Accuracy and expert testimony.

In an article in the journal Science, Faust and Ziskin have asserted that the testimony of psychologists and psychiatrists cannot "meet legal standards for expertise" for purposes of trial evidence. ' This assertion, given visibility and credence by a journal of the stature of Science, understandably has raised concern among forensic mental health profess i o n a l ~ . ~ Attorneys have begun to use Faust and Ziskin's arguments to attack mental health professionals' testimony. Moreover, many attorneys and judges who must evaluate these assertions may not have an adequate frame of reference for evaluating Faust and Ziskin's arguments. These concerns are augmented by the nature and quality of Faust and Ziskin's accusations which, by our analysis, are largely unwarranted and misleading. The mental health professions should not seek to minimize the existence of limitations and valid complaints that may be made against psychological and psychiatric evidence. Faust and Ziskin's article, however, makes no contribution to our understanding of those issues. Moreover, the charges leveled by Faust and Ziskin are serious ones, and the status of psychiatrists and psychologists