Scholarlink

<p>While admitting that they “lack the knowledge and authority” regarding evidentiary standards governing admissibility of scientific evidence in U.S. courts, Merckelbach and Dandachi-FitzGerald (2024) criticized a recent law review article in “The (Small) World of Validity Test Research According to Leonhard and Leonhard (2024): A Critique.” However, the Law Review Article focused on why malingering determinations based on symptom and performance validity tests (SVTs and PVTs) should be inadmissible in U.S. courts under the <i>Daubert</i> Standard. The Critique misses the core legal arguments of the Law Review Article. It criticizes the Law Review Article for not being written like a scientific review paper but eschews discussing the scientific review papers on which its legal arguments are based. This response first discusses the difference between law and science, the adversarial nature of the U.S. legal system, and why evidentiary safeguards are necessary to ensure the legal reliability [which includes the scientific concept of validity] of scientific evidence introduced in U.S. courts. It then summarizes how SVTs and PVTs are currently presented in U.S. courts and how expert testimony based on these tests undermines the fundamental role of the jury when experts opine on malingering based on these tests. Ensuing sections focus on the nature of law review articles, the difference between forensics and clinical health care in psychology, peer review, diagnostic accuracy standards, and conflict of interest. This response concludes that the Critique does offer some support for the Law Review Article.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Symptom and Performance Validity Tests Should Not Be Admissible as Scientific Evidence in U.S. Courts: Response to Merckelbach and Dandachi-Fitzgerald (2024)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月5日

查看全文
  • Chunlin Leonhard,
  • Christoph Leonhard

摘要

While admitting that they “lack the knowledge and authority” regarding evidentiary standards governing admissibility of scientific evidence in U.S. courts, Merckelbach and Dandachi-FitzGerald (2024) criticized a recent law review article in “The (Small) World of Validity Test Research According to Leonhard and Leonhard (2024): A Critique.” However, the Law Review Article focused on why malingering determinations based on symptom and performance validity tests (SVTs and PVTs) should be inadmissible in U.S. courts under the Daubert Standard. The Critique misses the core legal arguments of the Law Review Article. It criticizes the Law Review Article for not being written like a scientific review paper but eschews discussing the scientific review papers on which its legal arguments are based. This response first discusses the difference between law and science, the adversarial nature of the U.S. legal system, and why evidentiary safeguards are necessary to ensure the legal reliability [which includes the scientific concept of validity] of scientific evidence introduced in U.S. courts. It then summarizes how SVTs and PVTs are currently presented in U.S. courts and how expert testimony based on these tests undermines the fundamental role of the jury when experts opine on malingering based on these tests. Ensuing sections focus on the nature of law review articles, the difference between forensics and clinical health care in psychology, peer review, diagnostic accuracy standards, and conflict of interest. This response concludes that the Critique does offer some support for the Law Review Article.