The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology.
Case strategy
Cognitive bias
Contextual bias
Forensic toxicology
Human factors
Journal
Forensic science international. Synergy
ISSN: 2589-871X
Titre abrégé: Forensic Sci Int Synerg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101766849
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
02
06
2020
revised:
13
06
2020
accepted:
19
06
2020
entrez:
1
1
2021
pubmed:
2
1
2021
medline:
2
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The impact of cognitive bias on decisions in forensic science has been demonstrated in numerous disciplines such as DNA and fingerprints, but has not been empirically investigated in the more objective domains, such as forensic toxicology. In the first experiment, participants (n = 58) were affected by irrelevant case information when analysing data from an immunoassay test for opiate-type drugs. In the second experiment, participants (n = 53) were biased in their choice of tests, for example, the age of the deceased impacted testing strategy: for older people, medicinal drugs were commonly chosen, whereas for younger people drugs of abuse were selected. Based on the results that examiners analyzing case data may have biases if they are given access to case context, we propose that examiners analysing presumptive test data are blind to irrelevant contextual information. Furthermore, that forensic toxicology laboratories use a consistent protocol for selecting tests, and that any deviations are documented and justified.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33385132
doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.003
pii: S2589-871X(20)30044-9
pmc: PMC7770460
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
339-348Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Sci Justice. 2019 Jul;59(4):380-389
pubmed: 31256809
Anal Chem. 2020 Jun 16;92(12):7998-8004
pubmed: 32508089
Law Hum Behav. 2018 Aug;42(4):295-305
pubmed: 30035551
J Forensic Sci. 2012 Mar;57(2):343-52
pubmed: 22212067
Sci Justice. 2015 Jul;55(4):239-47
pubmed: 26087871
J Forensic Sci. 2016 Nov;61(6):1461-1466
pubmed: 27643619
J Forensic Sci. 2016 Jul;61(4):922-7
pubmed: 27102227
Sci Justice. 2011 Dec;51(4):204-8
pubmed: 22137054
Law Hum Behav. 2016 Aug;40(4):420-9
pubmed: 27149288
Sci Justice. 2003 Apr-Jun;43(2):77-90
pubmed: 12879569
Forensic Sci Int. 2011 May 20;208(1-3):10-7
pubmed: 21129867
Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Apr;297:35-46
pubmed: 30769302
Sci Justice. 2017 Nov;57(6):415-420
pubmed: 29173454
Arch Toxicol. 2020 Apr;94(4):1085-1133
pubmed: 32249347
Sci Justice. 2018 Sep;58(5):335-345
pubmed: 30193659
Law Hum Behav. 2014 Jun;38(3):256-70
pubmed: 24341837
J Anal Toxicol. 2019 Oct 17;43(9):734-745
pubmed: 31424082
Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Jan 6;156(1):74-8
pubmed: 16325362
J Forensic Sci. 2014 Sep;59(5):1177-83
pubmed: 24666192
J Forensic Sci. 2018 Mar;63(2):403-411
pubmed: 28678377
Sci Justice. 2016 Dec;56(6):475-481
pubmed: 27914555
J Drug Educ. 2013;43(2):97-120
pubmed: 25068165
Cogn Sci. 2018 Jun 28;:
pubmed: 29954047
Forensic Sci Int. 2020 Mar;308:110174
pubmed: 32036324
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 Mar 10;2:110-113
pubmed: 32412009
J Forensic Sci. 2019 Jan;64(1):120-126
pubmed: 29772072
Sci Justice. 2020 Jul;60(4):337-346
pubmed: 32650935
Science. 2018 Apr 20;360(6386):243
pubmed: 29674567
J Anal Toxicol. 2013 Jan-Feb;37(1):17-24
pubmed: 23118149
Sci Justice. 2014 May;54(3):208-14
pubmed: 24796950
Mo Med. 2015 May-Jun;112(3):206-10
pubmed: 26168592
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 May 21;2:148-153
pubmed: 32490372
J Forensic Sci. 2020 May;65(3):800-808
pubmed: 31886896