* * * * *

In the evaluation, assessment and testing field there has been some confusion regarding the Daubert Rule, Frye Rule and Codification of the Federal Rules of Evidence and how they apply to tests. This discussion is not a legal opinion, rather it is intended to help Risk & Needs test users to discuss these topics with judges, attorneys and court staff. When these topics are encountered we would appreciate Risk & Needs test users bringing them to our attention so we can assist in explaining how our tests meet these criteria.

The Daubert Rule allows Trial Judges to Review All Expert Testimony for Reliability. The Supreme Court clarified that the Daubert Rule, stating that trial judges are gatekeepers who may prevent dubious scientific testimony from being introduced at trial, extends to all expert testimony. This flexible standard gives trial courts substantial discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony. On Daubert issues the district court enjoys wide latitude, and appellate review is for abuse of discretion.

If the parties differences can be portrayed as primarily a dispute over the reliability of plaintiff’s expert evidence, the district court may enjoy significant leeway to resolve the controversy. Formal supplementation should not technically be required to defend the expert’s methodologies. The expert’s job is to offer support for the reliability of what the expert did--not to anticipate and refute every imaginable Daubert argument that it should have been done differently.

The Frye Rule served as the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in all jurisdictions for 70 years, under Frye, only testimony based on novel scientific techniques that had not gained general acceptance in the scientific community is excluded from evidence. Frye V. U.S. (D.C. Cir 1923) 293F.1013.

In 1975 the Federal Rules of Evidence was Codified and they include Rule 702 which concerns use of scientific knowledge as evidence. These legal concerns may differ from social scientists and mental health professional’s views. Social scientists, psychologists, mental health professionals, psychometricians and others routinely define reliability and validity. The professionally acknowledged standard for "test reliability" is a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .75 or higher. Similarly, "validity coefficients" representing significance levels of .01 or better are accepted.

Each Risk & Needs test and their scales (measures) exceed these professional criteria for reliability and validity. Each tests reliability and validity is reported in their "Inventory of Scientific Findings" and additional test-related information and research is presented in Risk & Needs website www.riskandneeds.com. And additional research is available upon request.

If interview based information is considered "scientific knowledge" how do legal concerns regarding reliability and validity apply to interviews like the SARA, ASI, LSI (checklist/interview), etc.?

If information from "interviews" like the Mosaic 20, SARA, Addiction Severity Index (ASI), Lethality Checklist, LSI (checklist-interview), Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule (SUDDS), etc. is considered "scientific knowledge" how do these interviewers answer questions regarding their reliability, validity and accuracy?  This topic is discussed in the "Introduction to Risk & Needs" scroll on the About Risk & Needs webpage and in the "Juvenile Violence Interview" scroll on the Juvenile Violence Interview webpage.

Risk & Needs tests have been positively accepted by courts, health care professionals, probation departments, corrections (penitentiaries) departments, state programs and treatment programs throughout the U.S. Risk & Needs tests are recognized within the assessment (evaluation, screening, testing) community and meet the criteria of "general acceptance." Risk & Needs U.S. and Canadian test users exceed 2,000. And several states mandate their use in state statutes, whereas other states simply approve their use.

Risk & Need tests are based on empirical research incorporating professionally accepted psychometric methodology and statistical procedures. Donald Davignon, Ph.D. graduated from Arizona State University in the Department of Experimental Psychology. Dr. Davignon is Risk & Needs senior research analyst. He has completed and/or supervised Risk & Needs test-related research.

As always, additional information can be provided upon request. Should you encounter the Daubert and Frye Rules, or the Codification of Federal Rules of Evidence, Risk & Needs would like to provide information that should help clarify the suitability and appropriateness of its tests.

* * * * *