Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The BRIEF-2 (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition) is a rating scale of everyday executive function for ages 5 to 18, completed by parents, teachers, and adolescents themselves, scored as T scores across three indexes and a global composite. Psychologists use it in ADHD, autism, TBI, and special-education evaluations. This page covers how to write up BRIEF-2 results, with a fictional sample and a template.
Psychologists, school psychologists, and neuropsychologists; publisher qualification level B (S for screening forms)
IEP and Section 504 teams, ADHD and autism evaluators, physicians, accommodations reviewers, parents and teachers
300 to 700 words for the results section · administration about 10 minutes per form
Multi-informant executive function rating scale
ADHD, autism, and TBI evaluations, special-education and 504 assessments, treatment and medication-response monitoring, ages 5 to 18
Published by PAR (2015; updated 2026); current edition as of July 2026; described here for write-up purposes, no test content reproduced
The BRIEF-2 (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition, styled BRIEF2 by its publisher) is a standardized rating scale of everyday executive function in children and adolescents, published by PAR in 2015 by Gerard Gioia, Peter Isquith, Steven Guy, and Lauren Kenworthy. Its ancestor, the original BRIEF (2000), was described in the Buros review as "the first published rating scale measuring self-regulatory abilities in children and adolescents" (McGill, 2021). Parents and teachers rate ages 5 to 18 on 63-item forms, and adolescents 11 to 18 complete a 55-item self-report; each form takes about 10 minutes. Nine clinical scales (seven on the self-report) roll up into three indexes, Behavior Regulation (BRI), Emotion Regulation (ERI), and Cognitive Regulation (CRI), plus an overall Global Executive Composite (GEC), with three embedded validity scales (Inconsistency, Negativity, Infrequency). All scores are T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, and higher scores mean more reported difficulty. A 2026 update added age-based (combined-sex) norms as a second validated scoring option, folded the ADHD manual supplement into the core Professional Manual and reports, discontinued the standalone ADHD Form, and moved all scoring to the publisher's PARiConnect platform, without changing the items or the normative sample. Twelve-item screening forms exist for triage and require a separate qualification level.
The load-bearing fact for write-ups is what a rating scale measures: reported everyday behavior, not tested performance. The largest analysis of the question found performance-based and rating measures of executive function correlate at a median of only r = .19, with just 24% of 286 correlations reaching significance (Toplak, West & Stanovich, 2013), and the BRIEF-2 manual's own convergent data, as reported in the Buros review, put its Working Memory scale at r = -.08 to -.27 against the Wechsler working-memory indexes. The two method families capture, in Toplak's words, "the efficiency of cognitive abilities and success in goal pursuit," and a defensible report writes them as complementary levels of analysis, never as interchangeable measures of the same thing. Edition status also needs dating: as of July 2026 the BRIEF-2 is current for ages 5 to 18, the adult BRIEF2A (released November 12, 2024) replaced the two-index BRIEF-A and adopted the same three-index model, and the original BRIEF's two-index architecture (Behavioral Regulation plus Metacognition) survives only in old reports, where its vocabulary still leaks into new ones.
School psychologists write up BRIEF-2 results inside special-education and Section 504 evaluations, where everyday executive function evidence speaks directly to adverse educational effect; clinical child psychologists use it in ADHD and autism evaluations alongside symptom-specific scales such as the Conners 4 and broadband measures such as the BASC-3; and pediatric neuropsychologists fold it into a neuropsychological report as the everyday-behavior counterpart to performance measures such as the D-KEFS, including in traumatic brain injury follow-up and concussion return-to-learn monitoring. The instrument boundaries do real work in a battery: the Conners 4 profiles ADHD symptoms against diagnostic criteria, the BASC-3 surveys behavior and emotion broadly, the CEFI offers a strengths-worded executive function rating with a single composite, and the BRIEF-2 is the one built to profile executive function domain by domain as it shows up at home and school. Age sets the family member: the BRIEF-P covers preschoolers, the BRIEF-2 runs 5 to 18 with a self-report from 11, and adult referrals use the BRIEF2A, whose informant form matters when self-awareness is itself in question. Rating evidence then feeds the parent document, usually a psychological evaluation report, a psychoeducational report, or an ADHD evaluation report, where reliable-change statistics also support re-administration to track treatment and medication response over time.
No statute, payer, or publisher mandates a results-section format. The sequence below follows the interpretive order the Professional Manual itself recommends, validity first, then indexes and scales, then profile shape, then cross-informant comparison, because a reviewer can follow it and because it makes the two genuinely contested moves in BRIEF-2 reporting, how to treat the GEC and how to reconcile raters who disagree, explicit stated decisions instead of silent ones. Each section carries the pitfall that most often undermines it.
Measures, forms, informants, and norms. Name the instrument and edition, each form administered and who completed it (parent, teacher, self), the norm set used, and the scoring platform. Since the 2026 update there are two validated norm options, age-and-sex-based and age-based (combined-sex), so the choice is now a documentation item. Pitfall: "a BRIEF was completed" with no edition, rater roles, or norm set. The original BRIEF, the BRIEF-2, and the adult BRIEF2A score differently and even use different index architectures, so an unanchored reference is uninterpretable at re-evaluation.
Validity scales before any scores. Report the Inconsistency, Negativity, and Infrequency results for every rater, then say what you did about any flag. Pitfall: treating clean validity scales as proof the profile is accurate. They screen response style, not truth, and independent validation of these scales is limited; a motivated or exhausted rater can still produce an interpretable-looking protocol.
Index and composite results. Present BRI, ERI, and CRI (and the GEC) as T scores with percentiles, and describe elevations with the manual's vocabulary in prose: scores of 60 to 64 are described as mildly elevated, 65 to 69 as potentially clinically elevated, and 70 or above as clinically elevated. State the GEC convention you followed: the manual treats the GEC as most interpretable when the index scores hang together, and that heuristic itself has been questioned in the literature. Pitfall: leading with the GEC when the indexes diverge. A summary score that averages a clinically elevated CRI against an average ERI describes no ability the student actually shows.
Scale-level findings, tightly bounded. Name the clinical scales driving each elevated index (for example Working Memory and Plan/Organize under the CRI) and give one functional example for each. The Buros review's central criticism is redundancy among the nine scale scores, so pick the drivers instead of narrating all nine. Pitfall: the nine-scale score dump. A paragraph per scale in form order documents that scoring occurred; it does not answer the referral question, and it overstates how much independent information the scales carry.
Cross-informant comparison. Report each rater's results separately, then reconcile: agreement between informants is expected to be modest (a 341-study meta-analysis puts the cross-informant mean near r = .28), teachers rate against a classroom full of same-age peers while parents rate one child at home, and divergence is setting information, not error. Pitfall: averaging raters into one number or crowning one rater accurate. Both moves delete the data; the write-up's job is to say what the disagreement means for where support is needed.
Integration with performance testing. When the battery includes performance measures of executive function, state the relationship honestly: ratings capture everyday goal pursuit, performance tests capture efficiency under structured conditions, and the two correlate weakly (median r = .19 across the literature). Divergence between an elevated BRIEF-2 and intact test performance is a finding to interpret, not a contradiction to explain away. Pitfall: writing "ecologically valid" as a trump card. The term is used inconsistently across the field, and executive function tests still account for only about a fifth of the variance in everyday executive behavior, so describe levels of analysis instead of declaring a winner.
Functional-impairment translation. Convert elevations into observable, educationally relevant behavior: what starting multi-step assignments, holding instructions, or tracking materials actually looks like for this student. IDEA eligibility turns on adverse educational effect and Section 504 on a substantial limitation of a major life activity, and reviewers act on described behavior, not on scale labels. Pitfall: "elevated Working Memory scale" offered as the impairment. The scale name is the measure; the impairment is the behavior it summarizes.
Interpretive summary and recommendations linkage. Answer the referral question, state plainly that the BRIEF-2 is not a standalone diagnostic measure and that no single measure may determine eligibility, and tie each recommendation to a specific elevated scale, which is also how the publisher's own intervention handouts are organized. Pitfall: the elevation-equals-ADHD leap. Executive function elevations occur in autism, anxiety, depression, traumatic brain injury, and sleep problems; the defensible sentence is "consistent with executive function difficulties," followed by what the whole evaluation shows.
MEASURES AND INFORMANTS Instrument/edition: BRIEF-2 Norms: [age-and-sex / combined-sex] Forms and raters: [Parent: ___ Teacher: ___ Self-Report: ___] Scoring platform: [___] Dates completed: [___] VALIDITY SCALES (every rater, before any scores) [Inconsistency / Negativity / Infrequency status per rater; action taken on any flag] INDEX AND COMPOSITE RESULTS (T scores + percentiles) Behavior Regulation (BRI): [per rater + band in prose] Emotion Regulation (ERI): [same] Cognitive Regulation (CRI): [same] Global Executive Composite: [reported per the stated convention; note if indexes diverge] SCALE-LEVEL DRIVERS (only the scales doing the work) [Which clinical scales drive each elevated index + one functional example each] CROSS-INFORMANT COMPARISON [Each rater separately; reconciliation as setting information; no averaging, no crowned rater] INTEGRATION WITH PERFORMANCE TESTING (if administered) [Complementary levels of analysis; convergence and divergence interpreted, not explained away] INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY (answer the referral question) [Consistent-with language; not a standalone diagnostic measure; no single measure determines eligibility] RECOMMENDATIONS LINKAGE [Each recommendation tied to a specific elevated scale; monitoring plan and re-rating interval if any] Evaluator signature / credentials: Date:
Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank results-section skeleton, ready to adapt.
Scenario: a pediatrician refers a 13-year-old for an ADHD evaluation after two years of incomplete assignments and lost materials despite strong grades on tests. Parent, teacher, and self-report forms were collected, and they disagree in the classic direction: both adults report clearly elevated cognitive regulation problems while the teen self-reports milder difficulty. This is the rating-scale section of the evaluation only, condensed but structurally complete. All details are fictional.
Student: A.S., 13 (grade 8) · Referral: pediatrician, attention and work-completion concerns · Evaluator: J. Okafor, PhD, Licensed Psychologist · Forms completed: 07/06/2026 to 07/10/2026 · Report date: 07/15/2026
Measures and informants: The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2) was administered as part of a broader ADHD evaluation. A.S.'s mother completed the Parent Form, his homeroom teacher (who teaches him for two academic subjects) completed the Teacher Form, and A.S. completed the Self-Report Form. All forms were scored digitally against the age-and-sex-based norms. BRIEF-2 scores are T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10; higher scores indicate more reported difficulty, and each score below is presented with its percentile.
Validity of the ratings: The Inconsistency, Negativity, and Infrequency scales were within acceptable limits for all three raters, and no items were left unanswered. The ratings below are considered interpretable descriptions of each rater's observations in their own setting.
| Index | Parent T (percentile) | Teacher T (percentile) | Self-Report T (percentile) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior Regulation (BRI) | 62 (88th) | 64 (92nd) | 55 (69th) |
| Emotion Regulation (ERI) | 52 (58th) | 54 (66th) | 51 (54th) |
| Cognitive Regulation (CRI) | 73 (99th) | 70 (98th) | 61 (86th) |
| Global Executive Composite (GEC) | 68 (96th) | 66 (95th) | 57 (76th) |
Index results: The Cognitive Regulation Index is the elevated finding, and it is elevated for both adult raters: the parent rating (T = 73, 99th percentile) is clinically elevated and the teacher rating (T = 70, 98th percentile) reaches the same band, indicating that both settings see marked difficulty with the thinking-side work of getting tasks done. Behavior Regulation is mildly elevated for both adults (T = 62 and 64), driven by monitoring rather than impulse control, while Emotion Regulation is within typical limits for all three raters. Because the index scores diverge, the Global Executive Composite is reported for completeness but is not the interpretive anchor of this section; the profile, not the summary score, carries the meaning.
Scale-level drivers: Within the Cognitive Regulation Index, the parent rating is driven by Working Memory (T = 74) and Plan/Organize (T = 71), both clinically elevated, with Initiate (T = 65) and Task-Monitor (T = 66) potentially clinically elevated and Organization of Materials mildly elevated (T = 62). The teacher pattern is parallel with slightly lower values, led by Working Memory (T = 72) and Plan/Organize (T = 68). Functionally, the raters describe the same student: instructions delivered in strings get lost, multi-step assignments stall at the starting step, long-term projects surface the night before they are due, and completed work is not turned in. These are the behaviors behind the scores, and they are the behaviors any support plan has to touch.
Cross-informant comparison: A.S. rates himself consistently lower than the adults rate him (GEC T = 57 versus 68 and 66), with only the Cognitive Regulation Index mildly elevated in his self-report (T = 61). Modest informant agreement is the expected finding for behavior ratings, and the direction here, adolescents reporting fewer executive difficulties than the adults around them observe, is common in ADHD referrals. The adult ratings are treated as the primary description of day-to-day functioning, and the self-report as meaningful data about A.S.'s own experience: he reports effort ("I study more than my friends do") more than difficulty, which matters for how support is introduced to him. No rater is treated as wrong; home and school agree on the problem, and A.S.'s perspective shapes the intervention conversation.
Relation to performance testing: Rating-scale results describe everyday executive behavior and correlate only weakly with performance tests of executive function, so the cognitive testing reported elsewhere in this evaluation is read as a complementary level of analysis rather than as confirmation or contradiction of these ratings.
Summary: BRIEF-2 ratings from three informants converge on clinically significant everyday difficulty with working memory and planning, present across home and school, with behavior regulation mildly affected and emotion regulation intact. These results are consistent with the executive function profile commonly seen in ADHD, inattentive presentation, and they support that hypothesis within this evaluation; they are not by themselves diagnostic of any condition, and the diagnostic conclusion in this report rests on the full evaluation, including history, interview, symptom-specific scales, and classroom data. No single measure determines eligibility for services.
Linkage to recommendations: The Working Memory elevations support recommendations 1 and 2 (instructions chunked, repeated, and paired with written steps). The Plan/Organize and Task-Monitor elevations support recommendation 3 (an assignment-tracking system checked daily by one adult at school and one at home, with long-term projects broken into dated steps). The self-report gap supports recommendation 5: supports should be framed with A.S. as effort-saving tools, matching his own account, rather than as remediation he does not believe he needs. Re-rating by the same informants after two school terms will use the publisher's reliable-change statistics to judge response.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real student or record, and the scores are invented for illustration and correspond to no real child or record.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsWrite the results section knowing which decision framework will read it, and label the strength of each requirement honestly. In US special education, federal law is instrument-neutral: no regulation names the BRIEF-2, and evaluators may "not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion" for eligibility (34 CFR 300.304(b)(2)). The categories where executive function evidence usually lands are Other Health Impairment, whose federal definition names attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and turns on adverse educational effect, and Traumatic Brain Injury, which is its own category with attention and reasoning in its definition, not a default into OHI (34 CFR 300.8(c)(9), (c)(12)). Section 504 keys on an impairment that "substantially limits one or more major life activities" (34 CFR 104.3(j)), which is why the write-up's functional-impairment translation matters more than any score. And no law, regulation, or PAR document sets a qualifying T score: the band vocabulary is interpretive convention from the manual, not an eligibility threshold, so "did not reach T = 65" is never a legal finding. For accommodations bodies the framing is supporting evidence: College Board's ADHD documentation guidelines require a request even when the student already has an IEP or 504 plan, state that "A medical note is usually not sufficient to support the need for accommodations," and ask for a comprehensive assessment with nationally normed measures, functional-limitation narrative, and current information, with teacher observations expressly welcomed; ACT's criteria likewise list "rating scale measures from multiple sources" among relevant testing and caution that unfinished timed tests cannot demonstrate impairment in isolation. On the payer side, the code families split by purpose as policy: brief emotional or behavioral screening instruments bill under 96127, Medicare's benefit excludes screening as such under Social Security Act 1862(a)(7) (WPS article A57481), and the NCCI edits bundle 96127 into the 96130 to 96139 testing family on the same day, so a BRIEF-2 scored within a billed testing evaluation is part of that service, not a separate line.
Edition and norms currency is now the BRIEF-2's live defensibility question, and the facts need dating. As of July 2026: the child and adolescent BRIEF-2 (2015) is current, and its 2026 update added age-based (combined-sex) norms as a second validated option, integrated the ADHD supplement into the Professional Manual and reports, discontinued the standalone ADHD Form, and moved all scoring to the publisher's platform with no manual lookup tables, while leaving items and the normative sample unchanged, so reports should now name which norm set was used. The adult BRIEF2A (released November 12, 2024) replaced the 2005 BRIEF-A, extended the range to age 99, renormed on the 2021 census, and adopted the three-index model, which retires the old two-index Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition vocabulary that still circulates in copied report shells. The band ladders also differ between the current child and adult instruments: on the BRIEF-2 the manual describes 60 to 64 as mildly elevated and 70 and above as clinically elevated, while the publisher's BRIEF2A reports describe 60 to 64 as within normal limits with possible subtle difficulties and reserve moderately and highly elevated for 70 to 74 and 75 and above, so carrying one form's vocabulary into the other's report misdescribes the same number. In Australia the BRIEF-2 is distributed by Psychological Assessments Australia, which notes the publisher is not reprinting paper forms (stock-only), and no Medicare item pays for a rating scale itself; the complex neurodevelopmental disorder assessment items (135, 137, 139, 289, patients under 25, once per lifetime) frame the evaluations these ratings inform, and the official item guidance notes 135 and 289 are not intended for standalone ADHD diagnosis. In Canada, use runs on provincial school-board practice and private assessment convention, with no pan-Canadian standard setting a BRIEF-2 threshold, and it is accurate to say so in a report. Purchase and use are qualification-gated by the publisher (level B for the core forms, S for the screening forms), and re-administration to track treatment response is supported by the publisher's reliable-change statistics, which is convention worth naming when a re-rating interval is part of the plan.
BRIEF, BRIEF2, and BRIEF2A are trademarks or registered trademarks of PAR, Inc. BastionGPT is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the publisher. This page reproduces no test items, stimuli, norms, or scoring materials.
There is no payer audit series for rating-scale write-ups; the accountability literature here is psychometric, and it is specific. The BRIEF-2 was reviewed in the Buros Center's 21st Mental Measurements Yearbook, where the reviewer questioned how much unique information the nine scale scores add over one another, noted that the GEC was left out of the manual's factor models and that no correlations with performance-based executive tests were reported, and passed along the manual's own caution that the instrument is not a standalone diagnostic measure. The performance-versus-ratings literature is blunter still: a median correlation of r = .19 across 20 studies, with only 24% of correlations significant (Toplak et al., 2013). The errors below are write-up errors, and they are yours. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same ones most often in BRIEF-2 report reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on psychological and psychoeducational evaluation reports.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
Every BRIEF-2 scale, index, and composite score is a T score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, reported with a percentile, and the direction is the opposite of an ability test: higher means more reported difficulty. The Buros review relays the manual's vocabulary: scores of 60 to 64 are described as mildly elevated, 65 to 69 as potentially clinically elevated, and 70 or above as clinically elevated, with T scores running from 35 to 90. Two cautions belong in the write-up: percentiles do not track T scores identically from scale to scale (the distributions are skewed), and the bands are interpretive convention, not qualifying thresholds. Write each score with its percentile, use one vocabulary consistently, and remember these are one rater's observations expressed as a number.
Yes. As of July 2026 the BRIEF-2 (2015) is the current child and adolescent edition, and its 2026 update changed the packaging rather than the test: age-based (combined-sex) norms were added as a second validated option, the ADHD supplement was folded into the Professional Manual and reports, the standalone ADHD Form was discontinued, and all scoring moved to the publisher's platform, with the items and normative sample unchanged. The practical consequence for reports is naming which norm set you used. For adults, the BRIEF2A (released November 12, 2024) replaced the 2005 BRIEF-A, runs to age 99, and uses the same three-index model as the BRIEF-2, so an adult evaluation still citing the BRIEF-A is citing a superseded edition. Preschoolers have their own form, the BRIEF-P.
No, on both counts, and this is the most common false rule in circulation. No statute, agency, or PAR document requires a Global Executive Composite elevation or sets any T score as a qualifying cutoff. The manual's own convention runs the other way: the GEC is most interpretable when the index scores hang together, and when they diverge the indexes and their driving scales carry the interpretation, a heuristic the Buros reviewer notes has itself been questioned. What eligibility frameworks actually ask for is functional evidence: adverse educational effect for IDEA, substantial limitation of a major life activity for Section 504. A student with a clinically elevated Cognitive Regulation Index and an unremarkable GEC can be exactly the student who needs support, and the write-up's job is to describe the behavior behind that index, not to clear an invented score bar.
No requirement names it anywhere. Federal special-education law is instrument-neutral and forbids using any "single measure or assessment" as the sole criterion (34 CFR 300.304(b)(2)); the OHI category names ADHD in its definition but prescribes no test, and TBI is a separate category with attention and reasoning in its own definition. Diagnosis is clinical: DSM-5-TR criteria plus history, interview, and multi-source evidence, in which the BRIEF-2 supplies the everyday executive function profile while symptom scales like the Conners 4 map the criteria themselves. Accommodations bodies treat it the same way: College Board asks for a comprehensive, nationally normed assessment with a functional-limitation narrative (a medical note alone is "usually not sufficient"), and ACT lists rating scales from multiple sources among relevant testing. So the BRIEF-2 is standard supporting evidence by convention, mandated by no one.
Usually both. Modest cross-informant agreement is the most replicated finding in behavior-rating research (a 341-study meta-analysis puts the mean correlation near .28), the BRIEF-2 manual itself reports interrater agreement as low to moderate, and an early BRIEF clinical study found the same thing (McCandless & O'Laughlin, 2007). The raters watch different demands: a teacher compares one student against a room of same-age peers under sustained task load, a parent sees one child across home routines, and adolescents commonly rate themselves lower than the adults around them. Report each rater separately, interpret the divergence as information about settings and self-awareness, and resist both bad fixes, averaging the raters into one number or declaring a winner. Where the elevation lives tells you where the support belongs.
Neither over the other; they measure different things. Performance tests sample executive efficiency under structured, one-on-one conditions; ratings sample how often everyday self-regulation succeeds at home and school. The two families correlate at a median of only r = .19 (Toplak et al., 2013), classic work found executive tests account for roughly 18 to 20% of the variance in everyday executive ability (Chaytor et al., 2006), and even the label "ecologically valid" is used inconsistently across the field (Suchy et al., 2024), so it settles nothing on its own. Administer both when the referral question spans settings and mechanisms, report both, and write divergence as a finding: intact test performance with elevated ratings often describes a student who can perform under structure and cannot self-organize without it.
They answer different questions, and batteries often carry two of them deliberately. The BASC-3 is the broadband instrument: it surveys behavior, emotion, and adaptive skills widely and flags executive function within a larger profile. The Conners 4 is the ADHD symptom instrument: it maps ratings onto diagnostic criteria when ADHD is the referral question. The BRIEF-2 is the executive function instrument: nine scales and three indexes profiling regulation domain by domain, which is what individualizes the support plan once a diagnosis is on the table. The CEFI is the closest alternative in the executive lane, with positively worded items and a single full-scale composite. In a typical ADHD evaluation the Conners 4 speaks to criteria while the BRIEF-2 specifies which regulation systems the plan must target; in an autism or TBI evaluation the BRIEF-2 pairs with broadband and performance measures instead.
No. The items, forms, and scoring materials are protected test materials: PAR gates purchase by qualification level (B for the core forms, S for the screening forms), and psychologists are ethically obligated to maintain test security under APA Ethics Standard 9.11 and their publisher agreements. Item exposure also degrades the instrument itself, because norms assume raters have not rehearsed the content. A report should carry scores, percentiles, band language, and interpretation, never item text, and records requests touching protocols route through your test-security obligations. What families actually need travels fine without items: the publisher's own feedback materials and intervention handouts translate elevated scales into plain language and strategies, and a good parent summary does the same.
Yes. Paste your index and scale summary (T scores, percentiles, and who rated) and it drafts the results-section narrative for your review: validity scales first, indexes before scales, the manual's band vocabulary applied consistently, and the cross-informant reconciliation framed with a stated rationale. It can also cross-check a draft you wrote for score-versus-narrative mismatches and band-vocabulary drift, and produce a plain-language summary that turns elevations into everyday behaviors for parents and teachers. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, your data is never used to train models, and drafting from scores you paste means no protocol or item content ever needs to leave your records.
The instrument facts and compliance claims on this page trace to these sources, last verified July 2026:
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.