Psychological Testimony and the Daubert Standard

In the legal system, mental health professionals are now a primary source for expert information. Because potentially every psychologist might be drawn into a legal situation, competency requires accommodation of the nexus between the legal system and professional ethics and standards. Three particular Supreme Court cases create a framework for testifying about psychological information. This article reviews those three cases, defines the commitment to evidence-based (scientific) testimony, and explains how psychological ethics and standards should be accommodated. It reviews the major issues that psychologists face in Daubert admissibility challenges. Finally, it makes pertinent recommendations to help avoid the pitfall in dealing with court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Similar content being viewed by others

The Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Evidence Based on the Personality Assessment Inventory

Psychology and the Federal Rules of Evidence

The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments

Explore related subjects

References

• Ackerman, M. J., & Gould, J. W. (2015). Child custody and access. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology. Volume 1. Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 425–469). Washington: American Psychological Association. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Allport, G. W. (1942). The use of personal documents in psychological science. New York: Social Science Research Council. Bulletin 49. Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• American Psychological Association. Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2015). Introduction to forensic psychology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
• Brodsky, S. L., Wilson, J. K., & Neal, T. M. S. (2013). Refusing and withdrawing from forensic evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 14–26. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Craig, R. J. (2005). Personality-guided forensic psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association. BookGoogle Scholar
• Cuello, A., & Villavicencio, S. (2014). Adoption of Daubert in the amendment to F.S. 90.702 tightens the rules of admissibility of expert witness testimony. Florida Bar Journal, 88(8), 38–40. Google Scholar
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
• Drogin, E. Y., Hagan, L. D., Guilmette, T. J., & Piechowski, L. S. (2015). Personal injury and other tort matters. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology. Volume 1. Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 471–509). Washington: American Psychological Association. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Falzer, P. R. (2013). Valuing structured professional judgment: predictive validity, decision-making, and clinical-acturial conflict. Behavioral Science and The Law, 31(1), 40–54. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Federal Rules of Evidence. (2010). 28 C.F.R. 101–1103.
• Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C., 293 F. 1013 (1923).
• General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
• Gould, J. W. (2006). Conducting scientifically crafted child custody evaluations (2nd ed.). Sarasota: Professional Resource Press. Google Scholar
• Heilbrun, K., & LaDuke, C. D. (2015). Foundational aspects of forensic mental health assessment. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology. Volume 1. Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 3–18). Washington: American Psychological Association. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Huss, M. T. (2014). Forensic psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2008). The elements of ethics for professionals. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Knapp, S., Gottlieb, M., Berman, J., & Handelsman, M. M. (2007). When laws and ethics collide: what should psychologists do? Professional Psychology, 38(1), 54–59. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: standards and cases (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., & Levett, L. M. (2015). Jury decision making. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 271–311). Washington: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
• Kumho Tire Co, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
• Matarazzo, J. D. (1990). Psychological assessment versus psychological testing: validation from Binet to school, clinic, and courtroom. American Psychologist, 45, 999–1017. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P. M., & Otto, R. K. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: a handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (2014). Clinical psychology: science, practice, and culture (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2015). Forensic assessment instruments. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology. Volume 1. Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 19–34). Washington: American Psychological Association. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Sales, B. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2015). The psychology of law. Washington: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
• VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). APA dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
• VanOrnum, W., Dunlap, L. L., & Shore, M. F. (2008). Psychological testing across the life span. Upper Saddle River: Pearson (Prentice-Hall). Google Scholar
• Varela, J. G., & Conroy, M. A. (2012). Professional competencies in forensic psychology. Professional Psychology, 43(5), 410–421. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Westen, D., & Weinberger, J. (2004). When clinical description becomes statistical prediction. American Psychologist, 59(7), 595–613. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., Clark, S. E., Gronlund, S. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2015). Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. American Psychologist, 70(6), 515–526. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Woody, R. H. (2009). Ethical considerations of multiple-roles in forensic services. Ethics and Behavior, 19(1), 79–87. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Young, G. (2016). Admissibility of neuropsychological evidence. In S. S. Bush, G. J. Demakis, & M. L. Rohling (Eds.), American psychological association handbook of forensic neuropsychology. Washington: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. University of Nebraska Omaha, 347 Arts and Sciences, 6001 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68182-0274, USA Robert H. Woody

1. Robert H. Woody

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (national and institutional). Informed consent was obtained from all individual subjects participating in the study.

Animal Rights

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woody, R.H. Psychological Testimony and the Daubert Standard. Psychol. Inj. and Law 9, 91–96 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-016-9255-5

• Received : 19 April 2016
• Accepted : 20 April 2016
• Published : 27 April 2016
• Issue Date : June 2016
• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-016-9255-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative