Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners

PLoS ONE

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Ulery, Bradford T ^a   Hicklin, R Austin ^a   Buscaglia, JoAnn ^b   Roberts, Maria Antonia ^b  

^a NOBLIS   (United States)

^b Federal Bureau of Investigation   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONER; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INDIVIDUALIZATION; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REPEATABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; CLASSIFICATION; DERMATOGLYPHICS; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

DERMATOGLYPHICS; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC SCIENCES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84858035910     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032800     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. National Research Council (2009) Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).
2. Evett IE, Williams RL, (1996) A review of the sixteen points fingerprint standard in England and Wales. J Forensic Identification 46: 49-73 Available:http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/files/DB_0769-02.pdf.
3. Gutowski S, (2006) Error rates in fingerprint examination: the view in 2006. The Forensic Bulletin Autumn 2006: 18-19.
4. Langenburg G, (2009) A Performance study of the ACE-V process: a pilot study to measure the accuracy, precision, reproducibility, and the biasability of conclusions resulting from the ACE-V process. J Forensic Identification 59 (2): 219-257.
5. Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA, (2011) Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108 (19): 7733-7738 Available:http://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7733.full.pdf.
6. Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE, (2006) Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 156: 74-78 Available:http://www.sequentialunmasking.org/su/Dror_Contextual_FSI_2006.pdf.
7. Dror IE, Charlton D, (2006) Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identification 56 (4): 600-616 Available:http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/id/JFI%20expert%20error.pdf.
8. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R, (2002) The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev 90 (1): 1-56 Available:http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3199069.
9. Langenburg G, Champod C, Wertheim P, (2009) Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. J Forensic Sciences 54 (3): 571-582.
10. SWGFAST (2011) Standards for examining friction ridge impressions and resulting conclusions, version 1.0. Available:http://swgfast.org/Documents.html.
11. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ, (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap New York Chapman and Hall, 1993.
12. Fleiss JL, (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76 (5): 378-382.
13. Gwet K, (2002) Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters. Series: Statistical Methods for Inter-Rater Reliability Assessment 1 (1): 1-5 Available:http://www.agreestat.com/research_papers/kappa_statistic_is_not_satisfactory.pdf.
14. Rust RT, Cooil B, (1994) Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and implications. J Marketing Res 31: 1-14 Available:http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/bruce.cooil/Documents/Publications/JMR%201994.pdf.
15. Perrault WD Jr, Leigh LE, (1989) Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. J Marketing Res 26: 135-148 Available:http://www.viktoria.se/~dixi/BISON/resources/perreault-leigh-1989.pdf.
16. Brennan RL, Prediger DJ, (1981) Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement 41: 687-699.
17. Schuckers ME, (2003) Using the beta-binomial distribution to assess performance of a biometric identification device. Int J Image Graph 3 (3): 523-529.
18. Uebersax JS, (1992) A review of modeling approaches for the analysis of observer agreement. Investigative Radiology 17: 738-743.
19. Schiffer B, Champod C, (2006) The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation. Forensic Sci Int 167 (2-3): 116-120 Available:http://www.sequentialunmasking.org/su/Schiffer_Observational_Bias_2007.pdf.
20. Dror IE, Champod C, Langenburg G, Charlton D, Hunt H, et al. (2011) Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Sci Int 208: 10-17 Available:http://cognitiveconsultantsinternational.com/Dror_FSI_cognitive_issues_fingerprint_analysis.pdf.
21. SWGFAST (2011) Standard for the application of blind verification of friction ridge examinations, version 1.0. Available:http://swgfast.org/Documents.html.