Informing the judgments of fingerprint analysts using quality metric and statistical assessment tools

Forensic Science International

Volumn 219, Issue 1-3, 2012, Pages 183-198

  Langenburg, Glenn ^a,b   Champod, Christophe ^b   Genessay, Thibault ^b  

^a Latent Print Laboratory   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

ACE V; Decision making; Error rates; Fingerprints; Forensic science; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LIKELIHOOD RATIO; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS;

EID: 84861574814     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis Study and Technology (SWGFAST), Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for Latent Print Examiners, Ver. 1.01. (accessed 29.05.11). http://www.swgfast.org/Friction_Ridge_Examination_Methodology_for_Latent_Print_Examiners_1.01.pdf.
2. Ashbaugh D.R. Qualitative-Quantitative Friction Ridge Analysis-An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
3. Haber L., Haber R.N. Challenges to Fingerprints 2009, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
4. National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
5. Vanderkolk J.R. Forensic individualization of images using quality and quantity of information. Journal of Forensic Identification 1999, 49:246-256.
6. Champod C. Fingerprint examination: towards more transparency. Law Probability and Risk 2008, 7:111-118.
7. The Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland. , available 20 July 2009. http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/.
8. Saks M.J. Forensic identification: from a faith-based " science" to a scientific science. Forensic Science International 2010, 201:14-17.
9. Mnookin J.L. The courts, the NAS, and the future of forensic science. Brooklyn Law Review 2010, 75:1-67.
10. Langenburg G. A method performance pilot study: testing the accuracy, precision, repeatability, reproducibility, and biasability of the ACE-V process. Journal of Forensic Identification 2009, 59:219-257.
11. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, 108:7733-7738.
12. Champod C. Friction ridge examination (fingerprints): interpretation of. Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences 2009, vol. 3:1277-1282. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
13. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A., McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice 2000, 40:233-239.
14. Al-Haddad L.M., Neumann C. Benefits and challenges of the use of fingerprint statistical models in casework. Science and Justice 2010, 50:32-33.
15. Egli N.M., Champod C., Margot P. Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems-modelling within finger variability. Forensic Science International 2007, 167:189-195.
16. E. Tabassi, C.L. Wilson, C.I. Watson, Fingerprint Image Quality, NIST NISTIR 7151, August 2004.
17. Tabassi E., Wilson C.L. A novel approach to fingerprint image quality. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP-05) 2005, 37-40.
18. N.B. Nill, Image Quality of Fingerprint (IQF) Software Application. (accessed 28.04.11). http://www.mitre.org/tech/mtf.
19. Hicklin A., et al. Latent fingerprint quality: a survey of examiners. Journal of Forensic Identification 2011, 61:385-418.
20. Neumann C., Champod C., Puch-Solis R., Meuwly D., Egli N., Anthonioz A., Bromage-Griffiths A. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of three minutiae. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2006, 51:1255-1266.
21. Neumann C., Champod C., Puch-Solis R., Egli N., Anthonioz A., Bromage-Griffiths A. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2007, 52:54-64.
22. Neumann C., Evett I.W., Skerrett J. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 2012, 175:1-26. Part 2.
23. Egli N. Interpretation of Partial Fingermarks Using an Automated Fingerprint Identification System 2009, Université de Lausanne, Ecole des Sciences Criminelles/Institut de Police Scientifique Lausanne, Suisse.
24. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis Study and Technology (SWGFAST), Standard Terminology of Friction Ridge Examination. (accessed 15.10.11). http://www.swgfast.org/Documents.html.
25. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2008, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
26. Koehler J.J. Fingerprint error rates and proficiency tests: what they are and why they matter. Hasting Law Journal 2008, 59:1077-1098.
27. Koehler J.J. When do courts think base rate statistics are relevant. Jurimetrics Journal 2002, 42:373-402.
28. National Research Council-Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 1996, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
29. Budowle B., Bottrell M.C., Bunch S.G., Fram R., Harrison D., Meagher S., Oien C.T., Peterson P.E., Seiger D.P., Smith M.B., Smrz M.A., Soltis G.L., Stacey R.B. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54:798-809.
30. Thompson W.C, Taroni F., Aitken C.G. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2003, 48:47-54.
31. State of Maryland V. Bryan Keith Rose, The Circuit Court for the Baltimore County, Memorandum decision of Judge Susan Souder, K06-0545.
32. Mnookin J.L. Of black boxes, instruments, and experts: testing the validity of forensic science. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 2008, 5:343-358.
33. Thornton J.I The one-dissimilarity doctrine in fingerprint identification. International Criminal Police Review 1977, 32:89-95.
34. Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Science International 2008, 177:120-132.
35. Cole S.A. More than zero: accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 2005, 95:985-1078.
36. Norman G., Eva K., Brooks L., Hamstra S. Expertise in medicine and surgery. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance 2006, 339-353. Cambridge University Press, New York. K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, R. Hoffman (Eds.).
37. Ericsson K.A. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance 2006, Cambridge University Press, New York. K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, R. Hoffman (Eds.).
38. Ericsson K.A. Development of Professional Expertise 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York.
39. Stephenson W.R., Froelich A.G., Duckworth W.M. Using resampling to compare two proportions. Teaching Statistics 2010, 32:66-71.
40. Champod C., Margot P.A. Computer assisted analysis of minutiae occurrences on fingerprints. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fingerprint Detection and Identification 1996, 305-318. Israel National Police. J. Almog, E. Springer (Eds.).
41. Pankanti S., Prabhakar S., Jain A.K. On the individuality of fingerprints. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2002, 24:1010-1025.
42. Langenburg G. Pilot study: a statistical analysis of the ACE-V methodology-analysis stage. Journal of Forensic Identification 2004, 54:64-79.
43. Evett I.W., Williams R.L. A review of the sixteen points fingerprint standard in England and Wales. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fingerprint Detection and Identification 1996, 287-304.
44. Dror I.E., 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 Science International 2011, 208:10-17.
45. Schiffer B., Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation. Forensic Science International 2007, 167:116-120.
46. Vanderkolk J.R. ACE+V: a model. Journal of Forensic Identification 2004, 54:45-51.
47. Stacey R.B. A report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train bombing case. Journal of Forensic Identification 2004, 54:706-718.
48. Interpol Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification II-IEEGFI II 2004, Interpol, Lyon.
49. Banning M. A review of clinical decision making: models and current research. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2008, 17:187-195.
50. Thompson C., McCaughan D., Cullum N., Sheldon T., Mulhall A., Thompson D. Research information in nurses' clinical decision-making: what is useful?. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2001, 36:376-388.