Thanks to Kevin Foley for sending this thought provoking Hastings Law Review Article on the Daubert standard by Haug and Baird (2011) re: scientific evidence. As an applied psychometrician, I find it interesting that the three types of error described mirror the three general classes of unreliability/error we measurement folks address in test development. The article will be added to the ICDP Law Review Article blogroll.
The authors focus on the "known rate of error" factor of Daubert, and they suggest a new test.
"If an expert can account for the measurement error, the random error,
and the systematic error in his evidence, then he ought to be permitted
to testify. On the other hand, if he should fail to account for any one or
more of these three types of error, then his testimony ought not be
admitted."
- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad
intelligence intelligence testing Atkins cases ICDP blog psychology school psychology neuropsychology Forensic psychology criminal psychology criminal justice death penalty capital punishment ABA IQ tests IQ scores adaptive behavior AAIDD mental retardation intellectual disability Law Review Articles Daubert Standard measurement error reliability systematic error unsystematic error
Generated by: Tag Generator
