Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^

Characteristics of effective clinical and theory instructors as perceived by LPN to RN versus generic students in an associate degree nursing program

The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of effective clinical and theory instructors as perceived by LPN/RN versus generic students in an associate degree nursing program.^ Data were collected from 508 students during the 1996-7 academic year from three NLN accredited associate degree nursing programs. The researcher developed instrument consisted of three parts: (a) Whitehead Characteristics of Effective Clinical Instructor Rating Scale, (b) Whitehead Characteristics of Effective Theory Instructor Rating Scale, and (c) Demographic Data Sheet. The items were listed under five major categories identified in the review of the literature: (a) interpersonal relationships, (b) personality traits, (c) teaching practices, (d) knowledge and experience, and (e) evaluation procedures. The instrument was administered to LPN/RN students in their first semester and to generic students in the third semester of an associate degree nursing program.^ Data was analyzed using a one factor mutivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Further t tests were carried out to explore for possible differences between type of student and by group. Crosstabulations of the demographic data were analyzed.^ There were no significant differences found between the LPN/RN versus generic students on their perceptions of either effective theory or effective clinical instructor characteristics. There were significant differences between groups on several of the individual items. There was no significant interaction between group and ethnicity or group and age on the five major categories for either of the two instruments. There was a significant main effect of ethnicity on several of the individual items.^ The differences between the means and standard deviations on both instruments were small, suggesting that all of the characteristics listed for effective theory and clinical instructors were important to both groups of students. Effective teaching behaviors, as indicated on the survey instruments, should be taught to students in graduate teacher education programs. These behaviors should also be discussed by faculty coordinators supervising adjunct faculty. Nursing educators in associate degree nursing programs should understand theories of adult learning and implement instructional strategies to enhance minority student success. ^