These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
22. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done? Kaufman HH. Sci Justice; 2001; 41(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 11215302 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. The forensic psychiatrist as expert witness in malpractice cases. Gutheil TG. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1999; 27(4):653-5. PubMed ID: 10638793 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Fixed vs. flexible neuropsychological test batteries under the Daubert standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Reed JE. Behav Sci Law; 1996 Jan; 14(3):315-22. PubMed ID: 8963383 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Principles of forensic mental health assessment: implications for neuropsychological assessment in forensic contexts. Heilbrun K, Marczyk GR, DeMatteo D, Zillmer EA, Harris J, Jennings T. Assessment; 2003 Dec; 10(4):329-43. PubMed ID: 14682479 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. [Opinion of the Polish Psychiatric Association Management Office and Polish consultants about the use of forensic psychiatry in expert court testimony]. Bomba J, Wciórka J, Puzyński S. Psychiatr Pol; 2004 Dec; 38(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 15307285 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: active judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence. Kirsch EW. Food Drug Law J; 1995 Dec; 50(2):213-34. PubMed ID: 10342992 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]