THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE
Although Daubert (1993) describes a test for admissibility that applies to all proffers of scientific evidence in the federal courts and many state courts, its application has not been uniform across the sciences. To assess Daubert's impact for behavioral and social science evidence, the author...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 1999-03, Vol.5 (1), p.3-15 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 15 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 3 |
| container_title | Psychology, public policy, and law |
| container_volume | 5 |
| creator | Shuman, Daniel W Sales, Bruce D |
| description | Although
Daubert
(1993)
describes a test for
admissibility that applies to all proffers of scientific evidence in
the federal courts and many state courts, its application has not
been uniform across the sciences. To assess
Daubert's
impact for
behavioral and social science evidence, the authors describe and
analyze the application of a set of criteria that include whether
Daubert
has mattered, whether the context in which
Daubert
is
applied should matter, whether one can operationalize the
application of the
Daubert
criteria to predict its outcome in
specific cases, whether
Daubert
can assist in getting
admissibility decisions right, and whether there are broader lessons
beyond admissibility to be learned from
Daubert. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614388587</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614388587</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a292t-5455fe1107e51e1a6ba7061429c055caadbae6d012e13ebe58782cb343ad54a13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kM1vgkAQxTdNm9Tannvd9g7usCwfR8RVN0EwgiaeNgusiY2tFDSN_32Xak_zkvm9N5OH0CsQGwj1R0B8zwpCH2xmg03v0ABCGlrAnODe6P_tI3rqug9CCPP9cIDqYs6xWCyjuMDZFE-i9ZivChylEyyKHC9X2YynW5yluAejyULkuRiLRBTbnh_zebQR2SpK_ix5Fgsj81jwNOaYb8SkF8_oYacOnX65zSFaT3kRz60km4k4SizlhM7JYi5jOw3mVc1Ag_JK5RMPXCesCGOVUnWptFcTcDRQXWoW-IFTldSlqmauAjpE79fcpj1-n3V3kh_Hc_tlTkoTQ4PAOAw0ukJVe-y6Vu9k0-4_VXuRQGTfpOy7kn1XkkmQ1Djerg7VKNl0l0q1p3110J08qJ8b8wsHE2gt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614388587</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE</title><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Shuman, Daniel W ; Sales, Bruce D</creator><creatorcontrib>Shuman, Daniel W ; Sales, Bruce D</creatorcontrib><description>Although
Daubert
(1993)
describes a test for
admissibility that applies to all proffers of scientific evidence in
the federal courts and many state courts, its application has not
been uniform across the sciences. To assess
Daubert's
impact for
behavioral and social science evidence, the authors describe and
analyze the application of a set of criteria that include whether
Daubert
has mattered, whether the context in which
Daubert
is
applied should matter, whether one can operationalize the
application of the
Daubert
criteria to predict its outcome in
specific cases, whether
Daubert
can assist in getting
admissibility decisions right, and whether there are broader lessons
beyond admissibility to be learned from
Daubert.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-8971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Behavioral Sciences ; Human ; Legal Decisions ; Legal Evidence ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>Psychology, public policy, and law, 1999-03, Vol.5 (1), p.3-15</ispartof><rights>1999 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1999, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a292t-5455fe1107e51e1a6ba7061429c055caadbae6d012e13ebe58782cb343ad54a13</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shuman, Daniel W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sales, Bruce D</creatorcontrib><title>THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE</title><title>Psychology, public policy, and law</title><description>Although
Daubert
(1993)
describes a test for
admissibility that applies to all proffers of scientific evidence in
the federal courts and many state courts, its application has not
been uniform across the sciences. To assess
Daubert's
impact for
behavioral and social science evidence, the authors describe and
analyze the application of a set of criteria that include whether
Daubert
has mattered, whether the context in which
Daubert
is
applied should matter, whether one can operationalize the
application of the
Daubert
criteria to predict its outcome in
specific cases, whether
Daubert
can assist in getting
admissibility decisions right, and whether there are broader lessons
beyond admissibility to be learned from
Daubert.</description><subject>Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Legal Decisions</subject><subject>Legal Evidence</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1076-8971</issn><issn>1939-1528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo1kM1vgkAQxTdNm9Tannvd9g7usCwfR8RVN0EwgiaeNgusiY2tFDSN_32Xak_zkvm9N5OH0CsQGwj1R0B8zwpCH2xmg03v0ABCGlrAnODe6P_tI3rqug9CCPP9cIDqYs6xWCyjuMDZFE-i9ZivChylEyyKHC9X2YynW5yluAejyULkuRiLRBTbnh_zebQR2SpK_ix5Fgsj81jwNOaYb8SkF8_oYacOnX65zSFaT3kRz60km4k4SizlhM7JYi5jOw3mVc1Ag_JK5RMPXCesCGOVUnWptFcTcDRQXWoW-IFTldSlqmauAjpE79fcpj1-n3V3kh_Hc_tlTkoTQ4PAOAw0ukJVe-y6Vu9k0-4_VXuRQGTfpOy7kn1XkkmQ1Djerg7VKNl0l0q1p3110J08qJ8b8wsHE2gt</recordid><startdate>19990301</startdate><enddate>19990301</enddate><creator>Shuman, Daniel W</creator><creator>Sales, Bruce D</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990301</creationdate><title>THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE</title><author>Shuman, Daniel W ; Sales, Bruce D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a292t-5455fe1107e51e1a6ba7061429c055caadbae6d012e13ebe58782cb343ad54a13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Legal Decisions</topic><topic>Legal Evidence</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shuman, Daniel W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sales, Bruce D</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Psychology, public policy, and law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shuman, Daniel W</au><au>Sales, Bruce D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE</atitle><jtitle>Psychology, public policy, and law</jtitle><date>1999-03-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>3</spage><epage>15</epage><pages>3-15</pages><issn>1076-8971</issn><eissn>1939-1528</eissn><abstract>Although
Daubert
(1993)
describes a test for
admissibility that applies to all proffers of scientific evidence in
the federal courts and many state courts, its application has not
been uniform across the sciences. To assess
Daubert's
impact for
behavioral and social science evidence, the authors describe and
analyze the application of a set of criteria that include whether
Daubert
has mattered, whether the context in which
Daubert
is
applied should matter, whether one can operationalize the
application of the
Daubert
criteria to predict its outcome in
specific cases, whether
Daubert
can assist in getting
admissibility decisions right, and whether there are broader lessons
beyond admissibility to be learned from
Daubert.</abstract><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.3</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1076-8971 |
| ispartof | Psychology, public policy, and law, 1999-03, Vol.5 (1), p.3-15 |
| issn | 1076-8971 1939-1528 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_614388587 |
| source | APA PsycARTICLES; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
| subjects | Behavioral Sciences Human Legal Decisions Legal Evidence Social Sciences |
| title | THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T05%3A44%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20IMPACT%20OF%20DAUBERT%20AND%20ITS%20PROGENY%20ON%20THE%20ADMISSIBILITY%20OF%20BEHAVIORAL%20AND%20SOCIAL%20SCIENCE%20EVIDENCE&rft.jtitle=Psychology,%20public%20policy,%20and%20law&rft.au=Shuman,%20Daniel%20W&rft.date=1999-03-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=3&rft.epage=15&rft.pages=3-15&rft.issn=1076-8971&rft.eissn=1939-1528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614388587%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614388587&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |