The December 2003 article "Expert psychological testimony is focus of APA co-sponsored institute" described the Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals court ruling, which specified how federal judges should determine whether scientific evidence is admissible.
The ruling does not require federal judges to use the four factors outlined in its decision--as the article implied. Rather, the list of factors is intended to be a guide to judges, not a definitive test of admissibility.CORRECTION
In "Tibetan Buddhism and research psychology: a match made in Nirvana?" (December Monitor), Stephanie Rude, PhD, associate professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, was mistakenly identified as an assistant professor.
Letters to the Editor
- Send us a letter