Literature DB >> 24530439

The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of DNA analysis.

Loene M Howes1, Roberta Julian2, Sally F Kelty2, Nenagh Kemp3, K Paul Kirkbride4.   

Abstract

DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience - police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Content analysis; Flesch–Kincaid grade level; Forensic science; Lexical density; Uncertainty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24530439     DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Int        ISSN: 0379-0738            Impact factor:   2.395


  2 in total

1.  Judging experts: Australian magistrates' evaluations of expert opinion quality.

Authors:  Kristy A Martire; Bronte Montgomery-Farrer
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-05-05

Review 2.  What influences public views on forensic DNA testing in the criminal field? A scoping review of quantitative evidence.

Authors:  Helena Machado; Susana Silva
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 4.639

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.