This is the standard used by a trial judge to assess whether an expert witness’s scientific testimony is based on scientifically valid reasoning that which can properly be applied to the facts at issue.
This standard comes from the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
General Electric v. Joiner
In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court clarified Daubert, holding that an appellate court may still review a trial court's decision to admit ot exclude expert testimony. The standard of review for this inquiry is the abuse of discretion standard.
Kumho v. Carmichael
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court further clarified that the Daubert factors may apply to non-scientific testimony, meaning "the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists."