Fixed vs, flexible neuropsychological test batteries under the Daubert standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 315-322

  Reed, Joe E ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL EXPERT; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PSYCHOTRAUMA; REVIEW; STANDARD;

CRIMINAL LAW; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS;

EID: 0029963717     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199622)14:3<315::AID-BSL242>3.0.CO;2-X     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. American Psychological Association (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (pp. 474-477).
3. Anastasi, A. (1985). Mental Measurement: Some Emerging Trends. In James V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp.xxiii-xxix). Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press.
4. Barth, J., Ryan, T., & Hawk, G. (1992). Forensic neuropsychology: A reply to the method skeptics. Neuropsychology Review, 2, 251-265.
5. Black, B., Ayala, F., & Saffran-Brinks, C. (1994). Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: A new search for scientific knowledge. 72 Texas Law Review 715-802.
6. Campbell, T. (1994). Challenging Psychologists and Psychiatrists as Witnesses. 73 Michigan Bar Journal 68.
7. Chapple v. Ganger, 851 F. Supp. 1481 (E. D. Wash, 1994).
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.CT. 2786 (1993).
9. Davis, P. (1988). Law, science, and history: Reflections upon in the best interests of the child. 86 Michigan Law Review 1096-1120.
10. Dean, R. S. (1985). Review of the Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 642-646). Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press.
11. DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F. 2d 941 (3rd Cir. 1990).
12. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific", "technical", or "other" knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960-979.
13. Faigman, D. L. (1992). Struggling to stop the flood of unreliable expert testimony. 76 Minnesota Law Review 877-889.
14. Faigman, D., Porter, E., & Saks, M. (1994). Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: Exploring the past, understanding the present and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. 15 Cardozo Law Review 1799-1835.
15. Fisher, D. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: The Supreme Court gives federal judges the keys to the gate of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. 39 San Diego Law Review 141.
16. Frye v. United States, 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
17. Gianelli, P. (1980). The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States, a half-Century later. 80 Columbia Law Review 1197-1250.
18. Golden, C. J. (1981). Diagnosis and rehabilitation in clinical neuropsychology. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
19. Goldstein, G. (1986). An overview of similarities and differences between the Halstead-Reitan and Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Batteries. In T. Incagnoli, G. Goldstein, & C. Golden (Eds.), Clinical Application of Neuropsychological Test Batteries (pp. 235-275). New York: Plenum Press.
20. Guilmette, T. (1991). Cognitive and behavioral symptoms in mild head injury: Considerations for brain damage litigation. 39-Jan Rhode Island Bar Journal 7.
21. Guilmette, T., & Giuliano, A. (1991). Taking the stand: Issues and strategies in forensic neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5, 197-219.
22. Hartlage, L., & DeFilippis, N. (1983). History of neuropsychological assessment. In C. J. Golden & P. J. Vicente (Eds.), Foundations of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 1-23). New York: Plenum Press.
23. Kreiling, K. (1990). Scientific evidence: Toward providing the lay trier with the comprehensible and reliable evidence necessary to meet the goals of the rules of evidence. 32 Arizona Law Review 915-983.
24. Larvie, V. (1994). Evidence - Admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts - The Supreme Court decides Frye is dead and the Federal Rules of Evidence provide the standard, but is there a skeleton in the closet? Daubert v. Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786. 29 Land & Water Law Review 275.
25. Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Luria, A. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories, 830 F. 2d 1190 (1st Cir. 1987).
28. McCormick, C. (1992). McCormick on Evidence (4th ed.). John William Strong (G. Ed.) § 203 (pp. 362-364). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
29. Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1993). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and clinical interpretation. Tucson, Arizon: Neuropsychology Press.
30. People v. Leahy, 8 Cal. 4th 5 87 (1994).
31. Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F. 2d 823 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
32. Richardson, R. (1992). Neuropsychologists as expert witnesses: Issues of admissibility. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 295-308.
33. Tanford, J., & Tanford, S. (1988). Better trials through science: A defense of psychologist-lawyer collaboration. 66 North Carolina Law Review 741-780.