Treatment of inconclusives in the AFTE range of conclusions Hofmann, Heike Carriquiry, Alicia Vanderplas, Susan
dc.contributor.department Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence
dc.contributor.department Statistics 2021-10-19T13:50:30.000 2021-11-19T23:46:59Z 2021-11-19T23:46:59Z Fri Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2021 2021-05-05
dc.description.abstract <p>In the past decade, and in response to the recommendations set forth by the <a>National Research Council Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009)</a>, scientists have conducted several black-box studies that attempt to estimate the error rates of firearm examiners. Most of these studies have resulted in vanishingly small error rates, and at least one of them (D. P. Baldwin, S. J. Bajic, M. Morris, and D. Zamzow. A Study of False-Positive and False-Negative Error Rates in Cartridge Case Comparisons. Technical report, Ames Lab IA, Performing, Fort Belvoir, VA, April 2014.) was cited by the President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST) during the Obama administration, as an example of a well-designed experiment. What has received little attention, however, is the actual calculation of error rates and in particular, the effect of inconclusive findings on those error estimates. The treatment of inconclusives in the assessment of errors has far-reaching implications in the legal system. Here, we revisit several black-box studies in the area of firearms examination, investigating their treatment of inconclusive results. It is clear that there are stark differences in the rate of inconclusive results in regions with different norms for training and reporting conclusions. More surprisingly, the rate of inconclusive decisions for materials from different sources is notably higher than the rate of inconclusive decisions for same-source materials in some regions. To mitigate the effects of this difference we propose a unifying approach to the calculation of error rates that is directly applicable in forensic laboratories and in legal settings.</p>
dc.description.comments <p>This article is published as Hofmann, Heike, Alicia Carriquiry, and Susan Vanderplas. "Treatment of inconclusives in the AFTE range of conclusions." <em>Law, Probability and Risk</em> 19, no. 3-4 (2020): 317-364. doi:<a href="">10.1093/lpr/mgab002</a>. Posted with permission of CSAFE.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/
dc.identifier.articleid 1087
dc.identifier.contextkey 25491647
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath csafe_pubs/88
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.bitstream archive/|||Sat Jan 15 02:17:23 UTC 2022
dc.source.uri 10.1093/lpr/mgab002
dc.subject.disciplines Forensic Science and Technology
dc.subject.keywords inconclusive decisions
dc.subject.keywords probability
dc.subject.keywords justice system
dc.subject.keywords pattern evidence
dc.subject.keywords forensic examination
dc.title Treatment of inconclusives in the AFTE range of conclusions
dc.type article
dc.type.genre article
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication d8a3c72b-850f-40f6-87c4-8812547080c7
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 264904d9-9e66-4169-8e11-034e537ddbca
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
2.64 MB
Adobe Portable Document Format