Forensic anthropology casework performance: Assessing accuracy and trends for biological profile estimates on a comprehensive sample of identified decedent cases

Hughes, Cris E.; Juarez, Chelsey A.; Yim, An‐Di

doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14782

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Code §68.50.645, a primary role of the State Physical Anthropologist is to determine whether HSR are “Indian” or “Non‐Indian,” anachronistic terms that illustrate a key question for remains from both unmarked burials as well as forensic cases [34]. There is current debate among expert biological anthropologists and forensic anthropologists regarding the complications and validity of evaluating biological ancestry (or “race”) from HSR [35–38]. If experts with decades of experience disagree on the reliability of estimating ancestry or adult age or sex, etc., from HSR, how can anyone with less experience and education provide meaningful information?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Carter

Newman

Seidemann

et al. 2022

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human skeletal remains (HSR) are routinely excavated from archeological contexts and analyzed by experts in human osteology. Contrarily, HSR in medicolegal contexts are usually recovered by law enforcement officers and examined by pathologists with limited osteological training. To examine legal requirements for expertise, we reviewed laws in the United States regarding the recovery and analysis of HSR from archeological sites, unmarked graves, and medicolegal contexts. Of the 50 states, 19 (38%) have laws stating that an anthropologist with osteological training should be involved in the recovery or analysis of HSR from an archeological context. Fifteen of those 16 states have laws requiring a minimum level of education to be a qualified skeletal analyst. In contrast, only one state, Texas, requires an anthropologist who handles forensic cases to have a doctoral degree. Including Texas, only eight states (16%) have laws that encourage but do not mandate consultation with a forensic anthropologist for medicolegal skeletal cases. Louisiana and Washington have state‐funded laboratories, expert forensic anthropologists, and effective protocols for handling forensic cases. Due process and human rights concerns at stake in criminal cases require that those recovering and analyzing modern HSR have an equal or higher level of expertise than those working with archeological remains. Yet, legislators assume that law enforcement and pathologists are adequately trained. Because court standards demand expert testimony based on accepted methodologies and standard levels of competency, forensic anthropologists have a professional responsibility to engage with lawmakers to draft legislation to ensure proper handling of all skeletal cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Carter

Newman

Seidemann

et al. 2022

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reporting and/or testing method-level accuracy and precision have become standard in method development and validation following the 2009 NAS Report [5]. However, method-level accuracy and precision, tested as part of method development and validation, do not necessarily reflect how forensic anthropologists actually employ these methods in casework [6,7]. Even for a single method, there are a variety of ways that a practitioner can report their findings [8].…”

Section: Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Considerations for age estimation accuracy: Method‐derived outcomes and practitioner interpretations

Hughes,

Yim,

Juarez

2024

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research observed 92% accuracy for age‐at‐death estimations by U.S. forensic anthropologists. The present study compares this case report level accuracy to method level accuracy for the most commonly used methods in U.S. casework, drawing from the Forensic Anthropology Database for Assessing Methods Accuracy (FADAMA). Method application rate (i.e., how often a method is used in casework) was analyzed for n = 641 cases and identified 15 methods with an application rate >45 cases, and the present study focused further analyses on these 15 methods. Of the 15, only four yielded accuracies greater than or equal to the 92% documented for case‐report level accuracy. The other 11 methods produced accuracy rates ranging from 54% to 91%, with six of these below 70% This disconnect between highly accurate age estimations at the case report level compared to the poor performance at method level suggests that practitioner interpretation and synthesis of the methods' outcomes is a critical step for increasing the accuracy rates of the age estimations as reported on the final case report. This inference was further supported by the study's results which indicated that practitioner interpretations of frequently used method combinations improve accuracy and age range width of age estimation. The study also performed a Fisher's Exact test to assess whether case report‐level accuracy differed with the number of aging methods used in a case, and found no significant differences.

show abstract

“…Skull and bone form are reliable characteristics, but craniometrics can provide real advantages as the most objective means of generating data. 4 Statistical analysis of the skull is best achieved using reliable, well-established osteometric methods. 5 , 6 In recent years, craniometric measurements have become an important tool used by anthropologists, forensic experts and reconstructive surgeons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic evaluation of craniometric characteristics of the Kazakhstan population

Mussabekova,

Stoyan,

Mkhitaryan

et al. 2024

Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic anthropology casework performance: Assessing accuracy and trends for biological profile estimates on a comprehensive sample of identified decedent cases

Cited by 8 publications

References 53 publications

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Considerations for age estimation accuracy: Method‐derived outcomes and practitioner interpretations

Forensic evaluation of craniometric characteristics of the Kazakhstan population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About