Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE‐V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons*

Langenburg, Glenn; Champod, Christophe; Wertheim, B A Pat

doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x

Cited by 92 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The accuracy of decisions made by latent print examiners has not been ascertained in a large-scale study, despite over one hundred years of the forensic use of fingerprints. Previous studies (1)(2)(3)(4) are surveyed in ref. 5.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

Ulery

Hicklin

Buscaglia

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

289

339

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. The National Research Council of the National Academies and the legal and forensic sciences communities have called for research to measure the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners' decisions, a challenging and complex problem in need of systematic analysis. Our research is focused on the development of empirical approaches to studying this problem. Here, we report on the first large-scale study of the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners' decisions, in which 169 latent print examiners each compared approximately 100 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints from a pool of 744 pairs. The fingerprints were selected to include a range of attributes and quality encountered in forensic casework, and to be comparable to searches of an automated fingerprint identification system containing more than 58 million subjects. This study evaluated examiners on key decision points in the fingerprint examination process; procedures used operationally include additional safeguards designed to minimize errors. Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

Ulery

Hicklin

Buscaglia

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

289

339

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, this report identified concerns regarding the scien- 43 tific underpinning of pattern recognition based disciplines such as 44 fingerprints, firearms and questioned documents. These fields were 45 highlighted due to the perception that there were limited published re- 46 search and documentation to support the validity and reliability of the 47 science and the interpretations made following forensic analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing miscarriages of justice: A review of forensic firearm identification

Bolton-King

2016

Science & Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18The role of a firearm examiner is wide ranging, involving tasks that require scientific understanding in aspects of 19 chemistry, physics and biology. This article aims to provide a critical review of the key scientific principles and 20 practices specifically involved with forensic firearm identification and to discuss how misidentifications have re-21 sulted in cases of injustice. Implementation of quality assured examination practice, demonstration of individual 22 examiner competence and more objective methods of reporting are being adopted by firearm examiners and lab-23 oratories to address some of the criticisms relating to subjectivity and standardisation inherent within the disci-24 pline. The impact of these changes is outlined and further recommendations are made for both examiners and 25 legal professionals to minimise the potential for future injustices involving firearms evidence. Latest research 26 in the field is cited, continuing to support the theory and use of firearm identification as admissible evidence 27 in court. 28

show abstract

“…Study of the verification stage showed that examiners can also be influenced by contextual bias information (e.g. the conclusion of another expert), but rather unexpectedly as it was shown to impact more on the false negatives (wrong exclusions) than on the false positives (wrong associations) [32]. During the comparison phase, experts having access to consensus information from other fingerprint experts demonstrated more consistency and accuracy in minutiae selection.…”

Section: Scientific Developments Since the National Research Council mentioning

confidence: 98%

Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report

Champod

2015

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper will discuss the major developments in the area of fingerprint identification that followed the publication of the National Research Council (NRC, of the US National Academies of Sciences) report in 2009 entitled: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The report portrayed an image of a field of expertise used for decades without the necessary scientific research-based underpinning. The advances since the report and the needs in selected areas of fingerprinting will be detailed. It includes the measurement of the accuracy, reliability, repeatability and reproducibility of the conclusions offered by fingerprint experts. The paper will also pay attention to the development of statistical models allowing assessment of fingerprint comparisons. As a corollary of these developments, the next challenge is to reconcile a traditional practice dominated by deterministic conclusions with the probabilistic logic of any statistical model. There is a call for greater candour and fingerprint experts will need to communicate differently on the strengths and limitations of their findings. Their testimony will have to go beyond the blunt assertion of the uniqueness of fingerprints or the opinion delivered ispe dixit.

show abstract

Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE‐V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons*

Cited by 92 publications

References 12 publications

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

Preventing miscarriages of justice: A review of forensic firearm identification

Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About