The Influence of Psychosocial Maturity on Male Juvenile Offenders' Comprehension and Understanding of the Miranda Warning

Article Figures & Data

Table 1

Demographics, Intellectual Functioning, Psychosocial Maturity, and GUAM Scores by Setting

	Juvenile Detention (n = 47)	Boot Camp Facility (n = 20)	t	p
Age (years)	15.28 (1.23)	14.30 (1.81)	−2.21^*	.04
WASI
VIQ	87.79 (13.34)	84.16 (14.56)	−0.98	.33
PIQ	93.74 (9.99)	90.37 (14.57)	−0.81	.42
FSIQ	89.79 (11.15)	86.05 (14.01)	−1.13	.26
PMI	z = 0.061 (0.75)	z = −0.13 (0.57)	−1.01	.32
RESP	z = 0.057 (0.99)	z = −0.22 (0.76)	−1.12	.27
PERSP	z = 0.077 (0.93)	z = −0.11 (1.00)	−0.75	.46
TEMP	z = 0.050 (0.97)	z = −0.047 (0.91)	−0.38	.70
GUAM
CMR	6.64 (1.42)	5.45 (2.24)	−2.20^*	.04
CMR-R	9.04 (1.73)	8.35 (2.28)	−1.36	.18
CMV	8.55 (2.04)	6.60 (3.69)	−2.23^*	.04
FRI	23.77 (3.31)	21.95 (3.69)	−1.96	.06

RESP, Responsibility; PERSP, Perspective; TEMP, Temperance. Remaining abbreviations are defined in the text.
* p < .05.

Table 2

Intercorrelations Among Age, IQ, Psychosocial Maturity, and GUAM Measures

	Age	VIQ	PIQ	FSIQ	RESP	PERSP	TEMP	PMI	CMR	CMR-R	CMV	FRI
Age	—
VIQ	.04	—
PIQ	−.04	.54^**	—
FSIQ	.01	.90^**	.83^**	—
RESP	.26^*	.25^*	−.00	.17	—
PERSP	.12	−.06	−.17	−.11	.28^*	—
TEMP	−.02	−.06	−.14	−.11	.46^**	.25^*	—
PMI	.16	−.06	−.14	−.02	.78^**	.69^**	.77^**	—
CMR	.37^**	.56^**	.25^*	.47^**	.40^**	−.01	.08	.21	—
CMR-R	.28^*	.44^**	.13	.35^**	.27^*	.12	.15	.24^*	.43^**	—
CMV	.47^**	.60^**	.26^*	.52^**	.34^**	−.10	−.06	.08	.65^**	.40^**	—
FRI	.30^*	.48^**	.12	.38^**	.47^**	.13	.12	.32^**	.43^**	.42^**	.61^**	—

RESP, Responsibility; PERSP, Perspective; TEMP, Temperance. Remaining abbreviations are defined in the text.
* p < .05;
** p < .01.

Table 3

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Models for GUAM Comprehension Measures

	Beta	SE	β	t	p	Partial r	Part r
CMR
Setting	.72	.36	.19	1.98	.05	.25	.18
Age	.30	.11	.25	2.60	.01	.32	.23
IQ	.01	.01	.48	5.15	.00	.55	.46
Responsibility	.42	.18	.22	2.32	.02	.29	.21
CMR-R
Setting	.01	.49	.02	0.20	.84	.03	.02
Age	.29	.15	.22	1.88	.07	.23	.21
IQ	.01	.02	.40	3.53	.00	.41	.39
Responsibility	.19	.24	.09	.77	.44	.10	.09
CMV
Setting	.83	.54	.14	1.55	.13	.20	.13
Age	.71	.17	.38	4.23	.00	.48	.35
IQ	.11	.02	.54	6.29	.00	.63	.52
Responsibility	.27	.27	.09	1.02	.31	.13	.09

Values listed are those obtained in the final step of the model. For Setting, higher scores are associated with juveniles in detention. Abbreviations are defined in the text.

Table 4

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Models for GUAM Function of Rights in Interrogation and Subscales

	Beta	SE	β	t	p	Partial r	Part r
FRI
Setting	.59	.81	.08	.73	.47	.09	.07
Age	.40	.25	.18	1.62	.11	.21	.16
IQ	.01	.03	.39	3.69	.00	.43	.37
Responsibility	1.11	.40	.30	2.76	.01	.34	.28
RC
Setting	.44	.36	.14	1.24	.22	.16	.13
Age	.31	.11	.31	2.82	.01	.34	.29
IQ	.00	.01	.15	1.35	.18	.17	.14
Responsibility	.51	.18	.32	2.90	.01	.35	.30
RS
Setting	.13	.61	.02	.21	.84	.03	.02
Age	.01	.19	.05	.44	.67	.06	.05
IQ	.01	.02	.37	3.16	.00	.38	.35
Responsibility	.58	.30	.23	1.93	.06	.24	.22

Data are those obtained in the final step of the model. For Setting, higher scores are associated with juveniles in detention. Abbreviations are defined in the text.