Abstract
Arguments regarding the credibility of psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ expert testimony are commonly restricted to impressions about whether claims to special reasoning powers or capabilities are justified or not. The large, but often neglected body of research on human judgment provides a means for analyzing these claims scientifically. Systematic review shows that claims for the beneficial effects of experience and practice on judgment accuracy, the clinician's powers of data integration, the ability to utilize clinical impression, and the capacity to detect malingering have little evidence and extensive counterevidence. Caution is advised in using these claims to bolster one's credibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.