This study assessed the suitability of two questionnaires, the Amsterdam Executive Function Inventory (AEFI) and the Executive Skills Questionnaire (ESQ), for measuring executive functioning (EF)...Show moreThis study assessed the suitability of two questionnaires, the Amsterdam Executive Function Inventory (AEFI) and the Executive Skills Questionnaire (ESQ), for measuring executive functioning (EF) and distinguishing groups of students whose academic success is hindered due to low EF. A sample of 188 first-year students aged 18 to 25 years completed either the AEFI or ESQ, along with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A). Data on academic success (credits, resists, average grade) was obtained from school records. The quality of the two questionnaires was measured by means of internal validity through exploratory factor analyses (EFA), reliability through correlation coefficients and external validity through the comparison of AEFI and ESQ subscales to similar BRIEF-A subscales using Kendall’s tau-b. Next, Hierarchical Cluster Analyses (HCA) were conducted to create clusters of students. Subsequently, Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted to determine if the clusters significantly differed in EF. Lastly, Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) were performed to investigate the differences in academic success between low and high EF clusters. Two from the 11 items were removed to ensure sufficient quality on all three quality measures of the AEFI. For the ESQ 24 from the 36 items (including seven complete subscales) were removed to ensure sufficient internal validity, and one subscale was removed to ensure sufficient reliability. The AEFI was deemed suitable for measuring Attention, Planning & Initiative, and SelfControl & Self-monitoring, while the ESQ was appropriate for measuring Sustained Attention, Organization, Flexibility, and Goal-directed Persistence. The HCA’s identified four distinct EF clusters for the AEFI and three distinct EF clusters for the ESQ. Results from the ANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference between the identified clusters for each subscale of both the AEFI and ESQ. However, results from the MANOVA’s indicated no significant multivariate effect of EF cluster on academic success for either of the two questionnaires. Both questionnaires demonstrated improvements through removal of low-quality items, with the AEFI showing higher overall quality. However, the AEFI and ESQ were both unable to distinguishing groups of students whose academic success is hindered due to low EF.Show less
Layman’s Abstract Objective: Having a child with a disability can bring extra challenges, which can lead to more stress. This is especially the case in families with a child that has Angelman...Show moreLayman’s Abstract Objective: Having a child with a disability can bring extra challenges, which can lead to more stress. This is especially the case in families with a child that has Angelman syndrome (AS), a disorder with severe developmental delay, as well as problems with speech, movement, sleep, and behavior. Many studies have focused on how these issues could lead to more stress in parents. This study, however, wants to investigate whether the perception of the parent may influence how stressed they feel. We will, therefore, look at whether the parent views the development of their child differently than the clinician (has a ‘biased view’ on their development). Then we will test whether this ‘biased view’ has an influence on their stress. We expect that the bigger the difference between the two views is, the more stressed they feel and the less satisfied they are about their child’s development. Moreover, patients with AS can be divided into deletion type and non-deletion type patients. This depends on whether the part of the gene that is defective in AS is deleted or does not work for another reason. We expect the effect mentioned before to be stronger for the non-deletion type. Methods: Data was collected in a hospital setting. Physical and psychological measurements were taken from 28 children (15 deletion, 13 non-deletion) at different ages. We used the measurement of a developmental age in months that was evaluated by both a clinician and by the parents with a self-report measure. Also included were self-reported parental stress and satisfaction about their child’s health, and the variables gender, genotype (deletion, non-deletion), age at visit, as well as epilepsy. Results and Conclusion: There was no significant difference between how parents viewed the development of their child versus how the clinician viewed it. Furthermore, this difference between the two views did not make parents feel significantly more stressed or less satisfied with how their child was developing. Future research could use more accurate questionnaires specifically developed to measure parental perceptions and could also look at how parents deal with stressful events in general.Show less
