Strengthening the Evidentiary Framework: A Review and Analysis of Statistics in Psychology and Law Research

To initiate a strengthening of the evidentiary framework, we set out to identify, review, and describe the most commonly reported statistics in some of the leading psychology and law journals. The broad goal was to shed light on the state of statistical inferences and related reporting standards in the field. We hoped, as a result, the academy would respond by making improvements in the dissemination of empirical observations, thereby hardening the reliability of expert opinions born out of their publications. Two related objectives were to provide consumers of the literature with guidance on best practices for interpreting the most commonly reported coefficients and to offer editorial teams recommendations in their refereeing of empirical submissions. To set the stage for our exercise in statistical refinement specific to psychology and law, we begin with a discussion of prior research on the state of statistics and the established standards governing the reporting of statistics in psychological research more broadly. Next, we outline findings from the present inquiry. We conclude with a discussion of statistical opinions in legal contexts, including issues relevant to admissibility standards, historical patterns in the gatekeeping of statistical evidence, and ethical practices in proffering statistics both in the courtroom and in reports intended for such use.