Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 54

1.

Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits.

Vallabhajosula B, van Gorp WG.

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2001;29(2):207-15.

PMID:
11471788
2.

Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.

Zlotnick J, Lin JR.

Forensic Sci Rev. 2001 Jul;13(2):87-99. Review.

PMID:
26256304
3.

Should human figure drawings be admitted into court?

Lally SJ.

J Pers Assess. 2001 Feb;76(1):135-49. Review.

PMID:
11206294
4.
5.

Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science.

Penrod SD, Fulero SM, Cutler BL.

Behav Sci Law. 1995 Spring;13(2):229-59. Review.

PMID:
10150378
6.

Admissibility and per se exclusion of hypnotically elicited recall in American courts of law.

Perry C.

Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1997 Jul;45(3):266-79. Review.

PMID:
9204639
7.

Symptom validity testing: a critical review.

Bianchini KJ, Mathias CW, Greve KW.

Clin Neuropsychol. 2001 Feb;15(1):19-45. Review.

PMID:
11778576
8.

The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.

Hollingsworth JG, Lasker EG.

J Health Law. 2004 Winter;37(1):85-111. Review.

PMID:
15191237
9.

Determination of effort level, exaggeration, and malingering in neurocognitive assessment.

Lynch WJ.

J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004 May-Jun;19(3):277-83. Review.

PMID:
15247849
10.

Detecting the malingering of cognitive deficits: an update.

Haines ME, Norris MP.

Neuropsychol Rev. 1995 Jun;5(2):125-48. Review.

PMID:
8719024
12.

[The investigation of event-related brain potentials in malingered neurocognitive deficit].

Guo L, Cheng ZH, Liu XM.

Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2010 Oct;26(5):364-6, 373. Review. Chinese.

PMID:
21287742
13.

Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.

Cecil JS.

Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S74-80. Review.

PMID:
16030342
14.

Evolving legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Black B.

Science. 1988 Mar 25;239(4847):1508-12. Review.

PMID:
3281252
15.

[Evaluating the simulation of memory problems within the legal and forensic fields].

García Domingo G, Negredo López L, Fernández Guinea S.

Rev Neurol. 2004 Apr 16-30;38(8):766-74. Review. Spanish.

16.

Assisting judges in screening medical practice guidelines for health care litigation.

Zweig FM, Witte HA.

Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1993 Aug;19(8):342-54. Review.

PMID:
8220816
17.

Malingering assessment: evaluation of validity of performance.

Vanderploeg RD, Curtiss G.

NeuroRehabilitation. 2001;16(4):245-51. Review.

PMID:
11790911
18.

Expertise in law, medicine, and health care.

Shuman DW.

J Health Polit Policy Law. 2001 Apr;26(2):267-90. Review.

PMID:
11330081
19.

Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse.

Morison S, Greene E.

Child Abuse Negl. 1992 Jul-Aug;16(4):595-613. Review.

PMID:
1393722
20.

The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law.

Krimsky S.

Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S129-36. Review.

PMID:
16030328

Supplemental Content

Support Center