How often do fingerprint examiners disagree in routine casework?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Forensic science international Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112139
Ruby O’Connor , Andrew Chapman
{"title":"How often do fingerprint examiners disagree in routine casework?","authors":"Ruby O’Connor ,&nbsp;Andrew Chapman","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>During routine casework, fingerprint examiners are required to make decisions pertaining to the sufficiency of friction ridge skin impressions. Prior experimental research has established that differences of opinion between examiners are expected, though it is uncertain if these findings are representative of the decisions made during casework. In this study, 5000 job-cards completed by fingerprint experts of the NSW Police Force were scrutinised to track the differences of opinion that occurred between examiners. Experts recorded 19,491 casework decisions, which resulted in 8964 reported identification and inconclusive determinations. Expert decision making was found to be unanimous in 94.8 % of these determinations; 4.6 % involved one expert-to-expert disagreement; and 0.5 % involved two expert-to-expert disagreements. Nil determinations featured more than two expert-to-expert disagreements. Expert-to-expert disagreements occurred in 3.7 % of all identification and inconclusive casework verification decisions. However, verifying experts were more likely to agree with a prior expert’s identification decision, than a prior expert’s inconclusive decision. The observed expert-to-expert identification disagreement rate was 2.0 %, whereas the observed expert-to-expert inconclusive disagreement rate was 12.5 %. Overall, most casework disagreements arose due to subjective differences concerning the suitability of friction ridge skin information for comparison or sufficiency for identification. Experts were more concordant in their decision-making with other experts than with trainees, and approximately three times more likely to disagree with a prior trainees’ identification or inconclusive decision than a prior experts’ identification or inconclusive decision. We assume these differences reflect trainees’ developing proficiencies in assessing the suitability or sufficiency of friction ridge skin impression information. Differences of opinion in casework are expected, which exposes the subjective nature of fingerprint decision-making. Computer-based quality metric and likelihood ratio tools should be considered for use in casework to guide examiner evaluations and mitigate examiner disagreements.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824002202","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During routine casework, fingerprint examiners are required to make decisions pertaining to the sufficiency of friction ridge skin impressions. Prior experimental research has established that differences of opinion between examiners are expected, though it is uncertain if these findings are representative of the decisions made during casework. In this study, 5000 job-cards completed by fingerprint experts of the NSW Police Force were scrutinised to track the differences of opinion that occurred between examiners. Experts recorded 19,491 casework decisions, which resulted in 8964 reported identification and inconclusive determinations. Expert decision making was found to be unanimous in 94.8 % of these determinations; 4.6 % involved one expert-to-expert disagreement; and 0.5 % involved two expert-to-expert disagreements. Nil determinations featured more than two expert-to-expert disagreements. Expert-to-expert disagreements occurred in 3.7 % of all identification and inconclusive casework verification decisions. However, verifying experts were more likely to agree with a prior expert’s identification decision, than a prior expert’s inconclusive decision. The observed expert-to-expert identification disagreement rate was 2.0 %, whereas the observed expert-to-expert inconclusive disagreement rate was 12.5 %. Overall, most casework disagreements arose due to subjective differences concerning the suitability of friction ridge skin information for comparison or sufficiency for identification. Experts were more concordant in their decision-making with other experts than with trainees, and approximately three times more likely to disagree with a prior trainees’ identification or inconclusive decision than a prior experts’ identification or inconclusive decision. We assume these differences reflect trainees’ developing proficiencies in assessing the suitability or sufficiency of friction ridge skin impression information. Differences of opinion in casework are expected, which exposes the subjective nature of fingerprint decision-making. Computer-based quality metric and likelihood ratio tools should be considered for use in casework to guide examiner evaluations and mitigate examiner disagreements.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
指纹检验员在日常工作中出现分歧的频率有多高?
在日常的个案工作中,指纹检验员需要对摩擦脊皮印的充分性做出判断。先前的实验研究表明,检查员之间的意见分歧是可以预见的,但还不能确定这些结果是否能代表办案过程中做出的决定。在这项研究中,对新南威尔士州警察局指纹专家填写的 5000 份工作卡进行了仔细检查,以跟踪检查员之间出现的意见分歧。专家们记录了 19,491 项个案工作决定,其中有 8964 项鉴定报告和不确定鉴定报告。在这些鉴定中,94.8%的鉴定是由专家一致做出的;4.6%的鉴定涉及一次专家与专家之间的意见分歧;0.5%的鉴定涉及两次专家与专家之间的意见分歧。没有超过两次的专家意见分歧。在所有身份验证和不确定的个案工作核查决定中,有 3.7% 出现了专家与专家之间的意见分歧。不过,核查专家更有可能同意先前专家的鉴定决定,而不是先前专家的不确定决定。观察到的专家与专家之间的鉴定意见分歧率为 2.0%,而观察到的专家与专家之间的不确定意见分歧率为 12.5%。总体而言,大多数个案工作中的分歧是由于对摩擦脊表皮信息是否适合比较或是否足以进行鉴定的主观分歧造成的。与受训人员相比,专家与其他专家的决策更一致,而不同意先前受训人员的鉴定或不确定决策的可能性大约是先前专家鉴定或不确定决策的三倍。我们认为这些差异反映了受训人员在评估摩擦脊皮纹信息的适宜性或充分性方面的能力正在提高。个案工作中的意见分歧是意料之中的,这暴露了指纹鉴定决策的主观性。应考虑在个案工作中使用基于计算机的质量度量和似然比工具,以指导检验员的评估工作,减少检验员之间的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
期刊最新文献
Sensitivity assessment of the modified ABAcard® HemaTrace® and p30 immunochromatographic test cards Degradation and preservation of nitrites in whole blood Post mortem chiral analysis of MDMA and MDA in human blood and hair The 2 stages of cartridge primer toolmark production and the implied impact of cartridge manufacturing tolerances Letter to Editor regarding article “Ok Google, Start a Fire. IoT devices as witnesses and actors in fire investigations”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1