Roschell H. Brooke appeals the district court’s 2 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo review of the record, we conclude that the findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including new and material evidence the Appeals Council considered in declining review. See O’Donnell v. Barnhart, 318 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2003). We find no merit to Brooke’s arguments concerning the ALJ’s failure to explain why she did not meet a listing, see Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011) (when ALJ fails to explain why impairment does not meet or *643 equal one of listed impairments, it is not error if conclusion is supported by overall record); the ALJ’s failure to develop the record on her back pain, see Mouser v. Astrue, 545 F.3d 634, 639 (8th Cir. 2008) (ALJ is not obligated to investigate claim not presented in application or offered at hearing as basis for disability); Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (reversal for failure to develop record is warranted only where such failure is unfair or prejudicial); or the ALJ’s determination as to her residual functional capacity (RFC), see Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012) (medical records, physician observations, and claimant’s subjective statements about capabilities may be used to support RFC; RFC must be supported by some medical evidence, but burden of persuasion to prove disability and show RFC remains on claimant). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.