The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Expert Witness in Psychology and Psychiatry
Abstract
The involvement of psychologists and psychiatrists within the legal arena continues to grow rapidly but remains highly controversial. Extensive research on clinical judgment provides a scientific basis for clarifying the growing disputes about the values of such professional activities. Studies show that professionals often fail to reach reliable or valid conclusions and that the accuracy of their judgments does not necessarily surpass that of laypersons, thus raising substantial doubt that psychologists or psychiatrists meet legal standards for expertise. Factors that underlie the research findings and implications for courtroom testimony are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making.
Dawes, R. M. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.7.571 · Cited by 1,966
Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(71)90033-x · Cited by 1,819
Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores.
Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0048070 · Cited by 1,207
Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs.
Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027592 · Cited by 989
Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations.
Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1967) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0024670 · Cited by 847
Clinical versus Statistical Prediction.
Sletto, R. F., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092752 · Cited by 626
Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical.
Sawyer, J. (1966) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0023624 · Cited by 594
Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments.
Goldberg, L. R. (1968) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0026206 · Cited by 578
Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing.
Heaton, R. K., Smith, H. H., Lehman, R. A. W., & Vogt, A. T. (1978) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.46.5.892 · Cited by 432
Cited by
The reality of repressed memories.
Loftus, E. F. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.48.5.518 · Cited by 936
The Accuracy of Predictions of Violence to Others
Lidz, C. W. (1993) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500080055032 · Cited by 499
Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts
Lippi-Green, R. (1994) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500017826 · Cited by 455
Studying the clinician: judgment research and psychological assessment
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-3045 · Cited by 444
Assessment in School Psychology Training and Practice
Wilson, M. S., & Reschly, D. J. (1996) · School Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/02796015.1996.12085799 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Faust, D., & Ziskin, J.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1988-07
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 4861
- Pages
- 31-35
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W1980547586
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 313.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Expert Witness in Psychology and Psychiatry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.3291114
- The paper
- Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (1988). The Expert Witness in Psychology and Psychiatry. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3291114
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
