Latent Print Proficiency Testing: An Examination of Test Respondents, Test-Taking Procedures, and Test Characteristics.
forensic science
human factors
latent prints
proficiency testing
quality metrics
Journal
Journal of forensic sciences
ISSN: 1556-4029
Titre abrégé: J Forensic Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375370
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
28
06
2019
revised:
14
08
2019
accepted:
15
08
2019
pubmed:
12
9
2019
medline:
12
9
2019
entrez:
12
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Proficiency testing is a key component of quality assurance programs within crime laboratories and can help improve laboratory practices. However, current proficiency testing procedures contain significant limitations and can be misinterpreted by examiners and court personnel (Garrett & Mitchell, 2018). To evaluate some of these limitations, we surveyed latent print examiners (n = 198) after they completed a Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. proficiency test. Additionally, we evaluated test performance and used a quality metric algorithm to evaluate the quality of test prints. Results do not suggest that respondents are dissimilar to the broader examiner population, although they may engage in different behaviors when completing tests versus casework. Findings show that proficiency testing contains prints of high quality and is perceived as both relatively easy and representative of casework. The test discriminated between inexperienced and experienced respondents, and verification procedures were largely ineffective in reducing errors. Objective quality metrics may provide a path forward to improving proficiency testing in a measurable manner.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31509243
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14187
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
450-457Subventions
Organisme : Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence
ID : Cooperative Agreement #70NANB15H176
Informations de copyright
© 2019 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2016.
Garrett BL, Mitchell G. The proficiency of experts. Univ PA Law Rev 2018;166(4):901-60.
Max BP, Cavise J, Gutierrez RE, Three attorneys participate in fingerprint proficiency testing: Results and observations. Proceedings of the Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 18-23; Baltimore, MD. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2019.
Koehler JJ. Proficiency tests to estimate error rates in the forensic sciences. Law Probab Risk 2013;12(1):89-98.
Koehler JJ. Intuitive error rate estimates for the forensic sciences. Jurimetrics 2017;57:153-68.
Langenburg G. A performance study of the ACE-V process: a pilot study to measure the accuracy, precision, reproducibility, repeatability, and biasability of conclusions resulting from the ACE-V process. J Forensic Identif 2009;59(2):219-57.
Cembrowski GS, Vanderlinde RE. Survey of special practices associated with College of American Pathologists proficiency testing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Arch Path Lab Med 1988;112(4):374-6.
Boone DJ, Hearn T, Lewis S. Assessment of extent to which laboratories compare results before reporting in national laboratory performance surveys, abstracted. Clin Chem 1985;31:115.
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science. DNA technology in forensic science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1992.
Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WT, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev 2002;90(1):1-56.
American Statistical Association. ASA board policy statement on forensic science reform, 2010. https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-Forensic_Science_Endorsement.pdf (accessed August 15, 2019).
Koehler JJ. Fingerprint error rates and proficiency tests: what they are and why they matter. Hastings Law J 2008;59(5):1077-99.
Bayles A. Testimony in US v. Plaza, 188, R. Suppl. 2d. Daubert Hearing 2002.
Mnookin JL. Of black boxes, instruments, and experts: testing the validity of forensic science. Episteme: a Journal of. Social Epistemology 2008;5(3):343-58.
Kelley S, Murrie DC, Gardner BO, Pan KDH, Kafadar K, Blaisdell KN. How do latent print examiners perceive proficiency testing? An analysis of examiner perceptions, performance, and print quality. Proceedings of the 71st Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; Baltimore, MD & Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2019.
Peterson JL, Lin G, Ho M, Chen Y, Gaensllen RE. The feasibility of external blind DNA proficiency testing: i. Background and findings. J Forensic Sci 2003;48(1):21-31.
Koehler JJ. Forensics or fauxrensics? Ascertaining accuracy in the forensic sciences. Ariz St L J 2017;49:1369-416.
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Universal Latent Workstation (ULW) LQMetrics user guide, 2015. https://www.fbibiospecs.cjis.gov/Latent/PrintServices (accessed August 15, 2019).
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. Latent Print Examination Test No. 19-5161/2/5 summary report, 2019. https://cts-forensics.com/reports/19-5161.2.5_Web.pdf (accessed August 15, 2019).
Gardner BO, Kelley S, Murrie DC, Dror IE. What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making? Science & Justice 2019; 59(5):516-523.
Ulery BT, Hicklin A, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108(19):7733-8.
Black JP. Is there a need for 100% verification (review) of latent print examination conclusions? J Forensic Identif 2012;62(1):80-100.
Rairden A, Garrett BL, Kelley S, Murrie D, Castillo D. Resolving latent conflict: what happens when latent print examiners enter the cage? Forensic Sci Int 2018;289:215-22.
Ulery BT, Hicklin A, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS ONE 2012;7(3):e32800.