The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework

Science and Justice

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 154-158

  Found, Bryan ^a,b   Ganas, John ^c  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist   (Australia)

^c Victoria Police Forensic Services Department   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bias; Context information; Forensic science; Handwriting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DOCUMENT EXAMINATION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HANDWRITING; INFORMATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; LABORATORY TEST; MATERIALS TESTING; TASK PERFORMANCE;

DECISION MAKING; DOCUMENTATION; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HANDWRITING; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION;

EID: 84876739688     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Kam M., Wetstein J., Conn R. Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1994, 39(1):5-14.
2. Kam M., Fielding G., Conn R. Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1997, 42(5):778-786.
3. Found B., Sita J., Rogers D. The development of a program for characterising forensic handwriting examiners' expertise: signature examination pilot study. Journal of Forensic Document Examination 1999, 12:69-80.
4. Kam M., Gummadidala K., Fielding G., Conn R. Signature authentification by forensic document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2001, 46:884-888.
5. Sita J., Found B., Rogers D. Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2002, 47:1117-1124.
6. Dyer A.G., Found B., Rogers D. Visual attention and expertise for forensic signature analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2006, 51:1397-1404.
7. Rosenthal R., Fode K. The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science 1963, 8:183-189.
8. Sacs M.J., Risinger D.M., Rosenthal R., Thompson W.C. Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice 2003, 2:77-90.
9. Miller L.S. Bias among forensic document examiners: a need for procedural change. Journal of Police Science and Administration 1984, 12(4):407-411.
10. Miller L.S. Procedural bias in forensic examination of human hair. Law and Human Behavior 1987, 11(2):157-163.
11. Dror I.E., Charlton D., Peron A.E. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 2006, 156:74-78.
12. Byrd J.S. Confirmation bias, ethics, and mistakes in forensics. Journal of Forensic Identification 2006, 56(4):511-525.
13. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 2006, 56(4):600-616.
14. Dror I.E., Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and bias ability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53:41-44.
15. Dror I.E. Biased brains. Police Review 2008, 116:20-23.
16. Dror I.E. On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Science International 2009, 191:17-18.
17. Langenburg G., Champod C., Wertheim P. Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54:571-582.
18. Dror I.E., Cole S. The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2010, 17(2):161-167.
19. Risinger D. The NAS/NRC report on forensic science: a glass nine-tenths full (this is about the other tenth). Jurimetrics 2009, 50(1):21-34.
20. National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
21. http://www.ctsforensics.com/.
22. http://www.st2ar.org/.
23. http://www.latrobe.edu.au.
24. Nickerson R. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Review of General Psychology 1998, 2(2):175-220.
25. Rosenthal R. How often are our numbers wrong?. American Psychologist 1978, 33:1005-1008.