Modeling pubertal timing and tempo and examining links to behavior problems

Abstract

Research on the role of puberty in adolescent psychological development requires attention to the meaning and measurement of pubertal development. Particular questions concern the utility of self-report, the need for complex models to describe pubertal development, the psychological significance of pubertal timing vs. tempo, and sex differences in the nature and psychological significance of pubertal development. We used longitudinal self-report data to model linear and logistic trajectories of pubertal development, and used timing and tempo estimates from these models, and from traditional approaches (age at menarche and time from onset of breast development to menarche), to predict psychological outcomes of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, and early sexual activity. Participants (738 girls, 781 boys) reported annually from ages 9 through 15 on their pubertal development, and they and their parents reported on their behavior in mid-to-late adolescence and early adulthood. Self-reports of pubertal development provided meaningful data for both boys and girls, producing good trajectories, and estimates of individuals' pubertal timing and tempo. A logistic model best fit the group data. Pubertal timing was estimated to be earlier in the logistic compared to linear model, but linear, logistic, and traditional estimates of pubertal timing correlated highly with each other and similarly with psychological outcomes. Pubertal tempo was not consistently estimated, and associations of tempo with timing and with behavior were model dependent. Advances in modeling facilitate the study of some questions about pubertal development, but assumptions of the models affect their utility in psychological studies.

Figure 1

Mean pubertal development trajectories (according to PDS scores) for girls and boys, with descriptions of how timing and tempo parameters were estimated; black lines are replicate 1, and gray lines are replicate 2. Figure 1A shows linear results for girls, providing a description of how linear timing and tempo parameters were estimated for both sexes; it also provides a description of how traditional timing and tempo parameters were estimated for girls. Figure 1B shows logistic results for girls, providing a description of how logistic timing and tempo parameters were estimated for both sexes, where timing' (timing prime) is the first derivative of timing. Figure 1C shows linear results for boys. Figure 1D shows logistic results for boys.

Figure 2

Area graph of pubertal timing correlations with behavior for girls by method of assessment/point in puberty (linear model mid puberty, logistic model mid puberty, age at menarche), for each replicate. The black plot and asterisks are replicate 1 (range of N’s: 174–282); the gray plot and asterisks are replicate 2 (range of N’s: 153–277). Each peak reflects a discrete timing-behavior correlation; correlations significantly different from 0, * p < .05, ** p < .01; trad.: traditional.

Figure 3

Area graph of mid-pubertal timing correlations with behavior for boys by method of assessment (linear model, logistic model), for each replicate. The black plot is replicate 1 (range of N’s: 181–314); the gray plot and asterisks are replicate 2 (range of N’s: 179–310). Each peak reflects a single timing-behavior correlation; correlations significantly different from 0, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.