Methodological and developmental issues in the assessment of adjudicative competence

Recent changes in the nature of juvenile crime and in the legal system's response to juvenile crime have highlighted the developmental, legal, and methodological complexities surrounding the assessment of juvenile adjudicative competence. In the absence of juvenile-specific case law regarding the assessment and definition of adjudicative competence, current forensic practice with juveniles has focused on adult-oriented legal standards and assessment modalities and has failed to consider the cognitive, emotional, and environmental factors which may uniquely characterize and/or constrain adolescent competence in legal contexts.;In light of the practical significance of deficits in the extant knowledge base, the current research was conducted to (1) empirically extend adult legal standards and measures of adjudicative competence to juveniles in order to assess the utility and psychometric integrity of such practices, (2) explore the relevance of extant theoretical formulations of the determinants of adjudicative competence in adults and adolescents (e.g. Scott, Reppucci & Woolard, 1995) by examining the relation between adjudicative competence and ancillary measures of emotions, beliefs, and cognitive capacity, and (3) address concerns regarding the psycholegal implications of the de facto extension of adult standards for juvenile adjudicative competence by assessing the relations among developmental status, competence, and these developmentally-sensitive intra-individual factors.;The results of this study elucidate the nature of adjudicative competence and judgment in adolescents and adults, provide important information for juvenile justice personnel and forensic psychologists and psychiatrists involved in the evaluation of juvenile adjudicative competence, and inform public policy relevant to juvenile justice and to juvenile mental health law. Specifically, this study (1) documented the reliability and validity of the MacCAT-CA in assessing adjudicative competence among juveniles and adults, and (2) highlighted the robust association between competence and intelligence.