Kovera M B, McAuliff B D
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, North Miami 33181, USA.
J Appl Psychol. 2000 Aug;85(4):574-86. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.
Scientifically trained and untrained judges read descriptions of an expert's research in which the peer review status and internal validity were manipulated. Seventeen percent of the judges said they would admit the expert evidence, irrespective of its internal validity. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal also had no effect on judges' decisions. Training interacted with the internal validity manipulation. Scientifically trained judges rated valid evidence more positively than did untrained judges. Untrained judges rated a study with a confound more positively than did trained judges. Training did not affect judge evaluations of studies with a missing control group or potential experimenter bias. Admissibility decisions were correlated with judges' perceptions of the study's validity, jurors' ability to evaluate scientific evidence, and the effectiveness of cross-examination and opposing experts to highlight flaws in scientific methodology.
接受过科学训练和未接受过科学训练的法官阅读了对一位专家研究的描述，其中同行评审状态和内部有效性被操纵。17%的法官表示，无论其内部有效性如何，他们都会采信专家证据。在同行评审期刊上发表文章对法官的决定也没有影响。培训与内部有效性操纵相互作用。接受过科学训练的法官对有效证据的评价比未接受过科学训练的法官更积极。未接受过科学训练的法官对存在混淆因素的研究的评价比接受过科学训练的法官更积极。培训并未影响法官对缺少对照组或存在潜在实验者偏差的研究的评价。可采性决定与法官对研究有效性的认知、陪审员评估科学证据的能力以及交叉询问和对立专家突出科学方法缺陷的有效性相关。
