Evaluating psychological expertise on questions of social fact

The empirical evidence summarized in the APA amicus brief inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins was initially presented at trial, subject to quality control measures contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence and an opportunity for cross-examination. This evidence was incorporated into the adjudicative facts determined by the trial judge. These unique circumstances rendered the APA brief more akin to a guild brief than to a typical APA science translation orBrandeis brief. As such, the brief was effective. However, the debate about the brief highlights shortcomings in the existing system for evaluating social science facts presented for the first time by a friend of the court. Recommendations are made to take into account the consensus of experts in the field and adverse findings when presenting empirical evidence for the first time in an appeal brief.