Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29) in terms of the <i>Daubert</i> standards. The three majority opinions (i.e., <i>Daubert</i> v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co. v Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that constitute the so-called <i>Daubert</i> trilogy represented a sea change in judicial awareness of the relevance of empirical methodology in providing probative expert testimony in court. Specifically, they brought forth a set of factors that may be considered during trial to assess the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. The first section of the present article briefly describes the current state of negative impression management assessment in psycho-legal context, with particular reference to the development of the procedures and expectations for expert testimony. Next, <i>Daubert</i> factors are defined and applied, one by one, to IOP-29-based testimony. This led to the conclusion that the IOP-29 has been thoroughly and empirically tested in different contexts and countries, and across different psychopathological conditions (1st <i>Daubert</i> standard); it has been peer-reviewed and publications on it have showed continued growth in recent years (2nd <i>Daubert</i> standard); based on the many empirical studies, its error rate is potentially knowable (3rd <i>Daubert</i> standard); this information, along with standards for controlling its operation, are available in the IOP-29 Professional Manual (4th <i>Daubert</i> standard); there is growing evidence of the general acceptance that the IOP-29 has received within the scientific community currently and over the years (5th <i>Daubert</i> standard). Finally, recommendations are proposed on the use of the test within the forensic field.</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

Applying the Daubert Factors to IOP-29-Based Testimony

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月23日

查看全文
  • Francesca Ales,
  • Natalie E. Armstrong,
  • Matthew J. Holcomb,
  • Laszlo Erdodi

摘要

This article examines the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29) in terms of the Daubert standards. The three majority opinions (i.e., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co. v Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that constitute the so-called Daubert trilogy represented a sea change in judicial awareness of the relevance of empirical methodology in providing probative expert testimony in court. Specifically, they brought forth a set of factors that may be considered during trial to assess the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. The first section of the present article briefly describes the current state of negative impression management assessment in psycho-legal context, with particular reference to the development of the procedures and expectations for expert testimony. Next, Daubert factors are defined and applied, one by one, to IOP-29-based testimony. This led to the conclusion that the IOP-29 has been thoroughly and empirically tested in different contexts and countries, and across different psychopathological conditions (1st Daubert standard); it has been peer-reviewed and publications on it have showed continued growth in recent years (2nd Daubert standard); based on the many empirical studies, its error rate is potentially knowable (3rd Daubert standard); this information, along with standards for controlling its operation, are available in the IOP-29 Professional Manual (4th Daubert standard); there is growing evidence of the general acceptance that the IOP-29 has received within the scientific community currently and over the years (5th Daubert standard). Finally, recommendations are proposed on the use of the test within the forensic field.