The most consistent finding in forensic science is inconsistency.
cognitive bias
conclusions
decision making
expertise
forensic conclusions
human factors
linear sequential unmasking
reliability
variability
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:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
15
08
2023
received:
08
04
2023
accepted:
15
08
2023
medline:
27
10
2023
pubmed:
4
9
2023
entrez:
2
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The most consistent finding in many forensic science domains is inconsistency (i.e., lack of reliability, reproducibility, repeatability, and replicability). The lack of consistency is a major problem, both from a scientific and a criminal justice point of view. Examining forensic conclusion data, from across many forensic domains, highlights the underlying cognitive issues and offers a better understanding of the issues and challenges. Such insights enable the development of ways to minimize these inconsistencies and move forward. The aim is to highlight the problem, so that it can be minimized and the reliability of forensic science evidence can be improved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37658789
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15369
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1851-1855Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
Lidén M, Dror IE. Expert reliability in legal proceedings: “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, with which expert should we go?”. Sci Justice. 2021;61:37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.09.006
Dror IE, Scurich N. (Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2020;2:333-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.006
Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032800
Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identif. 2006;56(4):600-616.
Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to make erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;156(1):74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
Earwaker H, Morgan RM, Harris AJ, Hall LA. Fingermark submission decision-making within a UK fingerprint laboratory: do experts get the marks that they need? Sci Justice. 2015;55:239-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.01.007
Hicklin A, Richetelli N, Emerick B, Vever R, Davoren J. Variation in assessments of suitability and number of contributors for DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2023;65:102892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102892
Dror IE, Champod C, Langenburg G, Charlton D, Hunt H, Rosenthal R. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a ‘target’ comparison. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;208(1-3):10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013
Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
Butler JM, Kline MC, Coble MD. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): variation observed and lessons learned. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;37:81-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.07.024
Barrio PA, Crespillo M, Luque JA, Aler M, Baeza-Richer C, Baldassarri CL, et al. GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting conclusions: results and evaluation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;35:156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.05.005
Sunde N, Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to digital forensics: reliability and biasability in digital forensics decision making. Forensic Sci Int Digit Investig. 2021;37:301175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301175
Law EF, Morris KB. Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproduction. J Forensic Sci. 2021;66(5):1704-1720. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14758
Monson K, Smith E, Peters E. Repeatability and reproducibility of comparison decisions by firearms examiners. J Forensic Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15318 Epub 2023 July 02.
Hicklin A, Winer K, Kish P, Parks C, Chapman W, Dunagan K, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of conclusions by forensic bloodstain pattern analysts. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;325:110856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110856
Majamaa H, Ytti A. A survey of the conclusions drawn of similar footwear cases in various crime laboratories. Forensic Sci Int. 1996;82:109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(96)01972-X
Dror IE, Murrie D. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to forensic psychological assessments. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2018;24(1):11-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000140
Liden M, Almazrouei M. “Blood, bucks and bias”: reliability and biasability of crime scene investigators' selection and prioritization of blood traces. Sci Justice. 2023;63:276-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.005
Dror IE, Scherr S, Mohammed L, MacLean C, Cunningham L. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;318:110610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110610
Koehler J, Liu S. Fingerprint error rate on close non-matches. J Forensic Sci. 2021;66(1):129-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14580
Spellman BA, Quigley-McBride A. Reasoning about forensic science evidence. In: Brigaglia M, Roversi C, editors. Legal reasoning and cognitive science: Topics and perspectives. Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche; In press.
Dror IE. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Anal Chem. 2020;92(12):7998-8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
Cuellar M, Mauro J, Luby A. A probabilistic formalisation of contextual bias: from forensic analysis to systemic bias in the criminal justice system. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2022;185:S620-S643. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12962
Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein CR. Noise: a flaw in human judgment. London: William Collins; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12345
Kukucka J, Dror IE. Human factors in forensic science: psychological causes of bias and error. In: DeMatteo D, Scherr K, editors. The Oxford handbook of psychology and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2023. p. 621-642. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.36
Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP). J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2016;5(2):121-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.03.001
Almazrouei MA, Dror IE, Morgan R. The forensic disclosure model: what should be disclosed to, and by, forensic experts? Int J Law Crime Justice. 2019;59:100330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.05.003
Kafadar K. The need for objective measures in forensic evidence. Significance. 2019;16:16-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01249.x
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Report to the President-Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. 2016. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2023.
Albright TD. How to make better forensic decisions. PNAS. 2022;119:e2206567119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206567119
Dorfman AH, Valliant R. Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis: three statistical perspectives. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022;5:100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100273
Dror IE. The ambition to be scientific: human expert performance and objectivity. Sci Justice. 2013;53(2):81-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.03.002
Dean ML. Presentation order effects in product taste tests. J Psychol. 1980;105:107-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1980.9915138
Asche SE. Forming impressions of personality. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1946;41:258-290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756
Hovland CI, editor. The order of presentation in persuasion. London: Yale University Press; 1957.
Darley JM, Gross PH. A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;44:20-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20
Barry C, Halfmann K. The effect of mindset on decision-making. J Integr Soc Sci. 2016;6:49-74.
Davidson M, Nakhaeizadeh S, Rando C. Cognitive bias and the order of examination in forensic anthropological non-metric methods: a pilot study. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2023;5:255-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2021.1998625
Dror IE, Kukucka J. Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E): a general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2021;3:100161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161
Kunkler KS, Roy T. Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: practical actions for forensic science practitioners. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2023;7:100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100341
Quigley-McBride A, Dror IE, Roy T, Garrett BL, Kukucka J. A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022;4:100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100216
Whitehead FA, Mr W, Sigman ME. Decision theory and linear sequential unmasking in forensic fire debris analysis: a proposed workflow. Forensic Chem. 2022;29:100426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forc.2022.100426