Literature DB >> 19486241

A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement.

Bruce Budowle1, Maureen C Bottrell, Stephen G Bunch, Robert Fram, Diana Harrison, Stephen Meagher, Cary T Oien, Peter E Peterson, Danielle P Seiger, Michael B Smith, Melissa A Smrz, Greg L Soltis, Robert B Stacey.   

Abstract

The forensic sciences are under review more so than ever before. Such review is necessary and healthy and should be a continuous process. It identifies areas for improvement in quality practices and services. The issues surrounding error, i.e., measurement error, human error, contextual bias, and confirmatory bias, and interpretation are discussed. Infrastructure is already in place to support reliability. However, more definition and clarity of terms and interpretation would facilitate communication and understanding. Material improvement across the disciplines should be sought through national programs in education and training, focused on science, the scientific method, statistics, and ethics. To provide direction for advancing the forensic sciences a list of recommendations ranging from further documentation to new research and validation to education and to accreditation is provided for consideration. The list is a starting point for discussion that could foster further thought and input in developing an overarching strategic plan for enhancing the forensic sciences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19486241     DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01081.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  8 in total

1.  Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions.

Authors:  Bradford T Ulery; R Austin Hicklin; Joann Buscaglia; Maria Antonia Roberts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  An assessment of scientific and technical aspects of closed investigations of canine forensics DNA--case series from the University of California, Davis, USA.

Authors:  Günther Scharnhorst; Sree Kanthaswamy
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.351

3.  Response to: Use of prior odds for missing persons identifications - authors' reply.

Authors:  Bruce Budowle; Jianye Ge; Ranajit Chakraborty; Harrell Gill-King
Journal:  Investig Genet       Date:  2012-02-01

4.  Planning, design and logistics of a decision analysis study: The FBI/Ames study involving forensic firearms examiners.

Authors:  Keith L Monson; Erich D Smith; Stanley J Bajic
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2022-02-19

5.  GITAD 2020: quality assurance test through 20 years of experience.

Authors:  Juan Carlos Álvarez; Christian Haarkötter; María Saiz; Xiomara Gálvez; María Isabel Medina-Lozano; José Antonio Lorente
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 2.791

Review 6.  Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods.

Authors:  Alaa Althubaiti
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2016-05-04

7.  The Clinical Assessment in the Legal Field: An Empirical Study of Bias and Limitations in Forensic Expertise.

Authors:  Antonio Iudici; Alessandro Salvini; Elena Faccio; Gianluca Castelnuovo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-30

8.  The STRidER Report on Two Years of Quality Control of Autosomal STR Population Datasets.

Authors:  Martin Bodner; Walther Parson
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 4.096

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.