OBJECTIVE We tested whether the reliability and validity of psychological testing underlying an expert's opinion influenced judgments made by judges, attorneys, and mock jurors. HYPOTHESES We predicted that the participants would judge the expert's evidence more positively when it had high validity and high reliability. METHOD In Experiment 1, judges (N = 111) and attorneys (N = 95) read a summary of case facts and proffer of expert testimony on the intelligence of a litigant. The psychological testing varied in scientific quality; either there was (a) blind administration (i.e., the psychologist did not have an expectation for the test result) of a highly reliable test, (b) nonblind administration (i.e., the psychologist did have an expectation for the test result) of a highly reliable test, or (c) blind administration of a test with low reliability. In a trial simulation (Experiment 2), we varied the scientific quality of the intelligence test and whether the cross-examination addressed the scientific quality of the test. RESULTS The variations in scientific quality did not influence judges' admissibility decisions nor their ratings of scientific quality nor did it influence attorneys' decisions about whether to move to exclude the evidence. Attorneys' ratings of scientific quality were sensitive to variations in reliability but not the testing conditions. Scientifically informed cross-examinations did not help mock jurors (N = 192) evaluate the validity or the reliability of a psychological test. CONCLUSION Cross-examination was an ineffective method for educating jurors about problems associated with nonblind testing and reliability, which highlights the importance of training judges to evaluate the quality of expert evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

信度和效度的变化不会影响有关心理专家证据的法官，律师和模拟陪审员的决定。

目的我们测试了基于专家意见的心理测试的可靠性和有效性是否会影响法官，律师和模拟陪审员的判断。假设我们预测，当参与者的证据具有很高的有效性和可靠性时，他们会更加积极地判断专家的证据。方法在实验1中，法官（N = 111）和律师（N = 95）阅读了案件事实的摘要以及有关诉讼人智力的专业证词提供者。心理测试的科学素质各不相同；要么（a）对高可靠性测试进行盲目给药（即，心理学家对测试结果没有期望），要么（b）对以下情况进行非盲目给药（即，心理学家对测试结果有期望）高度可靠的测试 或（c）盲目进行可靠性低的测试。在试验模拟中（实验2），我们改变了智能测试的科学质量，以及交叉测试是否解决了测试的科学质量。结果科学质量的变化既不影响法官的可采性决定，也不影响其科学质量等级，也不影响律师关于是否排除证据的决定。律师对科学质量的评级对可靠性的变化敏感，但对测试条件不敏感。科学地进行交叉询问并不能帮助模拟陪审员（N = 192）评估心理测验的有效性或可靠性。结论盘问是对陪审员进行与非盲测和可靠性有关的问题的教育的无效方法，这突出了培训法官以评估专家证据质量的重要性。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。