (SD) 11.58 (2.21) 11.82 (2.08) nostic interview with the parent. Raters were blind to
Mean parent educational 15.80 (2.35) 14.86 (2.23) the results of the executive function measures, includ-
level in years (SD)
ing the BRIEF.
Mean full scale IQ (SD) 109.38 (14.22) 100.02 (9.97)
Note: ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
an = 26. bn = 42. Instruments
The Behavior Assessment System for Children
dominantly Caucasian (n = 54; 78%), with the re- (BASC), parent and teacher forms, are measures de-
mainder of the participants being African American (n scribed as providing a multidimensional approach to
= 8; 11%), Hispanic (n = 6; 8%), and other (n = 1; evaluating dimensions of behavior and personality in
1%). Of the ADHD children (n = 42), 14 children children, both positive and negative (Reynolds &
were classified as predominantly ADHD Inattentive Kamphaus, 2002). These questionnaires require a par-
Type, 27 children were classified as ADHD Com- ent–guardian or teacher to rate a number of observ-
bined Type, and 1 child was classified as ADHD Not able behaviors according to frequency evidenced dur-
Otherwise Specified. No statistically significant dif- ing the past 6 months. Regarding school-age children,
ferences were found between groups for age, F(1, 66) the BASC–PRS (Parent Rating Scale) has nine clini-
= .21, p = .65, or parent education, F(1, 66) = 2.70, p cal scales including Hyperactivity, Aggression, Con-
= .11. Statistically significant differences were found duct Problems, Anxiety, Depression, Somatization,
between groups for Full Scale IQ, F(1, 66) = 10.17, p Atypicality, Withdrawal, and Attention Problems, and
= .002. three adaptive scales including Adaptability, Social
Due to the significant differences, IQ was controlled Skills, and Leadership.
for in all remaining comparisons on the BASC and This emotional/behavioral measure also yields four
BRIEF. Detailed demographic information is provided composite scores including Externalizing Problems,
in Table 1. Internalizing Problems, Behavioral Symptoms Index,
and Adaptive Skills. The BASC–TRS (Teacher Rating
Scale) includes the aforementioned nine scales and also
Procedure
adds the Learning Problems clinical scale, as well as
Children were administered a comprehensive evalu- the Study Skills adaptive scale and a School Problems
ation of cognition, achievement, language, memory, ex- composite score (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2002). Each
ecutive function, attention, and behavior–emotional scale yields a mean T score of 50 and a standard devia-
status. tion of 10. Confidence intervals and percentile ranks
Examiners were licensed psychologists or ad- also are reported for each scale. Adequate reliability
vanced doctoral students who were supervised by a li- and validity has been shown for this measure (Reynolds
censed psychologist. All measures were administered & Kamphaus, 2002).
consistent with standardization; measures were ad- The BRIEF (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy,
ministered in a random order. Test sessions varied in 2000) is an 86-item questionnaire designed to assess
length based on the individual being assessed; assess- executive function in children ages 5 through 18
ments were scheduled to allow participants to refrain years. Executive function includes the ability to moni-

85
 JARRATT, RICCIO, & SIEKIERSKI

tor and control attention, plan, “hold” information in factor scores were administered. The Full Scale IQ was
working memory, and formulate mental models based of interest for descriptive purposes.
on life experiences (Dennis, 1991; Pennington, 1994).
The BRIEF includes a parent and a teacher form of
Results
the questionnaire to assess both home and school en-
vironments.
Group Comparisons
The BRIEF is composed of eight clinical scales
that generate two broad indexes: Metacognition (MI) Parent BASC. Due to the significant number of
and Behavioral Regulation (BRI). An overall score comparisons, alpha was set at p = .001 to control for
(Global Executive Composite; GEC) is obtained from Type I error. For the parent BASC, as expected, there
the sum of the raw scores for the MI and BRI. T were significant between-group differences on Hyper-
scores were generated as a linear distribution of the activity and Attention Problems, even with control for
raw scores. A T score of 50 represents the mean with Full Scale IQ (see Table 2). In addition, there were sig-
a standard deviation of 10. Pizzitola (2002), in her re- nificant interaction effects for Full Scale IQ and Group
view of the BRIEF, concluded that the measure ap- for Hyperactivity and Attention Problems, Aggression,
peared to be psychometrically sound when assessing Conduct Problems, Depression, Somatization, Atypi-
executive functioning in children and that there was cality, and Withdrawal, as well as composite scores
ample evidence generated to support internal consis- (e.g., Behavioral Symptom Index, Externalizing Index,
tency, test–retest reliability, content and construct va- Internalizing Index) such that children in the ADHD
lidity, and convergent and discriminate validity. group with lower IQ scores were more likely to exhibit
Pizzitola (2002) also noted that the BRIEF manual problem behaviors. No other significant interaction ef-
provided support of the ability of the BRIEF to dis- fects for Full Scale IQ and Group for individual sub-
criminate among various clinical groups, including scales on the parent BASC were found.
ADHD. In clinical areas, in addition to Attention Problems
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third and Hyperactivity, significant between-group differ-
Edition (WISC–III; Wechsler, I991) is the most fre- ences for Group also emerged for Aggression, Conduct
quently used measure of cognitive ability for child pop- Problems, Atypicality, and Externalizing Problems
ulations. All subtests required for computation of the (composite). Full Scale IQ did not appear to be signifi-

Table 2. Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for BASC Parent Scales With Full Scale IQ as a Covariate

No Diagnosisa ADHDb
Partial Eta
M SD M SD F(1, 66) Squared

Hyperactivity 44.85 9.49 60.81 16.72 18.77* 0.22

Aggression 46.50 6.43 58.17 12.47 14.83* 0.17
Conduct Problems 46.81 8.56 60.12 14.68 15.23* 0.19
Anxiety 49.65 11.62 50.90 10.84 0.06
Depression 45.38 8.78 55.50 13.25 10.53* 0.14
Somatization 49.04 10.08 49.40 11.84 0.02
Atypicality 46.27 6.58 55.29 10.01 12.28* 0.16
Withdrawal 46.88 7.92 52.33 12.78 2.07
Attention Problems 52.08 8.13 71.19 9.07 57.87* 0.47
Adaptabilityc 53.38 8.84 40.50 10.12 11.41 0.23
Social Skills 51.54 10.12 41.69 9.84 8.04 0.11
Leadershipd 50.64 8.08 41.60 6.98 11.25* 0.15
Externalizing 45.42 7.36 61.52 13.47 27.17* 0.30
Internalizing 47.46 10.66 52.43 12.12 2.05
Behavioral Symptom Index 46.42 7.74 62.17 12.00 28.17 0.30
Adaptive Skillse 51.54 8.41 40.07 8.96 15.85* 0.20

Note: ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children.
an = 26. bn = 42. cFor this comparison, no diagnosis n=16, ADHD n=26; this subscale is not included on the adolescent form of the BASC. dFull Scale IQ

[F(1,66)=16.53; p<.001; partial eta squared = 0.21. eFull Scale IQ [F(1,66)=13.85; p<.001; partial eta squared = 0.18.
*p ≤ .001.

86
 BASC AND BRIEF

cant for these scales. In adaptive areas, significant be- ship; differences also emerged for Group for Adaptabil-
tween-group differences for Full Scale IQ and Group ity. As with the parent BASC, results indicated that the
emerged for Adaptive Skills (composite) and Leader- ADHD group evidenced deficits in adaptive skill areas
ship. Across these areas, the ADHD group evidenced relative to the No Diagnosis group.
significantly lower levels of appropriate behavior when
compared to children with no diagnosis.
Parent BRIEF. For the parent BRIEF, there was a
significant interaction effect of Full Scale IQ and Group
Teacher BASC. For the teacher BASC, as ex- on all scales. Full Scale IQ was significant only on the
pected, there were significant between-group differ- Shift subscale, whereas Group was significant on all
ences on Hyperactivity and Attention Problems, even scales. Across scales, the ADHD group evidenced more
with control for Full Scale IQ (see Table 3). These dif- difficulty in these areas than the No Diagnosis Group
ferences may have been masked somewhat given that (see Table 4). Effect sizes were greatest for the Working
many of the children in the ADHD group were on stim- Memory scale, Metacognition Index, and Global Exec-
ulant medication while in school. In addition, there utive Composite.
were significant interaction effects for Full Scale IQ
and Group for Attention Problems, Aggression, Con-
duct Problems, Atypicality, Withdrawal, Depression, Teacher BRIEF. For the teacher BRIEF, there
Somatization, Anxiety, and Learning Problems, as well was an interaction effect for all subscales except for Or-
as for composite scores (e.g., Externalizing Problems, ganization. Although no significant effects were noted
Behavioral Symptom Index, and School Problems). for Full Scale IQ, small effect sizes were noted for the
Across these scales, children in the ADHD group with grouping variable for Initiate, Plan/Organize, and
lower Full Scale IQ scores were more likely to exhibit Global Executive Composite. In all cases, the ADHD
problem behaviors. group evidenced significantly more difficulty in these
In adaptive areas, significant between-group differ- areas than the No Diagnosis Group (see Table 5). These
ences for Full Scale IQ and Group emerged for Leader- noted differences between parent and teacher ratings on

Table 3. Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for BASC Teacher Scales with Full Scale IQ as a Covariate

No Diagnosisa ADHDb
Partial Eta
M SD M SD F(1, 47) Squared

Hyperactivity 47.44 7.32 55.97 9.12 7.67 0.14

Aggression 45.89 4.91 55.14 11.82 5.79 0.11
Conduct Problems 45.06 3.57 51.83 12.09 2.81
Anxiety 44.78 7.26 52.20 12.65 2.11
Depression 46.61 9.05 52.06 9.53 0.61
Somatization 49.00 9.70 48.24 8.08 0.17
Atypicality 46.69 4.13 55.99 12.64 4.67
Withdrawal 43.50 4.77 50.59 8.47 5.23
Attention Problems 48.00 11.19 60.80 10.48 7.08 0.13
Adaptabilityc 57.58 9.25 42.65 8.44 13.26* 0.31
Social Skills 56.72 10.29 42.46 9.59 10.49 0.19
Leadershipd 57.00 8.44 41.41 7.56 22.91* 0.34
Learning Problems 45.56 7.91 56.48 9.64 3.64
Study Skills 52.94 8.84 42.10 8.53 6.88 0.13
Externalizing 45.83 4.79 54.79 10.31 7.12 0.14
Internalizing 46.11 7.33 51.40 9.25 1.61
Behavioral Symptom Index 45.61 7.00 57.12 9.16 10.07 0.18
School Problemse 46.89 8.46 59.22 9.74 6.66 0.13
Adaptive Skills 56.53 9.28 41.23 8.27 16.86* 0.28

Note: ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children.
an = 18. bn = 31. cFor this comparison, no diagnosis n = 12, ADHD n = 20; this subscale is not included on the adolescent form of the BASC. dFull Scale IQ

[F(1,47)=15.28; p < .001; partial eta squared = 0.25. eFull Scale IQ [F(1,47) = 14.27; p < .001; partial eta squared = 0.24.
*p ≤ .001.

87
 JARRATT, RICCIO, & SIEKIERSKI

Table 4. Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for BRIEF Parent Scales With Full Scale IQ as a Covariate

No Diagnosisa ADHDb
Partial Eta
M SD M SD F (1, 66) Squared

Inhibit 49.31 10.58 64.29 14.48 16.37* 0.20

Shift 47.73 10.23 62.33 13.81 13.12* 0.17
Emotional Control 46.46 9.67 61.83 13.24 20.56* 0.24
Behavioral Regulation Index 47.50 9.50 65.33 13.54 25.13* 0.28
Initiate 50.00 8.85 62.40 10.62 17.73* 0.21
Working Memory 52.85 10.15 70.90 9.87 38.24* 0.37
Plan/Organize 52.04 10.14 68.52 10.55 29.30* 0.31
Organize Materials 53.77 9.80 63.05 7.69 18.78* 0.22
Monitor 49.73 9.31 65.40 10.54 28.78* 0.31
Metacognition Index 51.85 9.43 69.29 9.71 39.95* 0.38
Global Executive Composite 50.35 9.02 69.36 10.89 42.04* 0.39
Note: ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function.
an = 26. bn = 42.

*p ≤ .001.

Table 5. Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for BRIEF Teacher Scales With Full Scale IQ as a Covariate

No Diagnosisa ADHDb
Partial Eta
M SD M SD F (1, 38) Squared

Inhibit 54.87 11.88 66.63 16.48 2.44

Shift 51.56 8.66 62.87 14.40 1.14
Emotional Control 52.50 7.87 64.21 17.11 2.82
Behavioral Regulation Index 53.25 9.18 66.04 15.55 2.84
Initiate 51.13 9.89 66.38 12.77 6.91 0.16
Working Memory 57.50 14.67 73.54 13.76 3.28
Plan/Organize 54.44 13.90 67.96 9.63 8.25 0.18
Organize Materials 63.88 24.09 72.92 22.11 2.20
Monitor 54.94 12.28 68.33 11.86 4.07
Metacognition Index 57.63 13.38 73.67 16.53 4.01
Global Executive Composite 55.75 12.17 71.54 13.19 6.85 0.16
Note: ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function.
an = 16. bn = 24.

*p ≤ .001.

the BRIEF are to be expected due to the fact that many and the Behavioral Regulation Index of the BRIEF, as
of the children were on stimulant medication while in well as between the adaptive skills of the BASC and the
school. Metacognitive Index of the BRIEF. These findings
would support the similarity of the constructs being
measured by the two scales. At the same time, however,
Correlational Analyses the correlations are not so high as to indicate that the
To determine the extent to which the BASC and BASC and BRIEF are measuring these constructs in ex-
BRIEF are measuring similar constructs across raters actly the same way.
and scales, multiple correlational matrices were gener-
ated (see Tables 7–9). Most scales regarding behaviors
associated with ADHD significantly correlated, as ex- Discussion
pected, across parent and teacher ratings for the BASC
and BRIEF independently. Regarding correlations be- Significant between-group differences emerged for
tween the BASC and BRIEF, notably, the highest corre- both the BASC and the BRIEF. Based on correlational
lations were between the clinical scales of the BASC analysis, the BASC and BRIEF scales appear to be

88
 Table 6. Correlations for Parent and Teacher BASC Ratingsa

Parent

Teacher Hyper Aggr Cond Anx Depr Som Atyp With Attn Adapt Social Lead Ext Int BSI AS

Hyper .36* .57* .42* — .41* — .39 — .46* –.39 –.43* –.32 .52** — .49** –.44**
Aggr .33* .64* .56* — .40 — .37* — .33 –.41 –.47** — .59** — .45** –.46**
Cond — .37 .76** — .35 — — — — –.45* –.45** — .51** — .32* –.44*
Anx .33* — — .51** .49** — .30 .40 .36* –.44* –.33 — .56** .50** –.36
Depr — .45* — — .57** — .39* .47* — –.34 — — .39* .47** .48** —
Som — — .30 .32 — –— — — — — –– —
Atyp .34 — .46** — — .62** .42* –.39 –.35 –.47** .45** .34 .49** –.43*
With — .42* .43* — .31 .49** — –.50* –.31 –.38* — .45** .43* –.42*
Attn — — .33 — .33 — .54** –.40 –.36* –.41* — — .41* –.44*
Adapt –.33 — –.40 — –.45** –.38 –.56** .57** .50* .32 –.47* .35 –.57** .54**
Social –.29 — — — –.38* — –.46** .47* .56** .40* –.33 — –.37* .56**
Lead — — –.32 — –.37* — –.56** .54** .53** .49** –.35 — –.45** .59**
Ext .68** — .44* — .41* — .41* –.43 –.52** –.34 .62** — .48** –.52**
Int — .41* .62** .29 .34 .50** — –.43 — — .35 .61** .53** –.30
BSI .43* — .60** — .49** .50** .56** –.52** –.48** –.49** .57** .44** .65** –.57**
AS — — — — — –.37* — –.56* –.53** .57** .47** –.36 — –.44* .61**
Learn — — — .38* — .33 — .65** –.45* .45** –.56** — .34 .48** –.54**
Study — — — — — — — –.50* .38 .45** .43* — — .49**
SchPrb — — .38* — .36 — .63** –.45* –.44* –.52** — .30 .47** –.53**

Note: For adaptability scale, n = 32. BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children; Hyper = Hyperactivity; Aggr = Aggression; Cond = Conduct Problems; Anx = Anxiety; Depr = Depression; Som =
Somatization; Atyp = Atypicality; With = Withdrawal; Attn = Attention Problems; Adapt = Adaptability; Social = Social Skills; Lead = Leadership Skills; Learn = Learning; Study = Study Skills; Ext = Externalizing
Problems; Int = Internalizing Problems; BSI = Behavioral Symptoms Index; AS = Adaptive Skills Index; SchPrb = School Problems.
aN = 49.

*p < .01. **p ≤ .001.

89
90

Table 7. Correlations for Parent and Teacher BRIEF Ratingsa

Parent

Teacher Inhibit Shift EC BRI Initiate WM Plan/Org Org Mon MI GEF

Inhibit .54** .50** .55** .59** .42* — .43* .48* .49* .46* .53**
Shift .47* .55** .63** .62** .43* — — .46* .40* .39* .50**
EC .59** .57** .69** .69** .48* — — .44* .46* .41* .54**
BRI .61** .60** .70** .72** .50** — .41* .52** .50** .47* .59**
Initiate .40* .34 .49** .47* .46* .52** .54** .58** .45* .55** .53**
WM .37 — .47* .47* .44* .55** .54** — .41* .55** .53**
Plan/Org .30 — .46* .46* .51** .48* .58** .57** .44* .58** .55**
Org .31 — — .33 — — .41* .51** .34* .40* .61**
Mon .49* .48* .59** .59** .45* .48* .51** .56** .50** .55** .58**
MI .45* .40* .50** .50** .47* .58** .60** .55** .49* .61** .56**
GEF .53** .50** .65** .65** .51** .50** .57** .61** .52** .61** .64**

Note: BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; EC = Emotional Control; BRI = Behavioral Regulation Index; WM = Working Memory; Plan/Org = Planning/Organization; Org = Organization of
Materials; Mon = Monitoring; MI = Metacognition Index; GEF = Global Executive Functioning Index.
aN = 40.

*p < .01. **p ≤ .001.

 Table 8. Correlations of Parent Ratings on the BRIEF and BASCa

BRIEF

BASC Inhibit Shift EC BRI Initiate WM Plan/Org Org Mon MI GEF

Hyperactivity .75** .51** .58** .71** .54** .55** .56** .58** .57** .64** .70**
Aggression .66** .61** .66** .74** .58** .47** .48** .50** .57** .58** .69**
Conduct .41** .50** .44** .52** .49** .41** .45** .43** .43** .50** .54**
Anxiety — .32* — — — — — — — — —
Depression .51** .56** .76** .71** .55** .41** .46** .49** .41** .53** .63**
Somatization — — — — .33* — — — — — —
Atypicality — .58** .36* .44** .49** .41** .44** — .33* .45** .46**
Withdraw — .51** .38** .40** .39** — — — — .35** .39**
Attention .53** .54** .46** .58** .64** .86** .78** .57** .70** .83** .77**
Adaptability –.67** –.73** –.67** –.77** –.79** –.59** –.62** –.53** –.60** –.71** –.77**
Social Skills –.51** –.57** –.47** –.57** –.62** –.43** –.52** –.38** –.56** –.54 –.60**
Leadership — –.51** –.42** –.46** –.57** –.55** –.50** –.41** –.51** –.56** –.56**
Externalizing .73** .64** .67** .78** .65** .58** .61** .61** .63** .70** .78**
Internalizing .32* .48** .53** .50** .43** — .35* .39* — .38* .45**
BSI .66** .70** .70** .77** .66** .64** .66** .58** .60** .72** .79**
Adapt Skills –.51** –.65** –.55** –.64** –.70** –.55** –.59** –.47** –.60** –.63** –.69**

Note: BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children; EC = Emotional Control; BRI = Behavioral Regulation Index; WM = Working Memory;
Plan/Org = Planning/Organization; Org = Organization of Materials; Mon = Monitoring; MI = Metacognition Index; GEF = Global Executive Functioning Index; BSI = Behavioral Symptoms Index; Adapt Skills =
Adaptive Skills.
aN = 68.

*p < .01. **p ≤ .001.

91
92

Table 9. Correlations of Teacher Ratings on the BRIEF and BASCa

BRIEF

BASC Inhibit Shift EC BRI Initiate WM Plan/Org Org Mon MI GEF

Hyperactivity .48* .41* .43* .51** .42* .42* .39* .38* .46* .47* .50**
Aggression .50** .46* .48* .54** .41* — — — .39* .37* .46*
Conduct — — — — — — — — — — —
Anxiety — .44* .40** .38* .39* — — — — — —
Depression .55** .63** .79** .79** .47* .47* .42* — .55** .48* .61**
Somatization — — — — — — .40* .58** — .32 .38
Atypicality .44* .34 .34 .44* .35 .42* .53** .35 .50** .37* .57**
Withdraw — .46* — — .34 — .39 — .31 .31 —
Attention .47* .32 .34 .43 .66** .73** .71** .34 .54** .53** .68**
Adaptability –.66** –.62** –.68** –.74** –.72** –.61** –.69** — –.65** –.62** –.74**
Social Skills –.34 –.49** –.41* –.46* –.47* –.37 –.36 — –.43* –.33 –.41*
Leadership — –.45* –.37 –.41* –.59** –.48* –.52* — –.40 –.40 –.47*
Externalizing .76** .53** .64** .74** .56** .57** .42** .37 .55** .46* .69**
Internalizing .42* .51** .53** .55** .59** .54** .64** .35 .56** .62** .64**
BSI .70** .62** .67** .76** .66** .70** .66** .34 .69** .62** .80**
Adapt Skills –.44* –.52** –.48** –.53** –.62** –.57** –.55** — –.60** –.48** –.59**
Learning .45* .46* .37 .47* .78** .78** .66** — .58** .67** .65**
Study Skills –.46** –.40* –.44* –.49* –.65** –.67** –.60** — –.58** –.54** –.64**
Sch Prob .49** .42* .38 .48* .78** .81** .73** .32 .60** .64** .72**

Note: BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children; EC = Emotional Control; BRI = Behavioral Regulation Index; WM = Working Memory;
Plan/Org = Planning/Organization; Org = Organization of Materials; Mon = Monitoring; MI = Metacognition Index; GEF = Global Executive Functioning Index; BSI = Behavioral Symptoms Index; Adapt Skills =
Adaptive Skills; Sch Prob = School Problems.
aN = 49.

*p < .01. **p ≤ .001.

 BASC AND BRIEF

measuring similar constructs pertaining to critical be- Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A
haviors associated with ADHD. In clinical areas, both handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford.
Dennis, M. (1991). Frontal lobe function in childhood and adoles-
seem to provide some information about behavioral cence: A heuristic for assessing attention regulation, executive
regulation and externalizing behaviors; however, the control, and the intentional states important for social dis-
BRIEF does not appear to tap into internalizing disor- course. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 327–358.
ders to the same extent as the BASC. In adaptive areas, Doyle, A., Ostrander, R., Skare, S., Crosby, R. D., & August, G.
these scales appear to be measuring similar constructs (1997). Convergent and criterion-related validity of the Behav-
ior Assessment System for Children – Parent rating scales.
related to study skills and learning problems; however,
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 276–284.
the greater emphasis on the BRIEF in metacognitive ar- Gillam, R. B. (1997). Putting memory to work in language interven-
eas may explain why more of the BRIEF scales were tion: Implications for practitioners. Topics in Language Disor-
significant as compared to the adaptive scales of the der, 18(1), 72–79.
BASC. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Be-
Notably, cognitive ability emerged as significantly havior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Professional
Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
affecting teachers’ ratings of children with and without Goldstein, S. (1995). Understanding and managing children’s
ADHD on both scales. Further research on the extent to classroom behavior. New York: Wiley.
which cognition affects teacher perceptions may be Goldstein, S. (1999). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In S.
needed. Unfortunately, teacher information was not Goldstein & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of
available for all the children in the study. In addition, Neurodevelopmental and Genetic Disorders in Children (pp.
154–184). New York: Guilford.
the fact that many of the children with ADHD were on
Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2001). Beyond the academic rhetoric
stimulant medication during the school day may have of “g”: Intelligence testing guidelines for practitioners. The
blunted true group differences. School Psychologist, 55, 113–117, 131–135, 138–139.
It is well documented that children with ADHD evi- Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2002). Clinical assessment of child
dence multiple difficulties across settings and fre- and adolescent personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Boston:
quently present with multiple disorders, both internal- Allyn & Bacon.
Karatekin, C., & Asarnow, R. F. (1998). Working memory in child-
izing and externalizing. Diagnostic decision making hood-onset schizophrenia and attention-deficit/hyperactivity
specific to ADHD needs to adhere to the accepted crite- disorder. Psychiatry Research, 80, 165–176.
ria, including history, onset, and behaviors, using multi- Ostrander, R. Weinfurt, K. P., Yarnold, P. R. & August, G. J. (1998).
ple methods and multiple sources. At the same time, ef- Diagnosing attention deficit disorders with the Behavioral As-
fective intervention planning may be better informed sessment System for Children and Child Behavior Checkllist:
Test and construct validity analyses using optimal discminant
with the addition of information on metacognition and
classification trees. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
working memory, facets that are not routinely assessed chology, 66, 660–672.
as part of the ADHD evaluation. Although the BASC Pennington, B. F. (1994). The working memory function of the
and BRIEF appear to be measuring similar behavioral prefrontal cortices: Implications for development and individ-
constructs, the BRIEF focuses more on specific areas ual differences in cognition. In M. Haith, J. Benson, & R. Rob-
pertaining to metacognition and working memory. erts (Eds.), Future oriented processes in development (pp.
243–289). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taken together with these preliminary findings, use of Pizzitola, K. M. (2002). Review of the rating scale Behavior Rating
the BASC and BRIEF in combination as components to Inventory of Executive Function. Journal of Psychoedu-
comprehensive ADHD assessment appears promising cational Assessment, 20, 400–405.
and may generate additional areas in need of interven- Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). The Behavior Assess-
tion (e.g., study skills, metacognition). ment System for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
ance Services.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2002). The clinician’s guide
to the Behavior Assessment System for Children. New York:
References Guilford.
Vaughn, M. L., Riccio, C. A., Hynd, G. W., & Hall, J. (1997). Diag-
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statisti- nosing ADHD (predominantly inattentive and combined type
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Au- subypes): Discriminant validity of the Behavior Assessment
thor. System for Children (BASC) and the Achenbach Parent and
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statisti- Teacher Rating Scales. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, 26, 349–357.
DC: Author. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of
ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94.

93