1-2 PAGES, APA FORMAT, MASTERS LEVEL, REVIEW ATTACHMENT

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Juvenile competency to stand trial in criminal court and brain

function

Roni Mayzer a *, April R. Bradley

b , Holly Rusinko

b and Troy W. Ertelt

b

a Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA; b Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA

(Received 19 September 2008; final version received 21 May 2009)

Current estimates indicate that approximately 200,000 juveniles are transferred to the (adult) criminal court system each year and it is often required that the juvenile’s ability to function in adult criminal proceedings be assessed by a mental health professional. We review the literature on the assessment of juvenile competency to stand trial in criminal court, adolescent brain development, and related cognitive skills. We conclude that integrative developmental theories are needed to guide research and provide theoretical pathways to apply neuropsy- chological information to juvenile competency behaviors and the assessment of these behaviors.

Keywords: adolescence; cognitive functioning; criminal procedure; developmental; forensic

Over the past decade an increasing number of juvenile offenders have been moved to the American (adult) criminal court system (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). While it is difficult to assess the exact number of transferred children and adolescents, the best available estimates suggest around 200,000 cases annually (American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, 2001). Unfortunately, research indicates poorer outcomes (i.e., higher re-arrest rates) for those moved to criminal court compared to those who remain in juvenile court (MacArthur Foundation Research Network, 2006). This has led to questions about juveniles’ competency to participate in the trial process in an adult setting. How much do competence-related abilities depend on developmental maturity in cognitive, social, and underlying neurological domains? An appreciation of the extent to which juvenile offenders demonstrate competence-related abilities is crucial in order to engage in a criminal justice process free from coercion and to design policies for the adjudication of juveniles appropriate to their developmental level (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997).

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology Vol. 20, No. 6, December 2009, 785–800

ISSN 1478-9949 print/ISSN 1478-9957 online

� 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14789940903174089

http://www.informaworld.com

Increasingly, the field of criminology has also recognized the importance of developmental perspectives for understanding the etiology of crime and delinquency. Key theorists (e.g., Moffitt, 1993) have proposed explanations for life-course-persistent offending which implicate neuropsychological impairments in executive and verbal functions. However, relatively few studies have included neuropsychological assessments, and brain imaging technology has yet to be incorporated into these theory-testing endeavors. Do juvenile offenders actually have neurological and psychosocial deficits compared to juvenile non-offenders? If so, do these deficits persist over time or simply represent delayed rates of maturation? The answer to these questions would better inform prevention and intervention efforts designed to mitigate involvement in crime and associated risk behaviors which are detrimental to health and/or social well-being (e.g., drinking, reckless driving, etc.).

Several bodies of literature are relevant to these issues, covering topics associated with adjudicative competency; neuropsychological and neuro- imaging research on adolescent brain development; and its relationships with psychopathology, antisocial behavior, and substance use. Research findings suggest that competency is contingent on certain cognitive skills which are tied to brain functions that mature over the developmental course from childhood through adolescence, into early adulthood. Unfortunately, the existing neuropsychological literature is not yet well integrated into discussions about juvenile adjudicative competency.

Juvenile adjudicative competency

In the United States, to be considered competent to stand trial in criminal court, a defendant must be capable of understanding the charges against him or her, be able to consult with his/her attorney, and understand and participate in legal proceedings (Dusky v. United States, 1960). More narrow criteria for proceeding with trial are utilized by other countries such as England (Mackay, 2007) and Canada (O’Shaughnessy, 2007).

When any of these competence criteria are applied to juveniles, developmental immaturity becomes a complicating factor. Cognitive and psychosocial skills are still developing throughout adolescence. Conse- quently, many juveniles show broad deficits in understanding and decision- making (Grisso et al., 2003; Viljoen & Roesch, 2005). Along with normal developmental immaturity, many disorders may interfere with an adoles- cent’s ability to fully meet competency criteria in ways different from adults. These include deficits associated with attention (e.g., ADHD), anxiety, and learning (Grisso, 2005) as well as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and conduct disorder (Lexcen, 2000).

The American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) has recom- mended practice guidelines for evaluations of adjudicative competence

786 R. Mayzer et al.

(Mossman et al., 2007). Despite these guidelines, survey studies conducted by Ryba, Cooper, and Zapf (2003a, 2003b) indicate that methods used in competency assessments vary widely across mental health professionals. However, while methods may vary, most evaluators assess similar constructs including current mental status, understanding of charges, understanding of trial procedures, ability to utilize attorney’s services, medical history, mental illness history, retardation, emotional immaturity, and self control. (Formal evaluation methods used in adjudicative competency assessments are listed in Table 1).

Before moving on, it is worth emphasizing that considerations of competence and developmental immaturity are also relevant to other stages of the criminal justice process, not just court proceedings. As previously mentioned, decisions about important choices such as confessing or accepting a deal in exchange for pleading guilty vary by age (Grisso et al., 2003). One particular concern associated with the potential for adverse outcomes is the provision of false confession by innocent individuals under interrogative pressure from law enforcement officers (see Gudjonsson, 2003). False confessions are disproportionately prevalent at younger ages (Drizin & Leo, 2004). One reason for these age-related disparities is that juveniles are especially susceptible to suggestive questioning, criticism or negative feedback, interrogative pressure from authority figures, and use of deceptions such claiming to have evidence that does not actually exist (Gudjonsson, 2003; Redlich & Goodman, 2003; Scott-Hayward, 2007). Juveniles may also place greater weight on short-term rewards (e.g., release) over the ultimately more profound, long-term consequences of pleading guilty (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Despite the relevancy of developmental status to fairness and accuracy concerns during interrogation and other interac- tions with the police – including recognition of differences between children, youth, and adults by law enforcement personnel – different procedures for use with juveniles are often neither used nor recognized as necessary (Meyer & Reppucci, 2007).

Neuropsychological studies on adolescent brain development

While there are strong theoretical arguments to support the use of pre-trial competency assessments, there are currently very few studies that examine the correlations between competency and neuropsychological performance. Yet it is not surprising that adolescents demonstrate poorer competence- related and psychosocial skills on court-related assessment tools, given that there are more general and robust neuropsychological substrates to these capacities. In particular, early adolescents have not achieved higher order executive functions that assist in cognitive efficiency.

Executive functioning is an umbrella term that encompasses a number of interrelated sub-skills that may follow different developmental trajectories

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 787

Table 1. Standardized and normed test instruments used in adjudicative competency assessments.

Assessment area Commonly used test(s) Age range

Achievement (verbal and mathematical reasoning)

NEPSY-II 3–16 California Verbal Learning Test – Children’s Version (CVLT-C)*

5–16

Wide Range Achievement Test – 3 (WRAT-3)

5–75

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – II (WIAT-II)*

4–85

Executive functioning/ neuropsychological tests

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV)*

6–16

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT)*

4–90

NEPSY-II 3–16 Children’s Category Test (CCT) 5–16 Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST)* 6.5–89 Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test II* 3–85 Controlled Oral Word Association Test 7þ Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System

8–89

Tower of London 2nd Edition (TOL) 7þ Trail Making Tests A and B 7þ Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – III (WAIS-III)*

16–90

Inattention/impulse control

Conners 3 Parent/Teacher Report 6–17 Conners 3 Self Report 8–17 Conner’s Continuous Performance Test-II (CPT-II)

6þ

Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEA-Ch)

6–16

Behavior problems Child Behavior CheckList – Parent Report*

2–17

Child Behavior CheckList – Youth Self Report*

11–18

Memory California Verbal Learning Test – Children’s Version (CVLT-C)*

5–16

Children’s Memory Scale (CMS) 5–16 Weschler Memory Scales – III (WMS-III)*

16–89

Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test 16–96 Adjudicative competency

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)*

Adolescent-adult

Fitness Interview Test – Revised* Adolescent-adult Competence Screening Test (CST)* Adolescent-adult Competency Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)*

Adolescent-adult

(continued)

788 R. Mayzer et al.

(Huizinga, Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006). Executive functioning is demonstrated when an individual engages in goal-directed behaviors such as planning, organizing, strategizing, paying attention to details, thinking abstractly, and adapting to novel situations. There is a broad range of tests available to measure executive functioning but research in relation to age differences and hierarchical development is lacking, especially across component domains (Huizinga et al., 2006).

Anderson, Anderson, Northam, Jacobs, and Catroppa (2001) found a linear improvement in certain executive function tasks but not others across individuals of ages 11–17. Tasks that improved from childhood through adolescence included selective attention, working memory and problem solving (Anderson et al., 2001). Huizinga et al. (2006) found that adult levels of performance on some attention shifting, working memory, inhibition, and complexity tasks were not reached until the age of 15 years with still others continuing to improve into young adulthood. De Luca et al. (2003) found improvements in working memory, planning, and problem solving at least through ages 15–19 and peaking between 20 and 29 years. In a meta- analysis of studies on the topic published between 1984 and 2004, Romine and Reynolds (2005) concluded that improvements in executive perfor- mance are particularly striking between five and 11 years of age, with smaller increases between ages 11 and 14 and thereafter. Changes continued,

Table 1. (Continued).

Assessment area Commonly used test(s) Age range

Competence to Stand Trial Assessment Instrument (CAI)*

Adolescent-adult

Psychopathology/ personality

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A)*

14–18

Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI)*

13–19

Millon Pre-Adolescent Clinical Inventory (M-PACI)

9–12

Rorschach Inkblot Test* All ages Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)* All ages Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (RISB)*

High school-adult

Emotional competence

BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (BarOn EQ-i)

13þ

Psychopathy Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV)

12–18

Suggestibility Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS) 12þ Malingering Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) 16þ

Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) 16þ Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) 16–84

Note: Tests listed by respondents to the Ryba, Cooper, and Zapf (2003b) survey are noted with a*.

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 789

albeit at a decreased rate, into early adulthood – especially for higher level skills such as planning and verbal fluency (Romine & Reynolds, 2005).

Development of the ability to debate pros and cons, the ability to weigh long-term and short-term consequences of one’s decisions, and abstract thinking are especially relevant to juvenile adjudicative competency. Although older adolescents begin to perform more similarly to adults on a number of cognitive tasks, they may still make decisions that vary from adults’ due to social/emotional immaturity (Grisso, 2005; Steinberg & Scott, 2003). Adolescents are poorer evaluators of risk (e.g., assigning different weights to risks in decision-making), have a limited time perspective (e.g., focusing primarily on short-term consequences), and lack self-directedness (e.g., they may rely on others and be unduly influenced by peer, parents, or authority figures) (Ryba et al., 2003a; Steinberg & Scott, 2003).

There are also neurological and cognitive underpinnings to competencies at other stages of the criminal justice process. For example, suggestibility-to- interrogative pressure has been linked to individual differences associated with memory processes that can be traced to brain functioning in specific cortical areas (Howard & Chaiwutikornwanich, 2006). With respect to the phenomenon of falsely confessing to a crime one did not commit, some individuals may be more vulnerable to distrusting their own recollections and accepting others’ suggestions (e.g., memory distrust syndrome; Gudjonsson, 2003).

It is important to note that although age is a convenient marker when assessing development, research on many aspects of brain development have been linked to puberty – including tasks associated with executive functioning (McGivern, Andersen, Byrd, Mutter, & Reilly, 2002). Yet much of the extant research on cognitive development has strictly focused on the participants’ ages. Starting in the 1980s, researchers began examining how sex hormones affect cognitive development during adolescence, especially during puberty. Pubertal stages are not direct measurements of hormone levels in adolescents, but the different stages of pubertal development depend on varying levels of sex hormone secretion. Multiple animal studies have evaluated the impact of gonadal hormones on the brain and behavior (e.g., Novak, Parfit, Sisk, & Smale, 2007; Schulz et al., 2004) but fewer have assessed such pubertal effects in humans (Sisk & Zehr, 2005). During adolescence, gonadal hormones sculpt and organize the nervous system along with other brain restructuring processes. Changes in density of gray matter correspond with the onset of puberty, occurring later in boys than girls (Sisk & Zehr, 2005). Pathways that regulate mood and frontal lobe functioning (i.e., serotonergic, dopaminergic, and noradrenergic systems) are influenced by gonadal hormone increases associated with puberty (Cameron, 2004). These changes have been associated with later psychopathology (Walker, Sabuwalla, & Hout, 2004). The effects of puberty onset and corresponding increase of gonadal hormones are significant but there is

790 R. Mayzer et al.

evidence that brain changes also occur through independent processes during adolescence, further complicating the picture (Sisk & Foster, 2004).

Davies and Rose (1999) considered pubertal stages when examining differences in cognitive abilities charted across adolescence. There were minimal differences between male and female adolescents on tests of cognitive abilities, with males exhibiting superior performance in the few areas that sex differences were observed on tasks that required the frontal and parietal lobes (Davies & Rose, 1999). The discrepancies between male and female scores occurred most often between the pre-pubertal and pubertal stages, with minimal to no differences in the post-pubertal stage (Davies & Rose, 1999). This finding supports the idea that assessing the pubertal development of the child is crucial for obtaining an accurate measure of the adolescent’s cognitive abilities. Males and females do not develop all that differently, cognitively, when they are assessed at the same pubertal stage. These findings have special bearing on competency assessments, given the fact that males typically go through the pubertal stages at a later chronological age than their female peers.

Neuroimaging studies on adolescent brain development

Research indicates that the cerebral cortex undergoes changes throughout puberty and adolescence that coincide with changes in cognitive ability and executive functioning (Gibson, 1991; Goldman-Rakic, 1987; Huttenlocher, 1994; Stuss & Levine, 2002). Moreover, researchers now understand that different prefrontal regions may enable different executive functions and that other non-frontal cortical regions likely play supportive roles (Huizinga et al., 2006; Stuss & Benson, 1984). Major advances in science and technology have allowed researchers to confirm that these neuropsychological changes are associated with structural and functional changes in specific cortical areas, and that brain maturation continues into early adulthood.

One of the most common of these techniques is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which has revealed normative patterns of morphological change (e.g., Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Giedd et al., 1999; Gogtay et al., 2004; Lenroot & Giedd, 2006; Sowell, Thompson, Holmes, Jernigan, & Toga, 1999). Two changes are particularly striking: the proliferation and subsequent pruning of synaptic connections, and axon myelinization. These processes improve cognitive speed and efficiency. Myelinization, in particular, proceeds from posterior to anterior. This means that the prefrontal cortex is one of the last areas to mature yet is associated with important cognitive skills – including impulse control, selective attention, working memory, planning, and decision-making. The prefrontal cortex is also thought to moderate the effects of other brain areas that become more active during the adolescent years (Nelson, Leibenluft, McClure, & Pine, 2005). Barnea-Goraly and colleagues (2005) reviewed MRI and anatomical

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 791

scans of 34 six to 19-year olds. They found an increase in the density of white matter in the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, thalamic pathways, ventral visual pathways, and corpus collasum: areas that affect motor skills, attention, cognitive ability, and memory. Blakemore and Choudhury (2006) found similar increases in white matter through the early 20s. In addition, they found that the prefrontal cortex and parietal cortex also continued to develop throughout adolescence affecting decision-making, response inhibi- tion, attention, and perspective taking (social cognition).

There is neuroimaging evidence to indicate the existence of gender differences as well. For example, De Bellis and colleagues (2001) found, in a sample of 118 people ages 6–18, that males exhibited greater decreases in gray matter and increases in white matter over time. Neuroimaging studies have also provided evidence of changes associated with the increase in gonadal steroids at puberty. Nelson and colleagues (2005) found significant changes in the limbic system after the onset of puberty including changes in the cognitive-regulation, affective, and detection nodes of the Social Information Processing Network. Development of the prefrontal cortex occurs later, which then moderates this increase.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, which look beyond structural changes to capture how the brain works, have verified systematic changes in brain activity from childhood through adolescence (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006). Similar patterns are reported from developmental studies using quantitative electroencephalographic brain- mapping technology (e.g., Benninger, Matthis, & Scheffner, 1984; Gasser, Verleger, Bacher, & Sroka, 1988; John et al., 1980; Somsen, van’t Klooster, van der Molen, van Leeuwen, & Licht, 1997; Thatcher, Walker, & Giudice, 1987). One of the most profound changes is in executive functioning modulated by the prefrontal cortex. For example, adolescents show greater activation in the limbic system that subserves emotional responses while viewing faces with fearful expressions, whereas adults can engage in cognitive-regulatory tasks to modulate those responses (Nelson et al., 2005). This might help explain why adolescents are often described as more emotional, and why they react strongly to certain social stimuli without thinking through the consequences or context. These deficits relative to adults can have a significant influence on courtroom behavior, including difficulty thinking logically rather than emotionally, difficulty weighing consequences of decisions, and emotional displays or outbursts.

Indeed, there is a related and expansive body of literature on brain substrates to emotion regulation that supports the robustness of such observations (e.g., Gross, 2007). Similarly, Hunt (1999) found that significant changes in affect were associated with stage of puberty (early vs middle) and gender. Girls exhibited greater affective intensity and lability in early puberty while boys experienced similar changes in middle puberty. Given that emotion regulation may play a key role in decision-making with regard to

792 R. Mayzer et al.

engaging in precipitating delinquent behaviors as well as cooperation within the courtroom, research demonstrating that emotion regulation is neurally based and that emotion regulation as well as neural circuitry becomes more sophisticated with age speaks to the need to consider emotion regulation as a critical variable in assessments of juvenile competency.

Neuropsychology and the etiology of problem behaviors

The relationship between brain function and various psychiatric disorders is well documented. Electrophysiological abnormalities have been observed for dementias, schizophrenia, unipolar/bipolar depression, autism, and alcohol/substance abuse; as well as anxiety, panic, obsessive-compulsive, eating, learning, and attention deficit disorders (Bresnahan, Anderson, & Barry, 1999; Chabot, di Michele, Prichep, & John, 2001; Hughes & John, 1999; Pizzagalli et al., 2002; Snyder & Hall, 2006; Vance & Luk, 2000). Most of these abnormalities involve the frontal lobes.

Beyond psychiatry and psychology, the relationship between neuropsy- chological risks and antisocial behavior has received increasing attention within the field of criminology. Brain structures and functions have been tied to violent or aggressive behavior (Bufkin & Luttrell, 2005; Hawkins & Trobst, 2000). Deficits in executive functioning measured by clinical test batteries also predict delinquency (Cauffman, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2005; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Piquero, 2001; Teichner & Golden, 2000).

A number of other studies have looked at adolescent brain development or neuropsychological correlates in relation to drug, alcohol, and other problem behaviors (e.g., see Dahl & Spear, 2004). Broadly, adolescence is associated with increased sensation-seeking and risk-taking (Dahl, 2004; Kelley, Schochet, & Landry, 2004). Developments in prefrontal cortical pathways most likely play a major role (Kelley et al., 2004). Data from fMRI studies have revealed less efficient response inhibition among children and adolescents compared to adults (Luna & Sweeney, 2004), and research shows that addicted individuals have impaired inhibitory controls mediated by frontal regions of the brain (Lubman, Yucel, & Pantelis, 2004). Poor response inhibition is predictive of early onset of alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, and the use of other illicit drugs by adolescents (Nigg et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2006). The rewarding effects of abused drugs, generally, are facilitated by brain mechanisms (Wise, Bauco, Carlezon, & Trojniar, 1992).

Converging evidence for developmental trends in drug-seeking comes from rodent studies. Summarized by Kelley et al. (2004, p. 31), adolescent rats ‘show increases in novelty seeking and hyperactivity, altered learning patterns, greater sensory sensitivity and distractibility, and altered responses and sensitivity to drugs such as nicotine and alcohol’. Adolescent rats receive greater reward (Leslie et al., 2004) and experience stronger anxiety- reducing effects (Torrella, Badanich, Philpot, Kirstein, & Wecker, 2004)

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 793

from nicotine – and the rewarding effects of abused drugs generally are facilitated by brain mechanisms (Wise et al., 1992). Leslie et al. (2004, p. 156) concluded that ‘[t]here is increasing evidence that adolescence is a period of unique sensitivity of forebrain systems to environmental stimuli, including abused drugs’. In addition to weaker inhibitory controls, then, adolescents may experience greater physiological, drug- and alcohol-induced positive reinforcements associated with the brain’s frontal lobe.

The literature on problem behavior maps onto the brain development literature, which in turn is relevant to competency. For example, the same neuropsychological causes for drug seeking may make a juvenile more likely to seek rapid resolution of a court case (e.g., by taking a plea bargain that is not in his or her best interest).

Conclusion

Transferring juveniles to criminal court is controversial. Debates have been waged between advocates of more punitive sanctions for serious offenders, regardless of age, and critics who contend that processing juveniles as adults leads to coercive practices that impede justice as well as higher recidivism rates and stigmatization which further entrenches the juvenile’s self-concept as an offender outside the bounds of conventional society. Critics have also argued that the retributive adult system fails to capitalize on amenability to treatment during the adolescent years – and that even when prosecuted for the same charges some juveniles may be less culpable than most adults by virtue of their psychosocial immaturity.

Although not yet largely incorporated into research on assessments of juvenile competency, neuropsychological tests could help differentiate those who are mature enough to handle adult criminal proceedings from those with questionable levels of preparedness. Based on the dramatic improve- ments observed in executive functions during the teen years, those in mid- adolescence should be of primary concern. Steinberg and Cauffman (2001) suggested that individuals younger than 13 years are, presumptively, not proper candidates for transfer to adult court, whereas individuals older than 16 years most likely have cognitive capabilities not much different from adults. For individuals between the ages of 13 and 16 years, individualized assessments are needed (Steinberg & Cauffman, 2001). This converges with findings from neuroimaging studies, which show that there are active changes taking place over the same developmental period. Inter-individual variations in ages of initiation and rates of change for social, cognitive, and physical (both pubertal and neurological) maturation mean that it is difficult to make generalized statements about competency by age.

It is not uncommon to see improvements in scores on neuropsychological and competency assessments from early to late adolescence. Neuropsycho- logical tests are designed to assess cognitions and capabilities based on

794 R. Mayzer et al.

cortical regions which continue to develop into young adulthood, and that mirror or enable the psychosocial skills associated with adjudicative competence. Yet the extant literature on juvenile competency has stood largely independent from the neuropsychological literature. Despite ancillary nods to the cortical changes that coincide with movement toward psychosocial maturity, juvenile competency researchers have emphasized psychosocial immaturity without delving into its physical substrates. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging research can offer relevant informa- tion about what to assess and how to assess it.

It is clear that juvenile competency is a complex issue, particularly in light of the normative nature of many delinquent behaviors during adolescence (Moffitt, 1993) and the rehabilitative potential of youthful offenders which may both be contingent on brain function. Other complicating factors include various psychiatric disorders (Grisso, 2005; Hughes & John, 1999; Lexcen, 2000), and co-morbid problem behaviors such as substance abuse (Dahl & Spear, 2004) that may compromise the validity of assessments and have different consequences for behavior depending on the defendant’s age. Pubertal status is another variable (Davies & Rose, 1999) that might be a more accurate predictor of maturation than chronological age. More applied, theory-driven interdisciplinary research is needed to determine the most effective way to assess multiple influences on juvenile competency.

Competency to stand trial in criminal court assumes an understanding of the legal system and adjudication process, ability to recognize and reason about legally relevant information, appreciation of the meaning and consequences of legal actions, and the ability to knowledgeably participate in criminal proceedings. The neuropsychological underpinnings of these capabilities are yet to be thoroughly evaluated. With the ever expanding literature bases on adolescent brain development and juvenile competency assessment, integrative developmental theories are needed to guide research and provide theoretical pathways to apply the information to juvenile competency behaviors and the assessment of these behaviors.

References

American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section. (2001). Youth in the criminal justice system: Guidelines for policymakers and practitioners. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Anderson, V., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1), 385–406.

Barnea-Goraly, N., Menon, V., Eckert, M., Tamm, L., Bammer, R., Karchemskiy, A., et al. (2005). White matter development during childhood and adolescence: A cross-sectional diffusion tensor imaging study. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1848–1854.

Benninger, C., Matthis, P., & Scheffner, D. (1984). EEG development of healthy boys and girls: Results of a longitudinal study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 57, 1–12.

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 795

Blakemore, S.J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(3/4), 296–312.

Bresnahan, S.M., Anderson, J.W., & Barry, R.J. (1999). Age-related changes in quantitative EEG in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychia- try, 46, 1690–1697.

Bufkin, J.L., & Luttrell, V.R. (2005). Neuroimaging studies of aggressive and violent behavior. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(2), 176–191.

Cameron, J.L. (2004). Interrelationships between hormones, behavior, and affect during adolescence: Complex relationships exist between reproductive hormones, stress-related hormones, and the activity of neural systems that regulate behavioral affect. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 134–142). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A.R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsycho- logical and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control. Criminology, 43(1), 133–175.

Chabot, R.J., di Michele, F., Prichep, L., & John, E.R. (2001). The clinical role of computerized EEG in the evaluation and treatment of learning and attention disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 13(2), 171–186.

Dahl, R.E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of vulnerabilities and opportunities; keynote address. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 1–22). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Dahl, R.E. & Spear, L.P. (Eds.). (2004). Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Davies, P.L., & Rose, J.D. (1999). Assessment of cognitive development in adolescents by means of neuropsychological tasks. Developmental Neuropsycho- logy, 15(2), 227–248.

De Bellis, M.D., Keshavan, M.S., Beers, S.R., Hall, J., Frustaci, K., Masalehdan, A., et al. (2001). Sex differences in brain maturation during childhood and adolescence. Cerebral Cortex, 11(6), 552–557.

De Luca, C.R., Wood, S.J., Anderson, V., Buchanan, J.-A., Proffitt, T.M., Mahony, K., et al. (2003). Normative data from the Cantab I: Development of executive function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(2), 242–254.

Drizin, S.A., & Leo, R.A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82(3), 891–1007.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). Gasser, T., Verleger, R., Bacher, P., & Sroka, L. (1988). Development of the EEG of

school-age children and adolescents. I. Analysis of band power. Electroencepha- lography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69(2), 91–99.

Gibson, K.R. (1991). Myelination and behavioral development: A comparative perspective on questions of neoteny, altriciality and intelligence. In K.R. Gibson & A.C. Petersen (Eds.), Brain maturation and cognitive development (pp. 29–63). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Giedd, J.N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N.O., Castellanos, F.X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863.

796 R. Mayzer et al.

Gogtay, N., Giedd, J.N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K.M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A.C., et al. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(21), 8174–8179.

Goldman-Rakic, P. (1987). Development of cortical circuitry and cognitive function. Child Development, 58(3), 601–622.

Grisso, T. (2005). Clinical evaluations for juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A guide for legal professionals. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., et al. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333–363.

Gross, J.J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Hawkins, K.A., & Trobst, K.K. (2000). Frontal lobe dysfunction and aggression: Conceptual issues and research findings. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(2), 147–157.

Howard, R.C., & Chaiwutikornwanich, A. (2006). The relationship of interrogative suggestibility to memory and attention. Journal of Psychophysiology, 20(2), 79–93.

Hughes, J.R., & John, E.R. (1999). Conventional and quantitative electroencepha- lography in psychiatry. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 11(2), 190–208.

Huizinga, M., Dolan, C.V., & van der Molen, M.W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036.

Hunt, D. (1999). Emotion in early puberty: Sex differences in affect patterns across pubertal phases from a developmental neuropsychology perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(10-B), 5599.

Huttenlocher, P.R. (1994). Synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. In G. Dawson & K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior and the developing brain (pp. 137–152). New York: Guilford Press.

John, E.R., Ahn, H., Prichep, L., Trepetin, M., Brown, D., & Kaye, H. (1980). Developmental equations for the electroencephalogram. Science, 210(4475), 1255–1258.

Kelley, A.E., Schochet, T., & Landry, C.F. (2004). Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: Introduction to Part I. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 27–32). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Lenroot, R.K., & Giedd, J.N. (2006). Brain development in children and adolescents: Insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 718–729.

Leslie, F.M., Loughlin, S.E., Wang, R., Perez, L., Lotfipour, S., & Belluzzi, J.D. (2004). Adolescent development of forebrain stimulant responsiveness. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 148–159). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Lexcen, F. (2000). Effects of adolescent psychopathology on juvenile competence to make medical and legal decisions. Juvenile justice fact sheet. Charlottesville, VA: Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy, University of Virginia.

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 797

Lubman, D.I., Yucel, M., & Pantelis, C. (2004). Addiction, a condition of compulsive behaviour? Neuroimaging and neuropsychological evidence of inhibitory dysregulation. Addiction, 99, 1491–1502.

Luna, B., & Sweeney, J.A. (2004). The emergence of collaborative brain function: fMRI studies of the development of response inhibition. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 296–309). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice (2006). Issue brief #5: The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the adult criminal court. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://www.adjj.org/content/resource_page.php?filter¼download

McGivern, R.F., Andersen, J., Byrd, D., Mutter, K.L., & Reilly, J. (2002). Cognitive efficiency on a match to sample task decreases at the onset of puberty in children. Brain and Cognition, 50(1), 73–89.

Mackay, R.D. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial: An English legal perspective. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(4), 501–504.

Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford Press.

Meyer, J.R., & Reppucci, N.D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(6), 757–780.

Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P.A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mossman, D., Noffsinger, S.G., Ash, P., Frierson, R.L., Gerbasi, J., Hackett, M., et al. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(Suppl 4), S3–S72.

Nelson, E.E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E.B., & Pine, D.S. (2005). The social re-orientation of adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 163–174.

Nigg, J.T., Wong, M.M., Martel, M.M., Jester, J.M., Puttler, L.I., Glass, J.M., et al. (2006). Poor response inhibition as a predictor of problem drinking and illicit drug use in adolescents at risk for alcoholism and other substance use disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(4), 468–475.

Novak, C.M., Parfitt, D.B., Sisk, C.L., & Smale, L. (2007). Associations between behavior, hormones, and Fos responses to novelty differ in pre- and post- pubertal grass rats. Physiology and Behavior, 90(1), 125–132.

O’Shaughnessy, R.J. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial: A Canadian legal perspective. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(4), 505–508.

Piquero, A.R. (2001). Testing Moffitt’s neuropsychological variation hypothesis for the prediction of life-course persistent offending. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7, 193–215.

Pizzagalli, D.A., Nitschke, J.B., Oakes, T.R., Hendrick, A.M., Horras, K.A., Larson, C.L., et al. (2002). Brain electrical tomography in depression: The importance of symptom severity, anxiety, and melancholic features. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 73–85.

798 R. Mayzer et al.

Redlich, A.D.,& Goodman, G.S.(2003).Taking responsibilityfor anact not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 141–156.

Romine, C.B., & Reynolds, C.R. (2005). A model of the development of frontal lobe functioning: Findings from a meta-analysis. Applied Neuropsychology, 12(4), 190– 201.

Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V., & Zapf, P.A. (2003a). Assessment of maturity in juvenile competency to stand trial evaluations: A survey of practitioners. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(3), 23–45.

Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V.G., & Zapf, P.A. (2003b). Juvenile competence to stand trial evaluations: A survey of current practices and test usage among psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 499–507.

Schulz, K.M., Richardson, H.N., Zehr, J.L., Osetek, A.J., Menard, T.A., & Sisk, C.L. (2004). Gonadal hormones masculinize and defeminize reproductive behaviors duringpuberty in the male Syrianhamster. Hormonesand Behavior, 45(4), 242–249.

Scott-Hayward, C.S. (2007). Explaining juvenile false confessions: Adolescent development and police interrogation. Law & Psychology Review, 31, 53–76.

Sisk, C.L., & Foster, D.L. (2004). The neural basis of puberty and adolescence. Nature Neuroscience, 7(10), 1040–1047.

Sisk, C.L., & Zehr, J.L. (2005). Pubertal hormones organize the adolescent brain and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 26(3–4), 163–174.

Snyder, S.M., & Hall, J.R. (2006). A meta-analysis of quantitative EEG power associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 23(5), 441–456.

Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/ nationalreport99/toc.html

Somsen, R.J.M., van’t Klooster, B.J., van der Molen, M.W., van Leeuwen, H.M.P., & Licht, R. (1997). Growth spurts in brain maturation during middle childhood as indexed by EEG power spectra. Biological Psychology, 44(3), 187–209.

Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M., Holmes, C.J., Jernigan, T.L., & Toga, A.W. (1999). In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 859–861.

Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2001). Adolescents as adults in court: A developmental perspective on the transfer of juveniles to criminal court. Social Policy Report, 15(4), 1–16.

Steinberg, L., & Scott, E.S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018.

Stuss, D.T., & Benson, D.F. (1984). Neuropsychological studies of the frontal lobes. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 3–28.

Stuss, D.T., & Levine, B. (2002). Adult clinical neuropsychology: Lessons from studies of the frontal lobes. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 401–433.

Teichner, G., & Golden, C.J. (2000). The relationship of neuropsychological impairment to conduct disorder in adolescence: A conceptual review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(6), 509–528.

Thatcher, R.W., Walker, R.A., & Giudice, S. (1987). Human cerebral hemispheres develop at different rates and ages. Science, 236(4805), 1110–1113.

Torrella, T.A., Badanich, K.A., Philpot, R.M., Kirstein, C.L., & Wecker, L. (2004). Developmental differences in nicotine place conditioning. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 399–403). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 799

Vance, A.L.A., & Luk, E.S.L. (2000). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Current progress and controversies. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 719–730.

Viljoen, J.I., & Roesch, R. (2005). Competence to waive interrogation rights and adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Cognitive development, attorney contact, and psychological symptoms. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 723–742.

Walker, E.F., Sabuwalla, Z., & Hout, R. (2004). Pubertal neuromaturation, stress sensitivity, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 16(4), 807– 824.

Wise, R.A., Bauco, P., Carlezon, W.A., & Trojniar, W. (1992). Self-stimulation and drug reward mechanisms. In P.W. Kalivas & H.H. Sampson (Eds.), The neurobiology of drug and alcohol addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 654, pp. 192–198). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Wong, M.M., Nigg, J.T., Zucker, R.A., Puttler, L.I., Fitzgerald, H.E., Jester, J.M., et al. (2006). Behavioral control and resiliency in the onset of alcohol and illicit drug use: A prospective study from preschool to adolescence. Child Development, 77(4), 1016–1033.

800 R. Mayzer et al.

Copyright of Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.