| Abstract: | The role and practice of clinical psychologists as expert witnesses is discussed in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). Daubert v. Merrell Dow is reviewed, and its implications for clinicians who testify as expert witnesses are presented. A distinction is made between expert testimony in a generic sense, and scientific expert testimony. By virtue of clinical psychology's adoption of the mantle of science, clinical psychologists should adhere to scientific standards of data gathering in order to qualify as scientific experts. Guidelines are provided to assist clinicians in assessing the confidence with which conclusions can be termed scientific, and ethical concerns are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
