2024, Vol. 24, No.

1
ISSN 1667-4545 Revista Evaluar
Laboratorio de Evaluación Psicológica y Educativa

Recuperado de https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/revaluar
Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba

2024
VOL 24 - N°1
ISSN 1667-4545

Laboratorio de Evaluación Psicológica y Educativa

Facultad de Psicología - Universidad Nacional de Córdoba

Psychosocial Maturity assessment on juvenile justice: A content

validity analysis of a novel tool
Evaluación de la Madurez Psicosocial en Justicia Juvenil:
Análisis de la validez de contenido de una herramienta novedosa

Elena Palacios-van Isschot 1 , Karin Arbach * 2 , Antonio Andrés-Pueyo 1

Introduction
1 - Departamento de Psicología Clínica y Psicobiología, Universidad de Barcelona. Barcelona, España. Method
2 - Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas Results
y Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Córdoba, Argentina. Discussion
References
Recibido: 27/11/2023 Revisado: 10/12/2023 Aceptado: 14/12/2023

Abstract Resumen

Psychosocial maturity (PM) is a potential factor La madurez psicosocial (MP) es un factor potencial
influencing adolescent decision making and a wide range que influye en la toma de decisiones de los adolescentes y
of social and interpersonal behaviors in adolescents. The su comportamiento social e interpersonal. El estudio actual
current study represents an initial effort to design a new representa un primer paso para diseñar una nueva prueba de
psychosocial maturity test suitable for assessing this con- madurez psicosocial adecuada para evaluar este constructo
struct in the forensic context and juvenile justice settings. en el contexto forense y en entornos de justicia juvenil. Su
Its aim is to establish content validity for a novel assess- objetivo es establecer la validez de contenido para una nue-
ment tool. After a literature review, 38 items were selected va herramienta de evaluación. Después de una revisión de la
from various existing specific tests and protocols, and 41 literatura, se seleccionaron 38 ítems de diversas medidas y
experts were instructed to conduct a content validity analy- protocolos específicos existentes y se instruyó a 41 expertos
sis on them. Content Validity Index results show that 92% para llevar a cabo un análisis de validez de contenido. Los
of the items were classified by experts as representative to resultados del Índice de Validez de Contenido muestran que
the construct, and Factorial Validity Index results show that el 92% de los ítems analizados fueron clasificados por los
experts associated 79% of the items with the correct com- expertos como representativos del constructo, y los resulta-
ponent of the construct according to theoretical criteria. In dos del Índice de Validez Factorial muestran que los expertos
conclusion, the majority of items were found to be repre- asociaron el 79% de los ítems al constructo propuesto. En
sentative of the construct and of their individual compo- conclusión, la mayoría de los ítems se consideraron repre-
nents, providing a valid foundation for the development of sentativos del constructo y de sus componentes individuales,
a new PM assessment tool. In this study the relevance and proporcionando una buena base para desarrollar una herra-
implications of the results for judicial tasks are discussed. mienta de evaluación de la MP. Se plantea la relevancia e
implicaciones de los resultados en las tareas judiciales.

Keywords: psychosocial maturity, juvenile justice, expert Palabras clave: madurez psicosocial, justicia juvenil, juicio
judges, content validity, psychological assessment de expertos, validez de contenido, evaluación psicológica

*Correspondence to: Dra. Karin Arbach. Boulevard de la Reforma. Facultad de Psicología, Box B9. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. CP 5000.
E-mail: k_arbach@unc.edu.ar. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1753-4693
How to cite: Palacios-van Isschot, E., Arbach, A., & Andrés-Pueyo, A., (2024): Psychosocial Maturity assessment on juvenile justice: A content validity
analysis of a novel tool. Revista Evaluar, 24(1), 14-27. Retrieved from https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/revaluar
Participaron en la edición de este artículo: Stefano Macri, Eugenia Barrionuevo, Florencia Ruiz, Jorge Bruera.
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
15

Introduction influenced by cognitive, emotional and social

factors (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). PM con-
Diminished capacity, resulting from imma- sists of three fundamental components: temper-
turity, is relevant for criminal court decisions, in ance, perspective and responsibility. Temperance
particular those related to the antisocial behavior denotes “the capacity to limit impulsivity, avoid
of adolescents and other legal questions (Riggs- extremes in decision-making, evaluate a situa-
Romaine, 2018; Wakeling & Barnett, 2017). tion thoroughly and to seek advice before acting”
Despite the growing demand from forensic psy- (p.745; Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000). Then, per-
chologists, the development of tools designed spective involves recognizing the complexity of
to assess maturity in the context of juvenile jus- a situation and making decisions within a larger
tice has received limited attention (Wakeling & context (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). Finally,
Barnett, 2017). The existing research on maturity responsibility represents the ability to be in charge
has predominantly focused on cognitive differenc- of one’s behavior and to resist peer influences,
es between adolescent and adult judgment, while and encompasses three subcomponents: autono-
the role of social environment, and its interaction my, work orientation and identity (Cauffman &
with personal characteristics has been poorly de- Steinberg, 2000).
veloped (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). This issue Studies have demonstrated that PM offers a
requires attention because cognitive development promising explanation for the process of avoiding
results not only from the maturation process or criminal behavior during late adolescence and ear-
independent interaction with the outside world but ly adulthood, known as desistance (Monahan et
also from direct exposure to the world (Narváez- al., 2009; Rocque et al., 2019). Differences in PM
Burbano & Obando-Guerrero, 2023). predict decision-making abilities, independently
The scarcity of research on the role of the from age or gender (Riggs-Romaine, 2018) in
social environment is a critical concern, given potentially antisocial situations. This compelling
that adolescents attain biological maturity before empirical evidence has sparked interest in the de-
achieving social and emotional maturity, thus giv- velopment of a tool for the assessment of young
ing rise to a pronounced “maturity gap” (Belsky offenders’ PM through their transition into early
et al., 2020; Cavanagh, 2022; Moffitt, 1993, 2003; adulthood (Steinberg et al., 2015). The opera-
Ozkan & Worrall, 2017). This disparity is nota- tionalization of this construct into a measurable
bly prevalent in life-course persistent offenders, instrument carries significant implications for var-
who deal with neurological deficits that impede ious facets within the domain of juvenile justice.
the maturation processes related to self-regu- As of today, the juvenile justice system has
lation (Moffitt, 2003; Ozkan & Worrall, 2017). yet to implement essential measures aimed at fos-
Consequently, research in this area has not been tering the healthy development of adolescents, de-
sufficiently comprehensive. spite its primary mission of rehabilitating youth
A more constructive approach for the as- (Cavanagh, 2022). Research has demonstrated
sessment of maturity in juvenile justice settings that, in legal proceedings involving young offend-
emerges with the concept of psychosocial matu- ers, the legal aspects of their cases tend to carry
rity (PM) (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996), which more weight in influencing court decisions, com-
represents maturity of judgment. It refers to the pared to factors related to mental health or matu-
complex process of individual decision-making rity (Cauffman et al., 2007; Lambie & Randell,
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
16

2013). Nonetheless, adolescents are inherently lescents navigating legal proceedings (Wenger &
disadvantaged in comparison to adults when they Andres-Pueyo, 2016).
are faced with choices in antisocial settings, pri- In previous studies, the assessment of PM
marily because they have a limited capacity to ful- has commonly relied on pre-existing measures
ly grasp the consequences of their actions. Studies that have been validated for similar constructs.
indicate that the incarceration of adolescents can To illustrate, assessments of responsibility have
negatively impact their psychosocial develop- frequently drawn from the Psychosocial Maturity
ment. This impact occurs as incarceration reduces Inventory (PSMI, Greenberger et al., 1975),
their opportunities for typical social experiences, while evaluations of temperance have leaned
disrupts their contact with important social influ- on the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI,
ences, and increases their interactions with peers Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990), whereas perspec-
engaged in antisocial behavior. Consequently, this tive has been explored using the Consideration of
increases the likelihood of adolescents engaging Future Consequences Scale (CFC, Strathman et
in further delinquent activities (Cavanagh, 2022). al., 1994), as seen in consulted studies (Cauffman
The implementation of a tool for the assess- & Steinberg, 2000; Pailing & Reniers, 2018;
ment of PM holds significant potential for aug- Riggs-Romaine, 2018).
menting the effectiveness of forensic procedures Nevertheless, the pursuit of a single val-
and judicial decision-making. This innovative in- id and reliable assessment measure, specifically
strument would empower the legal system to tai- tailored for evaluating PM within the juvenile
lor punitive measures and judgments precisely to justice context, remains an ongoing challenge. In
the specific levels of maturity displayed by each response to this gap in the literature and guided by
offender, thereby heralding a new era in the pur- the authors’ definitions and a comprehensive lit-
suit of justice. Moreover, such a tool would play erature review, a selection of 38 items was drawn
an essential role in mitigating the potential ad- from existing measures to aptly represent the PM
verse effects of incarceration on the mental health construct. Given the frequent concern about po-
and psychosocial development of young individ- tential misalignment between the data acquired
uals (Cavanagh, 2022; Lambie & Randell, 2013). from the instrument’s application and the intri-
At the professional practice level, the appli- cate reality it seeks to encapsulate (Expósito et al.,
cation of this instrument would markedly enhance 2023), several practicing forensic psychologists
the precision of diagnostic processes and facilitate were engaged to participate in a content validity
the design of interventions targeted at adolescents analysis of this newly devised assessment tool.
at risk, thereby promoting effective prevention Conducting a content validity study is cru-
strategies. Notably, this endeavor aspires to cre- cial, especially when no existing measure is avail-
ate a novel assessment tool for PM tailored to the able to operationalize the construct in question
Spanish-speaking population, and aims to make (Rubio et al., 2003). Commencing such a study
it readily accessible to juvenile justice profes- is essential to prevent extensive revisions during
sionals in Latin America and Spain, where lim- testing and to ensure the representativeness of its
ited reviews are available regarding assessment content (Almanasreh et al., 2019). Consequently,
tools for the juvenile justice context. In the long the primary objective of this investigation was to
term, the availability of such an instrument would conduct a thorough content validity assessment
prove highly advantageous for the numerous ado- for the 38 selected items derived from prior re-
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
17

search. The study’s specific objectives were de- Recruitment process

lineated as follows:
O1. To assess, through the expert judgment The recruitment of experts for this study was
of authorities in the field, the extent to which meticulously organized, tailored to each expert
each item effectively represents the PM construct group, and conducted with a focus on transparen-
(Construct representativeness). cy and clarity.
O2. To assess, via expert judgment, the Group 1. Experts from this group received
degree to which each item represents a specif- personalized invitations via email. These invita-
ic component of the PM construct (Component tions contained essential background information
representativeness). about the study, along with a URL link to ac-
cess the survey. Participants in this group were
provided with comprehensive definitions of the
Method components of the construct under examination
Participants and detailed instructions for the content validity
analysis.
The selection of experts for this study was Group 2. Experts in this group were invited
based on rigorous criteria encompassing qualifi- to participate during an online course focused on
cations, substantial experience, clinical expertise Psychosocial Maturity (PM), which was led by the
and relevant training. Content validity analyses authors A.A. and E.P. The course included an in-
typically recommend a minimum of three experts depth presentation on the PM model, as proposed
for such assessments (Lynn, 1986), although some by Cauffman and Steinberg (2000). Subsequently,
suggest involving as many as twenty experts for members of this group were also sent personal-
robust evaluations (Almanasreh et al., 2019). To ized email invitations, mirroring the information
ensure comprehensive evaluation, we assembled provided to Group 1, to access the survey.
three distinct groups of experts, with a total of Group 3. Experts in this group were invit-
41 participants. These experts were invited to as- ed via a representative from the Association of
sess and qualify the items comprising the scale Forensic Psychology (APF), who directly provid-
by participating in an online survey administered ed them with the URL link to access the survey.
through the Qualtrics platform. The expert groups Unlike Groups 1 and 2, experts from Group 3
were defined as follows: did not receive any contextual information about
the study. Their survey access was restricted to
Group 1: Comprising 14 researchers affiliat- the instructions and definitions required for the
ed with the University of Barcelona, with special- analysis.
ized expertise in the field of Forensic Psychology. This approach was carefully designed to en-
Group 2: Comprising 19 Forensic sure that all expert groups could participate while
Psychologists employed by the Spanish Ministry considering their specific contexts and informa-
of Justice. tion needs.
Group 3: Comprising 8 individuals who
are members of the Association of Forensic
Psychology (APF) and work within the
Administration of Justice in Spain.
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
18

Procedure and materials Responsibility. The responsibility compo-

nent was represented through items sourced from
To select items for our assessment, we con- the PSYMAS. This tool was selected due to its
ducted an extensive review of prior studies on specific and contemporary nature compared to the
PM. This review identified the most commonly traditionally employed PSMI. The PSYMAS mod-
utilized scales and instruments in the existing lit- el, based on the individual adequacy component
erature, including: (1) the Weinberger Adjustment of the PSMI, comprises the same three subcom-
Inventory (WAI) developed by Weinberger and ponents that define responsibility in the Cauffman
Schwartz (1990), (2) the Consideration of Future and Steinberg PM model (2000): Autonomy (or
Consequences Scale (CFC) by Strathman et al. self-reliance), Identity and Work orientation.
(1994), (3) the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory This approach ensured that the preliminary
(PSMI) by Greenberger et al. (1975) and (4) the version encompassed relevant items to accu-
Psychological Maturity Scale for Adolescents rately represent the fundamental components of
(PSYMAS), as introduced by Morales-Vives et al. PM, by the use of validated instruments from the
(2013). This initial literature review served as the literature.
foundation for the creation of a preliminary ques-
tionnaire, titled the MAYAS (Wenger-Amengual,
2018), comprising 38 items. Preliminary prevision
Each of the 38 items underwent a complete
semantic and syntactic revision, based on the orig- In the current study, a comprehensive renew-
inal items extracted from the WAI, CFC, PSMI al of the pilot protocol of the MAYAS (Wenger-
and PSYMAS scales mentioned above. Amengual, 2018) was undertaken, resulting in the
creation of the “Psychological Maturity Test for
Adolescents in a Forensic Context” (PMTAFC).
Item selection for preliminary version This revision process involved two critical steps
to ensure the comprehensive representation of the
In the development of the preliminary ver- PM construct.
sion of the questionnaire, we took a structured 1. Literature Review and Item
approach to represent the key components of PM. Categorization: Firstly, an additional review
Temperance. This component was rep- of specialized literature was conducted to facil-
resented by items drawn from both the Impulse itate a systematic categorization of the items.
Control and the Consideration of Others subscales This categorization was instrumental in ensuring
of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI) that every facet of the PM construct was thor-
developed by Weinberger and Schwartz (1990). oughly and appropriately represented. Each item
Perspective. To capture the perspec- was systematically associated with its original
tive component, we utilized items from the source, whether it originated from the Weinberger
Consideration of Future Consequences Scale Adjustment Inventory (WAI) by Weinberger and
(CFC) by Strathman et al. (1994). Additionally, Schwartz (1990), the Consideration of Future
we incorporated items from the Consideration of Consequences Scale (CFC) by Strathman et al.
Others scale of the WAI (Weinberger & Schwartz, (1994) or the Psychological Maturity Assessment
1990). Scale (PSYMAS) by Morales-Vives et al. (2013).
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
19

2. Theoretical Assignment and Task 2: Component Representativeness

Assessment: Subsequently, each item was theoret- (O2) - Experts who provided an affirmative re-
ically linked to one of the components of the PM sponse in Task 1 (yes) were subsequently directed
construct. This association allowed for a compre- to Task 2. Here, their role was to determine the
hensive evaluation of each item’s comprehensibil- specific component of the PM construct that they
ity, scope, and accurate translation from English believed each item was assessing. The available
to Spanish (through a back-translation process). components for selection included (1) autonomy,
To address potential gaps in the representation of (2) identity, (3) work orientation, (4) temperance
the perspective component, several items from the or (5) perspective.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) developed by This structured evaluation process enabled
Davis (1980) were incorporated. Moreover, the the experts to provide their valuable assessments,
vocabulary and syntactic structure of all items in contributing to a comprehensive appraisal of the
this revised draft (PMTAFC) were thoughtfully PMTAFC items.
adapted to optimize comprehension for Spanish-
speaking adolescents.
In summation, the scale being examined in Data Analysis
this study represents an enhanced iteration of the
MAYAS, now referred to as PMTAFC. This re- To evaluate the representativeness of each
vision process significantly improved the transla- item within the PM construct, we have employed
tion, comprehensibility, and the overall represen- the Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) and the
tativeness of each component. Scale-Content Validity Index (S-CVI), as outlined
by Lynn (1986). The Content Validity Index (CVI)
stands as one of the most widely used tools for
Expert assessment protocol assessing content validity, determining whether
individual items (I-CVI) and the instrument as a
With a panel of experts in place, a methodi- whole (S-CVI) accurately represent the construct
cal process was implemented to solicit their eval- (Yang & Chang, 2008). A minimum threshold val-
uations of the PMTAFC items. This assessment ue of (I-CVI ≥ .78) was established, signifying
involved the experts’ completion of a specialized excellent construct representativeness based on
form, designed to guide their analysis through expert input (Polit et al., 2007). It’s important to
two distinct tasks. note that the CVI can be affected by the number
Task 1: Construct Representativeness of reviewers, with an increase in reviewers poten-
(O1) - In the initial task, experts were presented tially leading to a decrease in the CVI (Rubio et
with a fundamental question: Is the item repre- al., 2003).
sentative of the psychosocial maturity construct? The S-CVI plays a pivotal role in enhanc-
Their responses were sought using a binary re- ing the construct validity of an instrument. In
sponse system, allowing them to choose be- this study, we set a minimum threshold value of
tween yes or no. This task served as a crucial (S-CVI ≥ .80), denoting excellent scale content
step to gauge the overall representativeness of validity (Polit et al., 2007).
the construct.
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
20

Factorial Validity Index (FVI) ness (I-CVI ≥ .90), with a remarkable 26% of
items obtaining complete consensus among the
The Factorial Validity Index (FVI) works experts (I-CVI = 1.00).
as a valuable tool for the initial quantification Group 2 exhibited a similar trend, with 92%
of factorial validity, in line with the methodol- of the items meeting the criteria for construct rep-
ogy described by Rubio et al. (2003). It is in- resentativeness (I-CVI ≥ .78). Among these items,
strumental in determining the extent to which 50% reached an exceptional level of relevance
experts have appropriately assigned items to the (I-CVI ≥ .90) and 32% achieved unanimous ex-
correct component of the PM construct, guided pert endorsement (I-CVI = 1.00).
by well-established theoretical criteria (Cauffman In contrast, Group 3 presented a slightly
& Steinberg, 2000; Morales-Vives et al., 2013; lower percentage, with 61% of the items con-
Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996; Strathman et al., sidered construct representative (I-CVI ≥ .78).
1994; Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). The calcu- Nevertheless, this group stood out with a remark-
lation of this index involves dividing the number able 53% of items receiving unanimous approval
of experts who accurately associated each item from the experts (I-CVI = 1.00), marking it as the
with its designated component by the total num- group with the most extreme scores.
ber of expert respondents, following the approach When aggregating the assessments from
outlined by Rubio et al. (2003). all three expert groups, a substantial 92% of the
One noteworthy aspect of the FVI is that, items demonstrated construct representativeness
as a relatively new index, there is no existing cri- (I-CVI ≥ .78). Among these, 45% achieved a very
terion to determine the ideal level of attainment high level of relevance (I-CVI ≥ .90), with 21%
(Rubio et al., 2003). In this study, we established of the items securing unanimous expert consensus
a minimum threshold value of (FVI ≥ .70). This (I-CVI = 1.00) (Table 1).
decision was made with consideration for the im-
pact of the number of experts on the likelihood
of agreement among them, known that a higher Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI)
number of experts may lead to greater variance in
assessments. In alignment with the lack of estab- The combined assessment by all three ex-
lished criteria for this index, this threshold was pert groups resulted in an overall Scale Content
set to ensure a reasonable standard of agreement. Validity Index (S-CVI) of .89. This unified index
reflects a shared agreement among experts that
Results the questionnaire effectively covers the various
Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) aspects of the PM construct.
Remarkably, Group 2 demonstrated strong
Our analysis of the Item Content Validity consensus, contributing to a robust S-CVI of
Index (I-CVI) yielded interesting insights based .92. This underscores their collective belief in
on expert assessments within each of the three the questionnaire’s ability to comprehensively
groups. In Group 1, a substantial 89% of the items represent the intricate facets of PM. In contrast,
were deemed representative of the PM construct Group 1 and Group 3 displayed similar levels
(I-CVI ≥ .78). Within this group, 50% of the items of agreement, achieving a commendable S-CVI
achieved a notably high level of representative- of .89. This confirms the questionnaire’s overall
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
21

Table 1
Percentage of items classified by range of I-CVI values for each group.
I-CVI All groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
=1 21% 26% 32% 53%
.90 - .99 24% 24% 18% 0%
≥ .90 45% 50% 50% 53%
≥ .78 92% 89% 92% 61%
< .78 8% 11% 8% 39%
Note. I-CVI = Item-content validity index.

suitability for portraying the complexities of the In Group 1, an impressive 84% of items
PM construct. were correctly linked to their respective com-
These findings reiterate the robustness of ponents of the PM construct (FVI ≥ .70). Group
the PM questionnaire, serving as a dependable 2, while still proficient, associated 76% of items
and valid tool to evaluate PM from the vantage correctly (FVI ≥ .70). Group 3, though slightly
points of diverse expert cohorts. The collective lower in accuracy, successfully connected 58% of
S-CVI underscores the questionnaire’s potential items with their correct components (FVI ≥ .70).
to encapsulate the multifaceted dimensions of When we consider the evaluations from all three
the PM construct, which offers a valuable in- groups, a substantial 79% of items were accurate-
strument for research and practical applications ly associated with the PM construct’s components
within the field. (FVI ≥ .70). Additionally, about 26% of the items
achieved an even higher level of consensus, with
an FVI of ≥ .90, signifying a strong alignment
Factorial Validity Index (FVI) among experts.
To gain a more detailed insight into these
The Factorial Validity Index (FVI) plays associations and their connection to specific PM
a pivotal role in assessing the questionnaire’s components, Table 3 presents an in-depth break-
ability to correctly link items with the various down of both the CVI and FVI scores at the item
components of the PM construct. The results, level. This categorization is organized in a de-
as displayed in Table 2, offer a comprehensive scending order, providing a closer examination
overview of these associations among the three of how each item aligns with the various compo-
expert groups. nents of the PM construct.

Table 2
Percentage of items classified by range of FVI values for every group.
FVI All groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
=1 5% 16% 23% 24%
.90 - .99 21% 24% 13% 0%
≥ .90 26% 26% 26% 18%
≥ .70 79% 84% 76% 58%
< .70 21% 16% 24% 42%
Note. FVI: Factorial validity index.
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
22

Table 3
PMTAFC structure and item- and scale-content validity indexes at the item-level.
Items CVI FVI
RESPONSIBILITY (Responsabilidad)
Autonomy (autonomia)
Me gusta tomar mis propias decisiones.a 100.00% 97.50%
Necesito consultar con mis amigos antes de tomar una decisión.a 95.12% 87.18%
Creo que mis decisiones son incorrectas cuando a mis amigos no les gustan.a 95.12% 84.62%
Antes de comprarme ropa u otras cosas para mí, consulto con mis amigos. a
90.00% 83.33%
Me siento incómodo cuando mi opinión es diferente a la de mis amigos. a
87.80% 80.56%

Identity (identidad)
Creo que me conozco bastante bien.a 100.00% 100.00%
Tengo claro lo que me interesa.a
100.00% 60.98%
Siento que los demás me valora y me aceptan. a
87.50% 88.57%
Soy capaz de hacer muchas cosas bien.a 87.18% 76.47%
Muchas veces pretendo ser alguien que no soy.a 85.37% 97.14%
Siento que mi vida no tiene mucho sentido. a
73.32% 93.33%

Work Orientation (Orientación al trabajo)

Siempre termino mis deberes y responsabilidades antes de dedicarme a las actividades que 100.00% 92.50%
me gustan (videojuegos, ver amigos, hacer deporte, etc).a
Siempre hago lo que toca y cumplo con mis obligaciones.a 100.00% 90.24%
Casi nunca me retraso en cumplir con mis obligaciones.a 100.00% 87.80%
Me esfuerzo por conseguir buenos resultados, aunque sean a largo plazo.c 100.00% 78.05%
Cuando una tarea me requiere mucho esfuerzo o tiempo, me cuesta acabarla. a
85.37% 80.56%
Paso de una cosa a otra sin acabar ninguna. a
85.37% 74.29%
Si ahora no me esfuerzo lo suficiente, ya lo arreglare más adelante.c
80.49% 57.58%

TEMPERANCE (Templanza)
Generalmente soy una persona controlada y no suelo perder los nervios.b 97.57% 97.50%
Aunque alguien me haga daño, no intento vengarme. b
90.00% 83.33%
Me porto bien, incluso con las personas que no me gusta.b 86.84% 57.58%
Cuando me enfado me dejo llevar, sin importarme nadie ni nada.b 85.37% 94.29%
Solo pienso en el resultado inmediato de mis acciones. c
85.37% 57.89%
Intento ser agradable, incluso con alguien que me ponga nervioso y me irrite. b
82.92% 82.35%
Trato bien a la gente, incluso la que no me cae bien. b
82.93% 53.00%
El que me haga enfadar debería tener cuidado conmigo.b 78.05% 96.88%

PERSPECTIVE (Perspectiva)
Casi todas las cosas se pueden ver desde dos puntos de vista y siempre intento considerar 100.00% 95.00%
ambos.d
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
23

Items CVI FVI

Cuando tomo una decisión pienso en cómo me podría afectar en el futuro. c
100.00% 92.86%
Intento que todo lo que hago ahora me sirva para el futuro.c 100.00% 80.49%
Solo atiendo a mis preocupaciones actuales, los problemas futuros ya se arreglarán.c 85.37% 80%
Para entender mejor a mis amigos me imagino cómo ven las cosas desde su perspectiva.d 92.68% 89.47%
Me preocupo más por los problemas de cada día que de los que puedan venir en el futuro.c 90.24% 72.97%
Pensar ahora en los problemas que me traerá el futuro no sirve de nada, es perder el tiempo.c 87.80% 83.33%
Muchas veces hago cosas que tardan mucho tiempo en dar resultados.c 87.80% 63.89%
Evito herir los sentimientos de los demás.b 87.80% 58.33%
Me cuesta ver las cosas desde el punto de vista de los demás. d
85.37% 88.57%
No soy de los que ayudan a los demás. b
67.50% 65.38%
No suelo hacer esfuerzos por los demás. b
62.50% 76.00%
Note. Item sources: a PSYMAS (Morales-Vives et al., 2013); b WAI (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990); c CFC (Strathman et
al., 1994); d IRI (Davis; 1980). The English version can be found here.

Discussion of a new measurement instrument comprising

38 items, each with the potential to assess PM.
In the domain of criminal justice, the pro- Our mission has two dimensions: O1). Construct
cess of desisting from criminal behavior during representativeness: to assess the extent to which
the transition from late adolescence to early adult- these items genuinely capture the essence of the
hood has long piqued the curiosity of scholars and PM construct, and O2). Component representa-
practitioners (Monahan et al., 2009; Rocque et al., tiveness: to scrutinize their alignment with the
2019). This critical juncture can lead individuals specific components that define PM.
to diverge from a life of crime or continue along a This novel study seeks to shed light on the
perilous path. It’s in this context that the concept transformative potential of the PM construct with-
of PM has surfaced as a beacon of understanding in the landscape of juvenile justice. Its implica-
and potential in the realm of juvenile justice. tions go beyond the academic realm; they hold
Think of PM as a versatile tool, one that not the power to make a real-world impact, shaping
only enhances diagnostic precision but also facil- the future of justice for our youth.
itates the creation of tailored interventions for ad-
olescents navigating the complexities of maturity.
It can serve as a guiding compass for judges, illu- Construct representativeness (I-CVI and S-CVI)
minating the path to fair and informed decisions.
Moreover, it acts as a protective shield against the The findings regarding construct representa-
potential negative effects of incarceration, ensur- tiveness (I-CVI and S-CVI) are a resounding affir-
ing that it doesn’t hinder psychosocial maturation mation of the content validity of these items. The
but rather supports it (Cavanagh, 2022; Lambie & consensus among the three expert groups is clear:
Randell, 2013). the majority of items and the scale as a whole are
This paper embarks on a journey of ex- a robust representation of the PM construct. Items
ploration, which delves into the content validity that received a content validity index (I-CVI) of
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
24

.78 or higher, are deemed as strong indicators of ly associated with their respective components.
content validity (Polit et al., 2007). The interest- Group 2 exhibited a commendable level of align-
ing part is that when we compared the respons- ment, with roughly three-quarters of items accu-
es of the three groups, we noticed a remarkable rately matched. Otherwise , Group 3 appeared to
degree of agreement between Groups 1 and 2. demonstrate a somewhat lower level of precision,
They were mostly on the same page when it came with only around three-fifths of the items correct-
to the representativeness of the items. Group 3, ly linked to their components.
however, provided more varied responses. A sig- When aggregating the results across the
nificant number of items received unanimous en- groups, it is evident that more than three-quarters
dorsement from experts (I-CVI = 1), while others of the items harmoniously matched with their des-
scored lower. ignated components. While this outcome may be
The divergence in responses among the viewed favorably, especially considering the sub-
groups can be attributed to the variance in infor- stantial number of experts involved, several criti-
mation provided to each. Groups 1 and 2, armed cal factors merit discussion, particularly regarding
with a more profound comprehension of the PM Group 3’s performance.
construct, demonstrated heightened consensus on To begin with, it should be noted that the
the relevance of items. Conversely, Group 3, oper- definitions provided for each component, albeit
ating with comparatively less contextual informa- consistent with the original author’s terminology
tion, adopted a more cautious stance in assessing (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996), may have lacked
item relevance. This underscores the pivotal role the depth necessary for experts to effectively dis-
of clear and comprehensive definitions, particu- criminate between them in the context of Task 2
larly for experts utilizing the assessment tool. (O2. Represented component). It is evident that
meticulously crafted definitions can substantially
enhance the capacity of experts to discern between
Component representativeness (FVI) the various components. The superior FVI results
observed in Groups 1 and 2 could be attributed to
When considering the alignment of items the additional contextual information and training
with the specific components of the PM construct pertaining to the PM construct that they received,
(FVI), a more nuanced narrative emerges com- emphasizing the pivotal role of specialized train-
pared to the robust CVI outcomes. However, giv- ing for both experts and prospective users who
en the substantial number of expert assessments, will administer the measure.
it is noteworthy that approximately three-quar- Moreover, the inherent similarity shared
ters of the items, as evaluated across all groups, among the components of the construct poses a
demonstrated accurate alignment with their re- formidable challenge when seeking items that
spective components. This outcome is deemed exclusively represent each distinct facet. For in-
satisfactory, taking into account the collective stance, take into consideration the following item
perspectives of experts. of our scale, “Often I engage in a particular be-
An analysis of the results on a group-by- havior in order to achieve outcomes that may not
group basis unveils some intriguing patterns. result for many years” [Me esfuerzo por conseguir
Group 1, for instance, showcased a robust align- buenos resultados, aunque sean a largo plazo]
ment, with over four-fifths of the items correct- (CFC, Strathman et al., 1994), which delves into
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
25

the attainment of long-term outcomes. This item Conclusions

encompasses elements of perspective by evalu-
ating long-term consequences, ventures into the The concept of PM is pivotal within the
domain of temperance by probing the capacity to context of managing adolescents involved in le-
defer immediate gratification, and even extends gal proceedings and facilities. To be effective in
into the realm of work orientation, which con- the forensic and judicial context, PM needs to be
stitutes a sub-component of responsibility, by accurately framed and assessed. The PM construct
assessing the sense of pride derived from task offers a promising framework, honing in on ad-
accomplishment. Items that garnered relative- olescents’ decision-making capabilities and their
ly lower FVI scores are currently undergoing influence on behavior. The validation of a PM as-
refinement to yield a more precise reflection of sessment tool holds substantial value for adoles-
each individual component. cents navigating legal procedures within the juve-
Lastly, it is imperative to acknowledge that nile justice system. It not only stands to enhance
the PM construct’s interdependent components the precision of court decisions but also facilitates
have not evolved in a uniform manner. Among tailored clinical interventions.
these components, responsibility stands out as it Drawing from the findings of this study,
features well-defined sub-components, such as it is evident that a substantial portion of the 38
autonomy, identity and work orientation. To fa- items proposed for a valid self-report assessment
cilitate a more equitable and comprehensive mea- of PM in adolescents successfully aligns with the
surement, there may arise a necessity to establish core PM construct and its individual components.
specific sub-components for temperance and per- This achievement is a significant step toward the
spective. This could facilitate the realization of creation of a comprehensive measurement instru-
more uniformly structured measurement catego- ment. In the subsequent phase of our study, we
ries. The operative definitions of PM, as currently will embark on a confirmatory factor analysis to
implemented, may not furnish the level of com- delve into the intricate relationships between the
prehensive assessment essential to holistically en- sub-components of the construct, furthering our
capsulate the PM construct, echoing the earlier in- quest for a nuanced understanding of PM.
sights posited by Cauffman and Steinberg (2000). The robust content validation outcomes un-
In short, despite the overwhelming major- derscore the potential transformative influence of
ity of the 38 items manifesting relevance to the PM assessments on the juvenile justice landscape.
PM construct, items that exhibited diminished This journey holds the promise of empowering
performance in terms of CVI and FVI will under- professionals, streamlining interventions, and
go meticulous revision or potential elimination. paving the way for more equitable and well-in-
In anticipation, a confirmatory factor analysis formed decisions within the realm of adolescent
will be performed as a net step for this PMTAFC, legal proceedings. As we move forward in this
promising insights into the organizational dynam- mission, the anticipation for the positive change
ics of these components, thereby contributing to that validated PM assessment tools can bring to
the continued maturation of the PM construct’s the lives of young individuals within the justice
theoretical model. system remains high.
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
26

References Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of

content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-386.
Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. F. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
Evaluation of methods used for estimating content Moffitt, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct dis-
validity. Research in Social and Administrative order. Development and Psychopathology, 5 (1-2),
Pharmacy, 15(2), 214-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 135-151. https://doi:10.1017/S0954579400004302
sapharm.2018.03.066 Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course persistent and adoles-
Belsky, J., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Poulton, R. (2020). cence-limited antisocial behavior. In B. B. Lahey,
The origins of you: How childhood shapes later life. T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of Conduct
Harvard University Press. Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency (pp. 49-75). The
Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judg- Guilford Press.
ment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey,
culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, E. P. (2009). Trajectories of antisocial behavior and
18(6), 741-760. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.416 psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young
Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Kimonis, E., Steinberg, L., adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1654-
Chassin, L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Legal, individual, 1668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015862
and environmental predictors of court disposition Morales-Vives, F., Camps, E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013).
in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Law Development and validation of the Psychological
and Human Behavior, 31(6), 519-535. https://doi. Maturity Assessment Scale (PSYMAS). European
org/10.1007/s10979-006-9076-2 Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(1), 12-18.
Cavanagh, C. (2022). Healthy adolescent development and https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000115
the juvenile justice system: Challenges and solutions. Narváez-Burbano, J. H., & Obando-Guerrero, L. M.
Child Development Perspectives, 16(3), 141-147. ht- (2023). Construcción y validación de la Escala de
tps://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12461 Exposición a Factores de Deprivación Sociocultural
Davis, M. H. (1980). Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (EXFADESO). Revista Evaluar, 23(1), 27-39. https://
[Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi. doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v23.n1.41006
org/10.1037/t01093-000 Ozkan, T., & Worrall, J. L. (2017). A psychoso-
Expósito, C. D., Marsollier, R. G., Difabio, H. E., & Castro- cial test of the Maturity Gap Thesis. Criminal
Santander, A. (2023). Construcción y validación del Justice and Behavior, 44(6), 815-842. https://doi.
Cuestionario de Acoso y Ciberacoso Escolar (CACE) org/10.1177/0093854817694924
mediante juicio de expertos. Revista Evaluar, 23(1), Pailing, A. N., & Reniers, R. L. E. P. (2018). Depressive
61-79. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v23. and socially anxious symptoms, psychosocial maturi-
n1.41014 ty, and risk perception: Associations with risk-taking
Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr, B. behaviour. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202423. https://doi.
(1975). The measurement and structure of psycho- org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202423
social maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI
4(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537437 an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal
Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarcer- and recommendations. Research in Nursing &
ation on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Health, 30(4), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Review, 33(3), 448-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nur.20199
cpr.2013.01.007 Riggs-Romaine, C. L. (2018). Psychosocial maturi-
 Palacios-van Isschot et al., Evaluar, 2024, 24(1), 14-27
27

ty and risk-taking in emerging adults: Extending ers. Papeles del Psicólogo, 37(2), 89-106. https://
our understanding beyond delinquency. psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-31958-002
Emerging Adulthood, 7(4), 243-257. https://doi. Wenger-Amengual, L. S. (2018). Comportamiento an-
org/10.1177/2167696818768013 tisocial, personalidad y madurez en adolescentes
Rocque, M., Beckley, A. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). y jóvenes (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Psychosocial maturation, race, and desistance from Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.net/2445/127229
crime. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(7), 1403- Yang, Y.-T. C., & Chan, C.-Y. (2008). Comprehensive
1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01029-8 evaluation criteria for English learning web-
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., sites using expert validity surveys. Computers &
& Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Education, 51(1), 403-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Conducting a content validity study in social work re- compedu.2007.05.011
search. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94-104. https://
doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94
Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Monahan, K. C. (2015).
Psychosocial maturity and desistance from crime
in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin. US Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov
Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment
in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent
decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3),
249-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499023
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards,
C. S. (1994). The consideration of future conse-
quences: Weighing immediate and distant out-
comes of behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66(4), 742-752. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
Wakeling, H., & Barnett, G. (2017). Development and vali-
dation of a screening assessment of psychosocial ma-
turity for adult males convicted of crime (Analytical
summary). HM Prison & Probation Service. https://
www.gov.uk
Weinberger, D. A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1990). Distress
and restraint as superordinate dimensions of self‐
reported adjustment: A typological perspective.
Journal of Personality, 58(2), 381-417. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00235.x
Wenger, L., & Andres-Pueyo, A. (2016). Personality and
clinical tests in Spanish for assessing juvenile offend-