The admissibility of behavioral science evidence in the courtroom: The translation of legal to scientific concepts and back

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue , 2010, Pages 49-77

  Faust, David ^a,b   Grimm, Paul W ^c,d,e   Ahern, David C ^a,b   Sokolik, Mark ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c United States District Court ^*  (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE   (United States)

^f GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Daubert; Expert testimony; Expert witness; Kumho Tire; Psychology and law

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; AWARENESS; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; CASE STUDY; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONFLICT; COOPERATION; COURT; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS; GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL HEALTH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PEER REVIEW; POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VALIDITY; WITNESS;

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 77952945789     PISSN: 15485943     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091523     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 554, 568 (D. Md. 2001)
2. Alario M, Brün M. 2001. Uncertainty and controversy in the science and ethics of environmental policy making. Theory & Science 2. http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol002.001/02alariobrun.html
3. Alvarado v. Shipley Flour & Donut Supply Co., No. H-06-2113, 2007 WL 4480134, at ?3 (SD Tex. Dec. 18, 2007).
4. Bersoff DN, Peters L, Nabors E. 2000. Admissibility of social science and forensic evidence: a post-Daubert update. Paper presented at Bienn. Meet. Am. Psychol.-Law Soc., New Orleans, LA
5. Breyer S. 2000. Introduction. In The Federal Judicial Center's Manual on Scientific Evidence, pp. 1-8. Washington, DC: Fed. Judicial Cent. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00. pdf/$file/sciman00. pdf. 2nd ed.
6. Bridges AJ, Faust D, Ahern DC. 2009. Methods for the identification of sexually abused children: reframing the clinician's task and recognizing its disparity with research on indicators. In The Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations, ed. K Kuehnle, M Connell, pp. 21-47. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley
7. Brunswick E. 1947. Systematic and Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
8. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52:281-302 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
9. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. 1989. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243:1668-1674
10. Faigman DL, Kaye DH, Saks MJ, Sanders J, eds. 2008-2009. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. New York: Thompson.
11. Faust D. 2007. Decision research can increase the accuracy of clinical judgment and thereby improve patient care. In The Great Ideas of Clinical Science, ed. SO Lilienfeld, WT O'Donohue, pp. 49-76. New York: Routledge
12. Faust D. 2010a. Criteria for appraising scientific status I: Daubert factors. See Faust 2010c. In press
13. Faust D. 2010b. Clinical judgment and decision making: current status and the application of scientific knowledge to improve legal evaluations. See Faust 2010c. In press
14. Faust D, ed. 2010c. Ziskin's Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
15. Faust D, Bridges AJ, Ahern DC. 2009a. Methods for the identification of sexually abused children: issues and needed features for abuse indicators. See Kuehnle & Connell 2009, pp. 3-19
16. Faust D, Bridges AJ, Ahern DC. Methods for the identification of sexually abused children: suggestions for clinical work and research. See Kuehnle & Connell 2009, pp. 49-68 Fed. Rules Evid. 702. Advisory Comm. Notes on Rules-Amendment (2000) Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46 (1923).
17. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. 2002. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
18. Grimm PW. 2010. Admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts: a view from the bench. See Faust 2010c. In press
19. Grisso T. 2003. Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. 2nd ed.
20. Grove WM, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson CE. 2000. Clinical vs mechanical prediction: a metaanalysis. Psychol. Assess. 12:19-30
21. J.H.C. v. State, 642 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. (1994).
22. Jevning R, Anand R, Biedebach M. 1994. Certainty and uncertainty in science: the subjectivistic concept of probability in physiology and medicine. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 12:S113-19
23. Johnson MT, Krafka C, Cecil JS. 2000. Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis. Washington, DC: Fed. Judicial Cent. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ExpTesti. pdf/$file/ExpTesti.pdf
24. Krafka C, Dunn MA, Johnson MT. 2002. Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychol. Public Policy Law 8:309-322
25. Kuehnle K, Connell M, eds. 2009. The Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
26. Relman A, Angell M. 1989. How good is peer review? N. Engl. J. Med. 321:827-829
27. Roe v. Nevada, No.2:04-cv-00348, 2007 WL 4380138, at ?7 (D. Nev. Dec. 10, 2007)
28. S.M. v. J.K., 262 F. 3d 914, 921-922 (9th Cir. 2001)
29. Samuel v. Ford Motor Co. 112 F. Supp. 2d 460, 467-470 (D. Md. 2000)
30. Sechrest L. 1963. Incremental validity: a recommendation. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 23:153-158
31. Sieck WR, Arkes HR. 2005. The recalcitrance of overconfidence and its contribution to decision aid neglect. J. Behav. Decis. Making 18:29-51
32. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. 1999. Am. Educ. Res. Assoc., Am. Psychol. Assoc., Natl. Couns. Meas. Educ.Washington, DC: Am. Educ. Res. Assoc. Sundstrom v. Frank, No. 06-C-112, 2007 WL 29166559 (E.D.Wis. Oct. 5, 2007)
33. United States v. Dixon, 261 F. App'x 800, 805 (5th Cir. 2008)
34. United States v. Simmons, 470 F. 3d 1115, 1122 (5th Cir. 2006)
35. Waller NG, Yonce LJ, Grove WM, Faust D, Lenzenweger MF, eds. 2006. A Paul Meehl Reader: Essays on the Practice of Scientific Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum