Lec 10.docx

13 views2 pages
17 Apr 2012
Lec 10:
Standards for the Expert Witness:
Federal Rules of Evidence:
- This is one way to determine whether expert testifies on number of different things: to be a
qualified expert: they have to be based on judge’s assessment of education, training and
experience (so you need to put your selection based on qualification)
- Experts testimony should make sense and it should be based in real theoretical way of
Fyre V. United States:
- Not lying or lying based on this test… based on alimonies : morschach test.. reliability and
validity (this has to be high.)
This affects psychological assessments :
- It has general acceptance in the field.. any difficulties working with that framework..b/c its
not scientifically supported : such as the morschach test: its not a validated test
- Experts should use well established researched instruments.. as there are a lot of variability
- - this is to show that we need to use valid tests and should be based upon
Daubert v, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuricals (1993):
- What is a valid test? So we need to use imperial testing: when its an abstract its hard to
falsify or test that theory: whether it measures intelligence and what its correlated with high
levels of standards.. and it should be peer reviewed and publication
- What are the chances of what they range : we have to know the error rate for faking
percentage and to be validated
- Should be accepted by the scientific community
- There should be criterion put in place to see that it is based on validated findings
- This case is about what the criteria is for sexual assault: and it is based on 4 criteria:
relevant, necessary to assist the trier of fact, should not trigger exclusionary rules and must
be given by a properly qualified expert
Nature of forensic assessment:
- Focus of the assessment tends to be narrow and also be ethically about diff aspects of their
function such as seeing, hearing things… maybe they are schiz or brain injury : what are the
antecedents that will trigger her to do any things.. any punishments or rewards this is a
broad focus : in a forensic context.. it is a narrow focus..: we are evaluating does she have a
neurological brain functioning that is related to the head injury
Malingering in DSM-IV
- Things like factecous disorder: intentional production of false gross exaggerating: it is very
hard to prove that someone is intentionally doing something.. it can be a physical or
psychological symptom
- How we evaluate it malingering: you give a structured interview: ppl who fake psychological
symptom rather than neuro : evaluating obsurd rare symptoms : things that are really
- To measure nero: they use cards.. and minutes later they present the same cards and ask
which one did I show u.. you should get perfect on this test (force choice recognition: you
force them to choose either one or two) they just have to pick : if you don’t get it: they take
longer to respond, they spend time to think because they know it but act like they don’t
- When ppl fake symptoms it is in a specific domain rather than many
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.