This study examines the background and qualifications of plaintiff and defense experts using the H-Index score as quantification of expert background and qualifications. The goal is to better understand the similarities and differences among the professionals offering paid expert witness testimony in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) civil litigation. In this quantitative study, descriptive statistics include the mean and standard deviation scores for the data to support examining measures of central tendency and variance, respectively. The study includes the use of logistic regression and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and their statistical assumptions were tested to determine whether they would be used or if it was more appropriate to use a non-parametric test. The study included two research questions: How do the qualifications of plaintiff and defense expert witnesses in mild traumatic brain injury civil litigation compare? and to what extent does a higher h-index correlate with a favorable litigation outcome in a mild traumatic brain injury case? The findings for the hypothesis tests associated with the research questions led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis in each test. There was a lack of asymptotic significance in Hypothesis 1 and a lack of significance in Hypothesis 2. The findings from these tests shall support the discussion of the implications of this research and the direction of future research.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:unt.edu/info:ark/67531/metadc1985602 |
| Date | 08 1900 |
| Creators | Victor, Elise C |
| Contributors | Cleveland, Ana, Chang, Hsia-Ching, Philbrick, Jodi, Nguyen, Thuan |
| Publisher | University of North Texas |
| Source Sets | University of North Texas |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis or Dissertation |
| Format | Text |
| Rights | Public, Victor, Elise C, Copyright, Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights Reserved. |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds