Behavior Rating(行为评级)研究综述
Behavior Rating 行为评级 - 2% of the children showed Frankl’s behavior rating of 3, i. [1] Similar results were observed for children's behavior rating (p > 0. [2]2% 的孩子表现出弗兰克尔的行为等级为 3，即。 [1] 儿童行为评分也观察到了类似的结果（p > 0. [2]
Direct Behavior Rating 直接行为评级
Group-level data and individual data of direct behavior ratings suggested a modest increase in empathy development, responsible decision-making, and self-management skills and thereby provide a preliminary basis for further effectiveness investigation. [1] A multiple baseline design across four teachers was used to investigate the effects of an online Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) training module on rater accuracy of academic engagement, respect, and disruptive behavior. [2] A line of research has supported the development and validation of Direct Behavior Rating–Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) for use in progress monitoring. [3] Research has supported the applied use of Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scale (DBR-SIS) targets of “academic engagement” and “disruptive behavior” for a range of purposes, including universal screening and progress monitoring. [4] Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) is an efficient method for monitoring changes in student behavior in response to intervention. [5] In the context of progress-monitoring decisions, systematic direct observations, direct behavior ratings, brief behavior ratings, and office discipline referrals were used for the assessment of social emotional learning skills of children. [6] Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) as a behavioral progress monitoring tool can be designed as longitudinal assessment with only short intervals between measurement points. [7] Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) has been proposed as a promising approach to assess student behavioral progress in classroom settings. [8] Systematic direct observations, self-ratings, and teachers’ Direct Behavior Ratings of academically engaged and on-task behaviors were collected to measure students’ behavioral changes from baseline to the intervention and reinforcement phases. [9] The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and accuracy of scores from the Intervention Selection Profile-Function (ISP-Function): a brief functional assessment tool founded upon Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) methodology. [10]直接行为评级的组级数据和个人数据表明，同理心发展、负责任的决策和自我管理技能略有提高，从而为进一步的有效性调查提供了初步依据。 [1] 使用跨四位教师的多基线设计来调查在线直接行为评估 (DBR) 培训模块对评估者学术参与、尊重和破坏性行为的准确性的影响。 [2] 一系列研究支持开发和验证直接行为评定 - 单项量表 (DBR-SIS) 以用于进度监测。 [3] 研究支持将“学术参与”和“破坏性行为”的直接行为评定单项量表 (DBR-SIS) 目标应用于包括普遍筛查和进度监测在内的一系列目的。 [4] 直接行为评级 (DBR) 是一种有效的方法，用于监测学生在干预后的行为变化。 [5] 在进度监控决策的背景下，系统直接观察、直接行为评级、简短行为评级和办公室纪律推荐用于评估儿童的社交情绪学习技能。 [6] 直接行为评估 (DBR) 作为一种行为进展监测工具，可以设计为纵向评估，测量点之间只有很短的间隔。 [7] 直接行为评分 (DBR) 已被提议作为一种有前途的方法来评估学生在课堂环境中的行为进步。 [8] nan [9] nan [10]
Child Behavior Rating 儿童行为评级
Participants comprised 100 boys (50 ADHD and 50 SCT) from elem entary schools in Tabriz in 1398-1399 academic years, which were selected through a screening method using the Child Behavior Rating Scale (SNAP-IV) and the SCT scale. [1] In this study, we attempt to identify the factor structure at each level using teacher ratings on the Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS). [2] Methods: In two children and three FASD young adults with severe disruptive behavior, changes in behavior after cannabis use were measured by the parent version of the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form. [3] In this study, Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders was used to determine the behavioural self-regulation skills and Child Behavior Rating Scale was used to find out teacher opinions. [4] Results showed small to moderate correlations with EF measures of inhibition and cognitive flexibility/switching for all three scales, with the strongest associations observed between Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) Behavioral Regulation subscale and child EF measures. [5] Comparison of these observation ratings with task-based (Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders; HTKS) and adult-report measures of self-regulation (parent and teacher report on the Child Behavior Rating Scale; CBRS) showed strong association with HTKS scores and more modest relations with CBRS ratings. [6] Attendance and engagement predicted better scores on the primary child behavior outcomes of disruptive behavior (Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form Disruptive Behavior Total) and ADHD and ODD symptoms, adjusting for baseline severity. [7] Analyses included inter-item correlations, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item response theory (IRT) modeling, internal consistency, test–retest reliability (TRT), concurrent validity (estimated by correlation between the IA diary and the R-MOAS/Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form), and known-groups methods. [8] When children were approximately 6 years old, mothers completed a battery of standardized child behavior rating scales designed for evaluating symptoms of ADHD. [9]参与者包括 1398-1399 学年来自大不里士小学的 100 名男孩（50 名 ADHD 和 50 名 SCT），他们是通过使用儿童行为评定量表 (SNAP-IV) 和 SCT 量表的筛选方法选出的。 [1] 在这项研究中，我们尝试使用儿童行为评定量表 (CBRS) 上的教师评分来识别每个级别的因素结构。 [2] 方法：在两名儿童和三名患有严重破坏性行为的 FASD 年轻人中，使用大麻后的行为变化通过 Nisonger 儿童行为评定表的父母版本进行测量。 [3] 本研究采用头-脚趾-膝-肩测量方法确定行为自我调节能力，使用儿童行为评定量表了解教师意见。 [4] 结果显示，所有三个量表的抑制和认知灵活性/转换的 EF 测量值都与小到中度相关，在儿童行为评定量表 (CBRS) 行为调节子量表和儿童 EF 测量值之间观察到最强的关联。 [5] nan [6] 出勤率和参与度预测破坏性行为（Nisonger 儿童行为评分表破坏性行为总分）和 ADHD 和 ODD 症状的主要儿童行为结果得分更高，并根据基线严重程度进行调整。 [7] 分析包括项目间相关性、探索性因素分析 (EFA)、项目反应理论 (IRT) 建模、内部一致性、重测信度 (TRT)、同时效度（通过 IA 日记和 R-MOAS/Nisonger 之间的相关性估计儿童行为评定表）和已知组方法。 [8] nan [9]
Reported Behavior Rating 报告的行为评级
We used instruments that measured constructs related to EF, which include a parent-and teacher-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool (BRIEF-P) and three performance-based tests: A Developmental NEuroPSYchological Assessment (NEPSY), Stanford-Binet intelligence test V (SB5), and the cookie delay task (CDT). [1] EF was assessed in 495 children (∼7 years) using parent-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition. [2] To do so, participants underwent 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging and completed the self‐reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult version. [3] Moreover, previous research has focused on self-reported behavior ratings, and less is known about the partner’s social perspective, i. [4] At baseline, six-week and six-month follow-up, adolescents' perceived stress was measured with the Perceived Stress Scale, food reward sensitivity with a behavioral task, stress-eating during a laboratory test meal, and EF with the parent-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and NIH Toolbox. [5] In addition, real-life aspects of EF were assessed with self- and parent-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function scores. [6]我们使用了测量与 EF 相关的结构的工具，其中包括家长和教师报告的执行功能行为评定量表 - 学前班 (BRIEF-P) 和三个基于绩效的测试：发育神经心理学评估 (NEPSY)、斯坦福比奈智力测试 V (SB5) 和 cookie 延迟任务 (CDT)。 [1] 使用父母报告的执行功能行为评定量表，第二版对 495 名儿童（~7 岁）进行了 EF 评估。 [2] 为此，参与者接受了 3T 脑磁共振成像并完成了自我报告的执行功能行为评定量表 - 成人版。 [3] 此外，之前的研究主要集中在自我报告的行为评级上，对伴侣的社会观点知之甚少，即。 [4] nan [5] nan [6]
Normal Behavior Rating
The purpose of this study was to evaluate if two rating scales of ADHD behavior, the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Rating Scale (SWAN) and the Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale-15 (CTRS-15), reflected the same underlying constructs across parent and teacher report. [1] We report the convergent and predictive validity of the parent- and self-report versions of the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Rating Scale (SWAN). [2] Abbreviations: ADHD: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ExG: Ex-Gaussiandistribution; GORT: reaction time in a go trial; GORTA: reaction time in a type A gotrial; GORTB: reaction time in a type B go trial; LMM: linear mixed model; SWAN:strengths and weakness of ADHD symptoms and normal behavior rating scale; SSD: stop signal delay; SR: signal respond; SRRT: reaction time in a failedstop trial; SSRT: stop signal reaction times in a stop trial; SST: stop signaltask. [3] The sample consisted of 280 male and female children aged between 6 and 12 years old who were divided into strong, moderate, and weak groups based on parental ratings of attention and behavioral control skills on the strengths and weaknesses of ADHD symptom and normal behavior rating scale (SWAN). [4]本研究的目的是评估 ADHD 行为的两个评定量表，ADHD 症状和正常行为评定量表 (SWAN) 和康纳斯教师评定量表 - 15 (CTRS-15) 是否反映了相同的潜在跨家长和教师报告构建。 [1] 我们报告了多动症症状和正常行为评定量表（SWAN）的优势和劣势的父母和自我报告版本的收敛和预测有效性。 [2] 缩写：ADHD：注意力缺陷多动障碍； ExG：前高斯分布； GORT：围棋试验中的反应时间； GORTA：A 型 gotrial 的反应时间； GORTB：B 类测试中的反应时间； LMM：线性混合模型； SWAN：多动症症状的优缺点和正常行为评定量表； SSD：停止信号延迟； SR：信号响应； SRRT：失败停止试验中的反应时间； SSRT：停止试验中的停止信号反应时间； SST：停止信号任务。 [3] nan [4]
Teacher Behavior Rating
Rater-mediated assessments, such as teacher behavior rating scales, measure student behavior indirectly through the lens of a rater. [1] Method: The Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS; C. [2] , test measures) and subjective means, such as parent and teacher behavior ratings. [3] Method The Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS; C. [4]评估者介导的评估，例如教师行为评分量表，通过评估者的视角间接衡量学生的行为。 [1] 方法：教师行为评定量表（TBRS；C. [2] ，测试措施）和主观手段，如家长和教师的行为评级。 [3] nan [4]
Comprehensive Behavior Rating
The Children Symptom Inventory (CSI-4) and the parent′s version of the Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scale were used to assess the severity of symptoms of attention deficit (AD) and hyperactivity (HA). [1] Teachers identified the students with Conners' Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales (CBRS). [2] Le Conners CBRS (Comprehensive behavior rating scale) est un questionnaire permettant d’evaluer un large spectre de psychopathologie chez les enfants. [3]儿童症状量表 (CSI-4) 和家长版的康纳斯综合行为评定量表用于评估注意力缺陷 (AD) 和多动 (HA) 症状的严重程度。 [1] 教师使用康纳斯综合行为评定量表 (CBRS) 确定学生。 [2] Conners CBRS（综合行为评定量表）是一种评估儿童广泛精神病理学的问卷。 [3]
Frankl Behavior Rating 弗兰克尔行为评级
The Frankl Behavior Rating Scale (FBRS) was tested before and during dental procedures. [1] Methods Children aged between 5 and 12 years were investigated with the Chinese version of face version of Children’s Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) and Frankl Behavior Rating scale from 2008 to 2017, and influential factors were explored. [2] Methods: Anxiety assessment was done by filling out the MDAS questionnaire as well as the child's behavioral assessment performed with the Frankl behavior rating scale. [3]在牙科手术之前和期间测试了 Frankl 行为评定量表 (FBRS)。 [1] 方法采用中文版儿童恐惧调查表-牙科量表（CFSS-DS）和Frankl行为评定量表中文版面版对5~12岁儿童2008-2017年进行调查，探讨影响因素。 [2] 方法：通过填写 MDAS 问卷以及使用 Frankl 行为评定量表对儿童进行的行为评估来进行焦虑评估。 [3]
Maternal Behavior Rating
The Turkish version of the Maternal Behavior Rating Scale was used to score mothers’ interaction levels with their children with developmental disabilities. [1] Mothers child interactions of the participants were video recorded and their interactions were analyzed using Maternal Behavior Rating Scale Turkish Form (MBRS) and Child Behavior Rating Scale Turkish Form (CBRS). [2]土耳其版的母亲行为评定量表用于评估母亲与发育障碍儿童的互动水平。 [1] 参与者的母子互动被视频记录下来，并使用母亲行为评定量表土耳其表格 (MBRS) 和儿童行为评定量表土耳其表格 (CBRS) 分析他们的互动。 [2]
Brief Behavior Rating
This study used item response theory (IRT) to derive sets of maximally efficient items (SMI) for a brief behavior rating scale (BBRS) from a common universal screening tool (i. [1] The present study involved the preliminary development and validation of the Student Wellbeing Teacher-Report Scale (SWTRS)—a brief behavior rating scale intended as a screening tool for measuring the wellbeing dimension of youths’ mental health at school. [2]本研究使用项目反应理论 (IRT) 从常见的通用筛选工具 (i. [1] 本研究涉及学生幸福感教师报告量表 (SWTRS) 的初步开发和验证，该量表是一种简短的行为评定量表，旨在作为衡量学校青少年心理健康幸福维度的筛查工具。 [2]
Completed Behavior Rating
Developmental outcomes were measured using clinician-administered standardized tests and parent-completed behavior rating instruments specific to language, psychosocial functioning, and adaptive behavior. [1] The teacher-completed Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool was used to generate three predictor variables: Inhibitory Self-Control, Flexibility, and Emergent Metacognition. [2]Disruptive Behavior Rating
Parents and teachers of a community sample of children (between 6 and 12 years of age) completed the Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale (for ADHD symptoms) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (for validation). [1] The Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale is recommended as a narrowband assessment tool. [2]Management Behavior Rating
The Stroke Self-Management Behavior Rating Scale and Stroke-Specific Quality-of-Life Scale (SS-QOL) were used to evaluate the management behavior and quality of life of the patients in both groups before and after the intervention. [1] Methods: A total of 301 elderly patients with hypertension were recruited to do a questionnaire survey based on the social ecological model, which included the General Demographic Information Questionnaire, Hypertension Patients Self-Management Behavior Rating Scale, World Health Organization Well-Being Index, Family APGAR Index, and Social Support Rating Scale. [2]Eating Behavior Rating 饮食行为评分
To estimate the severity of the characteristics inherent in eating disorders, we used the “Eating behavior rating scale. [1] Linear mixed effects models tested longitudinal associations among infant eating behavior ratings, infant feeding (breastfeeding intensity, timing of introduction of complementary foods), and anthropometry (weight, length, and weight-for-length z-scores). [2]为了估计饮食失调固有特征的严重程度，我们使用了“饮食行为评定量表”。 [1] 线性混合效应模型测试了婴儿饮食行为评分、婴儿喂养（母乳喂养强度、添加辅食的时间）和人体测量学（体重、身长和身高别体重 z 分数）之间的纵向关联。 [2]
Report Behavior Rating 报告行为评级
OBJECTIVE To conduct the first item level exploration of scale and index structure of the self-report Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). [1] The parent-report Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2) is a widely used pediatric neuropsychological measure. [2]客观的 对创伤性脑损伤（TBI）执行功能自述行为评定量表-成人版（BRIEF-A）量表和指标结构进行首项级探索。 [1] 父母报告执行功能行为评定量表，第二版 (BRIEF-2) 是一种广泛使用的儿科神经心理学测量方法。 [2]
behavior rating inventory 行为评定量表
In the Project Viva pre-birth cohort, we examined associations of prenatal and childhood PFAS plasma concentrations with parent and teacher assessments of children's behavior problems [Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)] and executive function abilities [Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)] at age 6-10 years (sample sizes 485-933). [1] EF were assessed with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and developmental domains were assessed with the Developmental Assessment of Young Children. [2] We used instruments that measured constructs related to EF, which include a parent-and teacher-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool (BRIEF-P) and three performance-based tests: A Developmental NEuroPSYchological Assessment (NEPSY), Stanford-Binet intelligence test V (SB5), and the cookie delay task (CDT). [3] The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2) is widely used to assess executive processes in children and adolescents. [4] ) completed sleep questionnaires and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function- Adults (BRIEF-A) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, yielding 80 observations for data analysis. [5] A subset of Pathways participants (n = 250) with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)-Parent Form data from at least one timepoint when participants were school-aged was analyzed. [6] The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and Kiddo-KINDL were completed by the participants and their families. [7] At 4 years of age, we tested their neurodevelopmental outcome using the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, the Child Behavior Checklist, and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. [8] Parents completed the CBCL, parent-rated ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS), Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). [9] An objective EF composite score was drawn from six neurocognitive measures, while the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version was applied as a measure of subjective EF. [10] Methods: Executive functions were assessed in 21 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) before and after ECT using subjective measures from the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult version (BRIEF-A) and objective cognitive performance measures derived from computer-based test of executive function, Executive Reaction Time (RT) Test. [11] 6 years), parents and teachers rated children's executive function-related behaviors using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Global Executive Composite score and behavioral difficulties using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) total difficulties score. [12] Methods: Parents of 93 children (<16 years) with mild TBI completed subscales of age-appropriate versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and the Adolescent Scale of Participation questionnaire at 4-years post-injury. [13] Primary outcomes included measures of cognitive and emotional development (Trails B, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function [BRIEF]), physical development (height and weight), and pubertal status (Tanner Stage). [14] Child executive function was reported by mothers at this age using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning-Preschool Edition, and child behavior was assessed using the Behavior Assessment System for Children-2nd Edition. [15] Executive performance was assessed by the validated Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function parent questionnaire. [16] Objective: We examined the frequency of possible invalid test scores on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and whether there was an association between scores on the embedded RBANS performance validity tests (PVTs) and self-reported symptoms of apathy as measured by the Initiate Scale of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A). [17] The Gilliam autism rating scale (GARS-2), the behavior rating inventory of executive functioning-preschool version (BRIEF-P), and repetitive behavior scale- revised (RBS-R) administered to mothers. [18] METHODS Data included parental ratings on the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), and the Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE) questionnaires for 82 children (Age = 11. [19] Secondary outcomes will be gross motor function (Gross Motor Function Measure-66), bimanual hand performance (Both Hands Assessment), self-care and mobility (Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory-Computer Adapted Test), goal attainment (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure), global performance of daily activities (ACTIVLIM-CP), cognition and adaptive function (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Preschool Version), habitual physical activity (ActiGraph GT3X+) and quality of life (Infant Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire and Child Health Utility Index-9). [20] Parents completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. [21] To characterise the pattern of relative strengths and weaknesses in EF for children and adolescents with WS, we considered the performance of a large sample on the parent version of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-2 (BRIEF-2). [22] Before the clinical assessment with an expert clinician, participants completed the Adult Self-Report, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult Version, Emotional Dysregulation Subscale of the Barkley Current Behavior Scale—Self-report, and Mind Wandering Questionnaire. [23] 90, the Conners 3 Parent Rating Scale Inattention (CIn) and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity (CHp) scores and the Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF2) excellently distinguished the clinical groups from TD, but not from each other (AUC < 0. [24] Parents completed the Behavioral Assessment System for Children, Parent Rating Scale (BASC-3) Social Withdrawal subscale as a measure of social adjustment, and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF-2) as a measure of executive function for each of their children. [25] Neuropsychological tests were selected: Trail Making Test Part A (TMT-A) and Part B (TMT-B), Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), Stroop Interference Test, and the Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) from the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Adult version (BRIEF-A). [26] All participants completed a socio-demographic-health questionnaire, the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult Version and the Daily Living Questionnaire. [27] Results Two parental questionnaires, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), were analyzed, and they showed expected differences in both internal and external behaviors between neurotypical (46,XY) boys and boys with 49,XXXXY. [28] This study analyzed AVID elective class students (the intervention group) and a comparison group utilizing the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF2) Teacher Form. [29] A parent/caregiver for each child also completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF®) parent form, a questionnaire capturing parents'/caregivers' perceptions of everyday EF that was included as a safety measure to assess treatment-related adverse effects on EF during the trial. [30] We included multiple, traditional, neuropsychological measures of EF, along with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) questionnaire, to assess inhibit, shift, working memory (WM), planning, generation fluency, and problem-solving. [31] MethodParticipants ( n = 405; 80% women, 53% White, mean age = 24, mean body mass index = 25) completed the Orthorexia Nervosa Inventory (ONI) and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult version (BRIEF-A). [32] Participants were required to complete the following scales: ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), Brief Version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS). [33] Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Morningness/Eveningness Questionnaire, and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive function which yielded Global Executive Composite (GEC) scores. [34] This study aimed to clarify the relationship between a self-report measure of set-shifting and performance-based measures of set-shifting as compared to FSIQ using the Trail Making Test-Part B (TMT-B), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) perseverative responses, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) self-report shift index, and the full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). [35] OBJECTIVE To conduct the first item level exploration of scale and index structure of the self-report Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). [36] The ACE Screening Tool was significantly correlated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning-Adult Version (BRIEF-A), Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) and Five Point Test, establishing construct validity. [37] The parent-report Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2) is a widely used pediatric neuropsychological measure. [38] Ninety-one youth (7 to 16 y) with SCD completed the WISC-V; caregivers reported educational support (504 Plan/Individualized Education Program) and completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. [39] Results A hundred and forty-five papers out of 306 reported on psychometric properties of different tools including Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning—BRIEF (count = 6), Visual-Motor Integration—VMI (count = 6), the Test of Memory Malingering—TOMM (count = 6), MSVT (count = 6) and Continuous Performance Tests—CPT (count = 6). [40] EF was measured using 8 clinical T scores that fall under 2 domains (behavioral regulation and metacognition) from the Behavior Rating Inventory of EF (BRIEF) and the processing speed index from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV or -V. [41] METHODS Baseline, 12-month, and 24-month assessments included intellectual ability, polysomnography, audiology, a pediatric sleep questionnaire, the parent rating scale of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning. [42] Adolescent participants completed self-report measures including Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFCS), Intent to Exercise, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2). [43] We applied nine instruments to evaluate both neuropsychological development (working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, planning, processing speed and verbal fluency) and behavioural development [teachers' perceptions of the EFs of their students by Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Second Edition (BRIEF-2) School]. [44] 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. [45] 10, and behavioral regulation (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function for Adults), p =. [46] Recent investigations have found specific relationships between subscales of the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) among individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). [47] The research instruments constituted: (1) a sociodemographic and medical information form for children with epilepsy and the caregiver; (2) early childhood-home observation for the measurement of the environment (EC-HOME) inventory and (3) the behavior rating inventory of executive function-preschool version® (BRIEF-P). [48] The primary outcome was the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, 2nd Edition (BRIEF-2) Global Executive Composite (GEC; an age and gender adjusted T-score). [49] The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function 2 (BRIEF-2), Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents (PAQ-A) and an ad hoc questionnaire were used to determine the students’ executive functioning, physical activity level, gender and academic year, respectively. [50]在 Project Viva 出生前队列中，我们检查了产前和儿童 PFAS 血浆浓度与父母和教师对儿童行为问题 [优势和困难问卷 (SDQ)] 和执行功能能力 [执行功能行为评定清单 (BRIEF) 评估的关联。 )] 在 6-10 岁时（样本大小 485-933）。 [1] EF 使用执行功能行为评定量表进行评估，发育领域使用幼儿发育评估进行评估。 [2] 我们使用了测量与 EF 相关的结构的工具，其中包括家长和教师报告的执行功能行为评定量表 - 学前班 (BRIEF-P) 和三个基于绩效的测试：发育神经心理学评估 (NEPSY)、斯坦福比奈智力测试 V (SB5) 和 cookie 延迟任务 (CDT)。 [3] 执行功能行为评定量表，第二版 (BRIEF-2) 被广泛用于评估儿童和青少年的执行过程。 [4] ) 在 COVID-19 大流行之前和期间完成了睡眠问卷和成人执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF-A)，产生了 80 条数据分析观察结果。 [5] 对来自至少一个学龄期参与者的执行功能行为评定清单 (BRIEF)-父母表格数据的 Pathways 参与者子集 (n = 250) 进行了分析。 [6] 执行功能行为评定量表、优势和困难问卷、Kiddo-KINDL 由参与者及其家人完成。 [7] 在 4 岁时，我们使用 Wechsler 学前和初级智力量表、儿童行为检查表和执行功能行为评定量表测试了他们的神经发育结果。 [8] 父母完成了 CBCL、父母评定的 ADHD 自我报告量表 (ASRS)、社会反应量表 (SRS) 和执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF)。 [9] 客观 EF 综合评分来自六项神经认知测量，而执行功能行为评定量表 - 成人版本被用作主观 EF 的测量。 [10] 方法：使用来自成人版执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF-A) 的主观测量和来自基于计算机的测试的客观认知表现测量，对 21 名重度抑郁症 (MDD) 患者在 ECT 前后的执行功能进行评估执行功能，执行反应时间 (RT) 测试。 [11] 6 年），家长和老师使用执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF) 全球执行综合得分和行为困难使用优势和困难问卷 (SDQ) 总困难得分对儿童的执行功能相关行为进行评级。 [12] 方法：93 名轻度 TBI 儿童（<16 岁）的父母完成了适合年龄版本的优势和困难问卷、执行功能行为评定量表、儿科生活质量量表和青少年参与量表问卷的分量表在受伤后 4 年。 [13] 主要结果包括认知和情绪发展（Trails B，执行功能行为评定量表 [BRIEF]）、身体发育（身高和体重）和青春期状态（Tanner 阶段）的测量。 [14] 母亲在这个年龄段使用执行功能行为评定量表-学龄前版报告儿童执行功能，并使用儿童行为评估系统-第2版评估儿童行为。 [15] 执行绩效通过经过验证的执行功能父母问卷的行为评级清单进行评估。 [16] 目的：我们检查了精神分裂症谱系障碍患者神经心理状态评估可重复电池 (RBANS) 可能无效测试分数的频率，以及嵌入式 RBANS 绩效有效性测试 (PVT) 的分数与自我报告的冷漠症状，由成人版执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF-A) 的初始量表测量。 [17] Gilliam 自闭症评定量表 (GARS-2)、执行功能学前版本的行为评定量表 (BRIEF-P) 和对母亲进行的重复行为量表修订 (RBS-R)。 [18] 方法 数据包括父母对儿童行为评估系统 (BASC-2)、执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF) 和儿童癫痫生活质量 (QOLCE) 问卷的 82 名儿童（年龄 = 11. [19] 次要结果将是粗大运动功能（Gross Motor Function Measure-66）、双手表现（双手评估）、自我保健和活动能力（残疾库存-计算机适应测试的儿科评估）、目标实现（加拿大职业表现测量） 、日常活动的整体表现 (ACTIVLIM-CP)、认知和适应功能（执行功能的行为评定量表 - 学龄前版）、习惯性身体活动 (ActiGraph GT3X+) 和生活质量（婴幼儿生活质量问卷和儿童健康实用程序索引-9)。 [20] 家长完成了执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF) 和优势和困难问卷。 [21] 为了描述患有 WS 的儿童和青少年的 EF 相对优势和劣势的模式，我们考虑了大样本在执行功能行为评估清单 2 (BRIEF-2) 的父版本中的表现。 [22] 在与专家临床医生进行临床评估之前，参与者完成了成人自我报告、执行功能行为评定量表 - 成人版、巴克利电流行为量表的情绪失调分量表 - 自我报告和走神问卷。 [23] 90、Conners 3 家长评分量表注意力不集中 (CIn) 和多动/冲动 (CHp) 分数以及执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF2) 的行为调节指数 (BRI) 将临床组与 TD 区分开来，但与 TD 区分开来彼此（AUC < 0. [24] 父母完成了儿童行为评估系统、父母评定量表 (BASC-3) 社会退缩子量表作为社会适应的衡量标准，以及执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF-2) 作为他们每个人的执行功能的衡量标准孩子们。 [25] 选择了神经心理学测试：Trail Making Test Part A (TMT-A) 和 Part B (TMT-B)、受控口语联想测试 (COWAT)、Stroop 干扰测试和来自行为评级清单的行为调节指数 (BRI)执行功能，成人版 (BRIEF-A)。 [26] 所有参与者都完成了社会人口健康问卷、青少年/成人感官概况、执行功能行为评定量表 - 成人版和日常生活问卷。 [27] 结果 分析了两份家长问卷，即执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF) 和儿童行为检查表 (CBCL)，结果显示神经型 (46,XY) 男孩和 49, XXXXY。 [28] 本研究分析了 AVID 选修课的学生（干预组）和使用执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF2) 教师表的对照组。 [29] 每个孩子的父母/看护人还完成了执行功能行为评估清单 (BRIEF®) 父母表格，这是一份记录父母/看护人对日常 EF 看法的问卷，作为评估治疗相关不良反应的安全措施EF 在试验期间。 [30] 我们纳入了多种传统的 EF 神经心理学测量方法以及执行功能行为评定量表 (BRIEF) 问卷，以评估抑制、转变、工作记忆 (WM)、计划、生成流畅性和解决问题的能力。 [31] 方法参与者（n = 405；80% 的女性，53% 的白人，平均年龄 = 24，平均体重指数 = 25）完成了神经矫正量表 (ONI) 和执行功能行为评定量表 - 成人版 (BRIEF-A) . [32] 参与者需完成以下量表：ADHD评定量表（ADHD-RS）、世界卫生组织生活质量量表简版（WHOQOL-BREF）、执行功能行为评定量表-成人版（BRIEF-A）、自评抑郁量表（SDS）和自评焦虑量表（SAS）。 [33] 参与者还完成了匹兹堡睡眠质量指数 (PSQI)、早晨/晚上问卷和执行功能的行为评定量表，这些量表产生了全球执行综合 (GEC) 分数。 [34] nan [35] 客观的 对创伤性脑损伤（TBI）执行功能自述行为评定量表-成人版（BRIEF-A）量表和指标结构进行首项级探索。 [36] nan [37] 父母报告执行功能行为评定量表，第二版 (BRIEF-2) 是一种广泛使用的儿科神经心理学测量方法。 [38] nan [39] nan [40] nan [41] nan [42] nan [43] nan [44] nan [45] nan [46] nan [47] nan [48] nan [49] nan [50]
behavior rating scale 行为评定量表
The dental behavior of children during the operation was scored by a blind instructed and calibrated observer, using the Franckle behavior rating scale. [1] Participants comprised 100 boys (50 ADHD and 50 SCT) from elem entary schools in Tabriz in 1398-1399 academic years, which were selected through a screening method using the Child Behavior Rating Scale (SNAP-IV) and the SCT scale. [2] To estimate the severity of the characteristics inherent in eating disorders, we used the “Eating behavior rating scale. [3] No statistical differences were recorded between the two groups in all behavior rating scales, except for crying where the intranasal group was statistically higher (P =. [4] To date, there is a paucity of research conducting natural language processing (NLP) on the open-ended responses of behavior rating scales. [5] In this study, we attempt to identify the factor structure at each level using teacher ratings on the Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS). [6] The Children Symptom Inventory (CSI-4) and the parent′s version of the Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scale were used to assess the severity of symptoms of attention deficit (AD) and hyperactivity (HA). [7] Rater-mediated assessments, such as teacher behavior rating scales, measure student behavior indirectly through the lens of a rater. [8] RESULTS We established that an observed measure of social affiliation derived from the Bayley's Behavior Rating Scale and Infant Behavior Record showed high inter-rater reliability and expected convergence with parent-reported temperament measures. [9] The Frankl's behavior rating scale and Children's Fear Survey Schedule Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) were used to respectively assess the degree of cooperation during dental practices and children’s dental fear. [10] Neurobehavioral instruments included the Conners 3 Parent Behavior Rating Scale and the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). [11] Children's development was assessed only once at an endpoint using Extended Ages and Stages Questionnaire (EASQ), Bayley III and Wolke's behavior rating scales. [12] The Frankl Behavior Rating Scale (FBRS) was tested before and during dental procedures. [13] The behavior pattern, lip print pattern, and thumb print pattern were determined using Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale, Tsuchihashi's classification, and Cummin's classification, respectively. [14] Results of this exploratory cross-cultural investigation are discussed emphasizing issues associated with the use of behavior rating scales and cultural specificities, highlighting some contributions for practice and future research. [15] To inform construct validity, we calculated correlations between scores from each assessment and those from a standardized behavior rating scale (Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Second Edition; ABC-2). [16] Children’s level of emotional competence and aggressive behavior was assed using a German questionnaire, the Behavior Rating Scales for Preschoolers (Verhaltensskalen für das Kindergartenalter, VSK) in a preschool teachers’ rating. [17] The purpose of this study was to evaluate if two rating scales of ADHD behavior, the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Rating Scale (SWAN) and the Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale-15 (CTRS-15), reflected the same underlying constructs across parent and teacher report. [18] Methods Children aged between 5 and 12 years were investigated with the Chinese version of face version of Children’s Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) and Frankl Behavior Rating scale from 2008 to 2017, and influential factors were explored. [19] The Stroke Self-Management Behavior Rating Scale and Stroke-Specific Quality-of-Life Scale (SS-QOL) were used to evaluate the management behavior and quality of life of the patients in both groups before and after the intervention. [20] The greatest difference in heart rate change and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale score, between the control and virtual reality distraction groups, was seen in 5 7-year-olds and a Frankl’s behavior rating scale grade of 3. [21] A los participantes se les realizó una profilaxis dental empleando la técnica de manejo de conducta y comunicación según el grupo, la conducta se evaluó usando las escalas Frankl´s Behavior Rating Scale (FBRS) y Comfort Behavior Scale (CBS). [22] Behavior rating scales represent one of the most commonly used types of assessments in school psychology. [23] This study assessed the relationship between these behavior rating scales and corresponding neuropsychological tests, and inter-rater agreement among the multiple informants. [24] Results When compared with ADHD group without PDMU, the group with PDMU showed significant worse symptoms of inattention, oppositional defiant, behavior and emotional problems by Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale (SNAP), more self-reported anxiety by screening child anxiety-related emotional disorders (SCARED) and depression by depression self-rating scale for children (DSRSC), more severe EF deficits by behavior rating scale of executive function (BRIEF), more stress from life events by adolescent self-rating life events checklist (ASLEC), lower learning motivation by students learning motivation scale (SLMS), and more impairment on cohesion by Chinese version of family environment scale (FES-CV). [25] Leisure and Leisure Assessment Questionnaire (constructed only for research purpose), Risk Behavior Rating Scale (RBRS), Scaar, 2009 were used in this research. [26] Parents and teachers of a community sample of children (between 6 and 12 years of age) completed the Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale (for ADHD symptoms) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (for validation). [27] In this study we examined pre-injury self and collateral (relative or friend) ratings on the Frontal Systems Behavior Rating Scale (FrSBe). [28] Methods Totally 77 children with a Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale score of 1 were included in this study,among whom 41 received a total of 78 person-times of oral midazolam sedation (0. [29] Teachers identified the students with Conners' Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales (CBRS). [30] We report the convergent and predictive validity of the parent- and self-report versions of the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Rating Scale (SWAN). [31] Linear regression models or generalized additive models (GAM) were used for analyzing associations between soil Mn and neurobehavioral problems assessed by the Conners' behavior rating scales (self-, and parent-reported). [32] In this study, Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders was used to determine the behavioural self-regulation skills and Child Behavior Rating Scale was used to find out teacher opinions. [33] Abbreviations: ADHD: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ExG: Ex-Gaussiandistribution; GORT: reaction time in a go trial; GORTA: reaction time in a type A gotrial; GORTB: reaction time in a type B go trial; LMM: linear mixed model; SWAN:strengths and weakness of ADHD symptoms and normal behavior rating scale; SSD: stop signal delay; SR: signal respond; SRRT: reaction time in a failedstop trial; SSRT: stop signal reaction times in a stop trial; SST: stop signaltask. [34] The Turkish version of the Maternal Behavior Rating Scale was used to score mothers’ interaction levels with their children with developmental disabilities. [35] Methods: Anxiety assessment was done by filling out the MDAS questionnaire as well as the child's behavioral assessment performed with the Frankl behavior rating scale. [36] The questionnaires Evaluation of Intensive Consumption of Alcohol, Dickman’s impulsivity inventory, Prefrontal Behavior Rating Scale and the execution in 8 tasks of the Neuropsychological BANFE battery were used for evaluation. [37] Other measures included the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, step counts with a Fitbit Flex, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Sleep Behavior Rating Scale. [38] 5 years of age through a behavior rating scale. [39] Key words: Quality of life; Neoplasms; Behavior rating scale; Quality of life instruments for cancer patients. [40] The dental behavior observed was rated according to the Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale (FBRS). [41] The primary outcomes will be cognitive, motor and language composite scores measured by Bayley-III and behavior using Wolke’s behavior rating scale. [42] Method: The Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS; C. [43] This study used item response theory (IRT) to derive sets of maximally efficient items (SMI) for a brief behavior rating scale (BBRS) from a common universal screening tool (i. [44] Materials and methods The behavior of 50 children reporting to Saveetha Dental College, categorized according to the Frankl's behavior rating scale, was recorded before, during, and posttreatment. [45] Results showed small to moderate correlations with EF measures of inhibition and cognitive flexibility/switching for all three scales, with the strongest associations observed between Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) Behavioral Regulation subscale and child EF measures. [46] Comparison of these observation ratings with task-based (Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders; HTKS) and adult-report measures of self-regulation (parent and teacher report on the Child Behavior Rating Scale; CBRS) showed strong association with HTKS scores and more modest relations with CBRS ratings. [47] Clinical trials that reported the effects of audiovisual distraction on children's physiological measures, self-reports, and behavior rating scales during dental treatment met the minimum inclusion requirements. [48] The sample consisted of 280 male and female children aged between 6 and 12 years old who were divided into strong, moderate, and weak groups based on parental ratings of attention and behavioral control skills on the strengths and weaknesses of ADHD symptom and normal behavior rating scale (SWAN). [49] Mothers child interactions of the participants were video recorded and their interactions were analyzed using Maternal Behavior Rating Scale Turkish Form (MBRS) and Child Behavior Rating Scale Turkish Form (CBRS). [50]手术过程中儿童的牙齿行为由盲人指导和校准的观察者使用 Franckle 行为评定量表进行评分。 [1] 参与者包括 1398-1399 学年来自大不里士小学的 100 名男孩（50 名 ADHD 和 50 名 SCT），他们是通过使用儿童行为评定量表 (SNAP-IV) 和 SCT 量表的筛选方法选出的。 [2] 为了估计饮食失调固有特征的严重程度，我们使用了“饮食行为评定量表”。 [3] 两组在所有行为评定量表中均无统计学差异，但鼻内组的哭闹除外（P = . [4] 迄今为止，对行为评分量表的开放式响应进行自然语言处理 (NLP) 的研究很少。 [5] 在这项研究中，我们尝试使用儿童行为评定量表 (CBRS) 上的教师评分来识别每个级别的因素结构。 [6] 儿童症状量表 (CSI-4) 和家长版的康纳斯综合行为评定量表用于评估注意力缺陷 (AD) 和多动 (HA) 症状的严重程度。 [7] 评估者介导的评估，例如教师行为评分量表，通过评估者的视角间接衡量学生的行为。 [8] 结果 我们确定，从 Bayley 行为评定量表和婴儿行为记录得出的观察到的社会关系测量显示出高评分者间可靠性和与父母报告的气质测量的预期收敛性。 [9] 采用 Frankl 行为评定量表和儿童恐惧调查表牙科分量表 (CFSS-DS) 分别评估牙科实践期间的合作程度和儿童牙科恐惧。 [10] 神经行为工具包括 Conners 3 父母行为评定量表和 Delis-Kaplan 执行功能系统 (D-KEFS)。 [11] 使用扩展年龄和阶段问卷 (EASQ)、Bayley III 和 Wolke 的行为评定量表在终点仅对儿童的发育进行了一次评估。 [12] 在牙科手术之前和期间测试了 Frankl 行为评定量表 (FBRS)。 [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17] 本研究的目的是评估 ADHD 行为的两个评定量表，ADHD 症状和正常行为评定量表 (SWAN) 和康纳斯教师评定量表 - 15 (CTRS-15) 是否反映了相同的潜在跨家长和教师报告构建。 [18] 方法采用中文版儿童恐惧调查表-牙科量表（CFSS-DS）和Frankl行为评定量表中文版面版对5~12岁儿童2008-2017年进行调查，探讨影响因素。 [19] nan [20] nan [21] nan [22] nan [23] nan [24] nan [25] nan [26] nan [27] 在这项研究中，我们检查了额叶系统行为评定量表 (FrSBe) 上的受伤前自我和附属（亲戚或朋友）评级。 [28]