A critical step toward ensuring a consistent approach to and communication about the construct of developmental maturity is refinement of a general, unified representation of this construct across psychological subspecialties. The current study evaluated the core characteristics of developmental maturity by examining the factor structure of this broad concept. Results of an exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor solution of developmental maturity: independent functioning, decision making, emotion regulation, and general cognitive processing. Overall, psychologists across subspecialties did not differ significantly in their ratings of items across the four factors. Findings contribute to a cross-disciplinary, comprehensive, and operational definition of developmental maturity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CaseyB. J.GieddJ. N.ThomasK. M. (2000). Structural and functional brain development and its relation to cognitive development. Biological Psychology, 54(1–3), 241–257. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(00)00058-2
2.
CauffmanE.SteinbergL. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 741–760. doi:10.1002/bsl.416
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
DurstonS.ThomasK. M.YangY.UlugA. M.ZimmermanR. D.CaseyB. (2002). A neural basis for the development of inhibitory control. Developmental Science, 5(4), F9–F16. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00235
6.
EshelN.NelsonE. E.BlairR. J.PineD. S.ErnstM. (2007). Neural substrates of choice selection in adults and adolescents: Development of the ventrolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. Neuropsychologia, 45(6), 1270–1279. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.004
7.
FloydF. J.WidamanK. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
8.
GieddJ. N.BlumenthalJ.JeffriesN. O.CastellanosF. X.LiuH.ZijdenbosA. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863. doi:10.1038/13158
9.
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).
10.
GreenbergerE.SorensenA. B. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 329–358. doi:10.1007/BF02214746
11.
GrunbaumJ. A.KannL.KinchenS.RossJ.HawkinsJ.LowryR. (2004). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance–United States, 2003 (Abridged). Journal of School Health, 74(8), 307–324. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb06620.x
12.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011).
13.
LilienfeldS. O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 53–70. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x
14.
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012).
15.
National Research Council (2013). Juvenile justice reform: A developmental approach, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
16.
Owen-KostelnikJ.ReppucciN. D.MeyerJ. R. (2006). Testimony and interrogation of minors: assumptions about maturity and morality. American Psychologist, 61(4), 286. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.286
17.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.BuehlerJ. (2003). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 41–62.
18.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
19.
SalekinR. T. (2015). Forensic evaluation and treatment of juveniles: Innovation and best practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
SalekinR. T.MacDougallE. A.HarrisonN. A. (2016). Developmental maturity and sophistication-maturity: Learning more about its purpose and assessment. In HeilbrunK. E.DeMatteoD. E.GoldsteinN. E. (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 405–424). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
SalekinR. T.RogersR.UstadK. L. (2001). Juvenile waiver to adult criminal courts: Prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(2), 381–408. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.2.381
22.
SalekinR. T.YffR.NeumannC. S.LeisticoA. M. R.ZalotA. A. (2002). Juvenile transfer to adult courts: A look at the prototypes for dangerousness sophistication-maturity and amenability to treatment through a legal lens. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(4), 373. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.8.4.373
23.
ScottE. S.GrissoT. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 137–189. doi: 0091-4169/97/8801-0137
24.
SteinbergL. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005
25.
SteinbergL. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence new perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current directions in psychological science, 16(2), 55–59. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00475.x
26.
SteinbergL. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 459–485. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153603
27.
SteinbergL. (2010). A behavioral scientist looks at the science of adolescent brain development. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 160–164. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.11.003
28.
SteinbergL. (2013). The influence of neuroscience on US Supreme Court decisions about adolescents' criminal culpability. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 513–518. doi:10.1038/nrn3509
29.
SteinbergL.CauffmanE. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 249–272. doi:10.1007/BF01499023
30.
SteinbergL.ScottE. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009
31.
StraussM. E.SmithG. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639
32.
Timothy J. v. Superior Court, 150 Cal. App. 4th 847Cal. Ct. App. (2007).
33.
ViljoenJ. L.WingroveT. (2007). Adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Judges' and defense attorneys' views of legal standards for adolescents in juvenile and criminal court. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(3), 204–229. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.13.3.204
34.
WilliamsA. F. (2003). Teenage drivers: Patterns of risk. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 5–15. doi:10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00075-0
