Updated profiles of everyday executive function in youth with Down syndrome using the BRIEF-2.
K D Csumitta, C M Stephan, R I LaQuaglia and 2 others
PMID 34549846WHAT IT FOUND
Youth with Down syndrome were rated as having everyday executive function difficulties compared with same-age expectations, especially shifting, working memory and initiation.
Emotional control was not a reported difficulty compared with norms, and teachers rated more difficulties than parents.
Key findings
01Parent ratings showed greater executive function difficulties than normative expectations on seven of the nine BRIEF-2 scales, while Emotional Control and Organization of Materials did not differ from the normative mean.
02Teacher ratings were higher than parent ratings overall, but specific teacher-parent differences did not survive correction for multiple comparisons.
03Compared with typically developing children matched on mental age, participants with Down syndrome had greater difficulties on Initiate, Working Memory and Shift, but not on Self-Monitor, Inhibit or Emotional Control.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was small, so the study could miss smaller real differences. The comparison children were very young, so several BRIEF-2 scales about schoolwork could not be used. Parent and teacher ratings were not collected on the same day, so time differences may have influenced the rater comparison. The study only compared youth with Down syndrome to typically developing children, so it cannot show whether the profile is specific to Down syndrome. Nearly all participants had phrase speech, so the findings may not apply to minimally verbal children.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that any therapy improves executive function. The study only reports questionnaire profiles and comparisons; the authors say the findings suggest possible future intervention targets, not tested interventions.