A more thorough explanation:

The Frye test was a rule of evidence that determined the admissibility of scientific evidence in court. It required that the tests or procedures must have gained general acceptance in their particular field. However, in 1993, the Supreme Court replaced the Frye test with the Daubert test.

The Daubert test is a method used by federal district courts to determine whether expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This rule requires that expert testimony consist of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the fact-finder in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

The trial court acts as the "gatekeeper" of the evidence and must decide whether the proposed expert testimony meets the requirements of relevance and reliability. The court applies the test outside the jury's presence, usually during a pretrial Daubert hearing. At the hearing, the proponent must show that the expert's underlying reasoning or methodology and its application to the facts are scientifically valid.

In ruling on admissibility, the court considers a flexible list of factors, including:

• Whether the theory can be or has been tested
• Whether the theory has been subjected to peer review or publication
• The theory's known or potential rate of error and whether there are standards that control its operation
• The degree to which the relevant scientific community has accepted the theory

For example, if a forensic scientist wants to testify about the results of a DNA test, the court will apply the Daubert test to determine whether the test is scientifically valid and reliable. The court will consider factors such as whether the test has been peer-reviewed, whether there are standards that control its operation, and whether the scientific community has accepted the test as reliable.

Variations of the Daubert test are applied in the trial courts of most states.