Many domestic violence (DV) "experts" lack empirical knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA's). They make claims about DV in reports, declarations and testimony which are empirically deficient, incorrect or misleading. Often their claims are rooted in feminist dogma not empirical science. The purpose of this book is to present a straight-forward deposition method to assess a DV "expert" for their level of empirical knowledge about the subject of domestic violence and their capacity to parse good research from bad. A scenario based upon real cases is used throughout the book to illustrate how the method is deployed. Chapter one introduces the problem of empirically deficient DV "experts" testifying or writing reports. A scenario based upon real cases is introduced. Chapter two explains how empirical training is gotten so the attorney can assess an "expert's" curriculum vitae to see if (s)he has empirical training--or not.

It also presents the Empirical Capabilities Assessment Test, Modified (ECAT-M). This tool can be used by attorneys when deposing the DV "expert." Chapter three is a primer to help attorneys understand fundamental practices in empirical science, with an emphasis on comparing the practices of good and bad science using several examples. Two methods attorneys can use to assess research for empirical trustworthiness are presented. Chapter four examines subjects claims by a leading DV "expert" to empirical scrutiny so that attorneys can see how claims can be challenged using empirical science. It also demonstrates the "circle of experts" phenomenon. Chapter five provides strategic considerations for deployment before and after deposing a DV "expert." Chapter six provides a question bank to ask during the DV "expert's" deposition.

Chapter seven provides a sample report by Dr. Nelson wherein he assesses the ECAT-M score of the DV "expert" used in the example scenario begun in Chapter One.