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

Keith L Monson, Erich D Smith, Stanley J Bajic
Author Information
  1. Keith L Monson: FBI Laboratory, Quantico, VA, 22135, USA.
  2. Erich D Smith: FBI Laboratory, Quantico, VA, 22135, USA.
  3. Stanley J Bajic: Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.

Abstract

This paper describes design and logistical aspects of a decision analysis study to assess the performance of qualified firearms examiners working in accredited laboratories in the United States in terms of accuracy (error rate), repeatability, and reproducibility of decisions involving comparisons of fired bullets and cartridge cases. The purpose of the study was to validate current practice of the forensic discipline of firearms/toolmarks (F/T) examination. It elicited error rate data by counting the number of false positive and false negative conclusions. Preceded by the experimental design, decisions, and logistics described herein, testing was ultimately administered 173 qualified, practicing F/T examiners in public and private crime laboratories. The first round of testing evaluated accuracy, while two subsequent rounds evaluated repeatability and reproducibility of examiner conclusions. This project expands on previous studies by involving many F/T examiners in challenging comparisons and by executing the study in the recommended double-blind format.

Keywords

References

  1. J Forensic Sci. 2007 May;52(3):586-94 [PMID: 17456086]
  2. Sci Justice. 2015 Dec;55(6):514-9 [PMID: 26654088]
  3. J Forensic Sci. 2020 Jul;65(4):1141-1154 [PMID: 32134513]
  4. Forensic Sci Int. 2016 Sep;266:29-38 [PMID: 27196399]
  5. Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Feb;295:64-71 [PMID: 30572221]
  6. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32800 [PMID: 22427888]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 May 01;115(18):4541-4544 [PMID: 29650539]
  8. Sci Justice. 2020 Jul;60(4):337-346 [PMID: 32650935]
  9. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013 Mar;126(6):1150-4 [PMID: 23506596]
  10. J Forensic Sci. 2009 Sep;54(5):1068-72 [PMID: 19627421]
  11. BMJ. 2006 Apr 22;332(7547):969-71 [PMID: 16627519]
  12. J Forensic Sci. 2021 Jan;66(1):129-134 [PMID: 32990979]
  13. J Forensic Sci. 2012 Jul;57(4):912-7 [PMID: 22390540]
  14. Trials. 2020 Aug 05;21(1):697 [PMID: 32758278]
  15. J Forensic Sci. 2021 Jan;66(1):96-111 [PMID: 32970858]
  16. J Forensic Sci. 2016 Jan;61(1):170-6 [PMID: 26390232]
  17. Sci Justice. 1999 Jan-Mar;39(1):3-10 [PMID: 10750267]
  18. Sci Justice. 2018 Jul;58(4):258-263 [PMID: 29895457]
  19. Sci Justice. 2016 Mar;56(2):129-42 [PMID: 26976472]
  20. J Forensic Sci. 2019 Jan;64(1):10-15 [PMID: 29975992]
  21. J Forensic Sci. 2020 Nov;65(6):1945-1953 [PMID: 32898293]
  22. Forensic Sci Int. 2017 Jul;276:126-133 [PMID: 28528277]
  23. Forensic Sci Int. 2012 Jun 10;219(1-3):183-98 [PMID: 22269131]
  24. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 10;108(19):7733-8 [PMID: 21518906]
  25. Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 19;10:520 [PMID: 30941075]
  26. Forensic Sci Int. 2021 Jan;318:110457 [PMID: 33239260]
  27. J Forensic Sci. 2019 Mar;64(2):551-557 [PMID: 30261099]
  28. J Forensic Sci. 2016 Jul;61(4):939-46 [PMID: 27135174]
  29. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 Sep 06;2:333-338 [PMID: 33385131]
  30. Sci Justice. 2013 Jun;53(2):223-9 [PMID: 23601733]
  31. Sci Justice. 2002 Oct-Dec;42(4):197-203 [PMID: 12632935]
  32. Forensic Sci Int. 2020 Feb;307:110112 [PMID: 31881373]
  33. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 Dec 21;2:701-702 [PMID: 33385150]
  34. J Forensic Sci. 2021 Mar;66(2):547-556 [PMID: 33104244]
  35. J Forensic Sci. 2017 Mar;62(2):417-422 [PMID: 27921288]
  36. J Forensic Sci. 2009 Jul;54(4):798-809 [PMID: 19486241]
  37. J Forensic Sci. 2021 Nov;66(6):2387-2392 [PMID: 34287865]
  38. J Forensic Sci. 2021 Sep;66(5):1704-1720 [PMID: 34057735]
  39. Forensic Sci Int. 2010 May 20;198(1-3):138-42 [PMID: 20207514]
  40. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2021 Apr 17;3:100147 [PMID: 33981984]
  41. J Forensic Sci. 2020 Jul;65(4):1034-1039 [PMID: 32315087]
  42. Sci Justice. 2013 Jun;53(2):236-50 [PMID: 23601735]
  43. J Vet Cardiol. 2009 May;11 Suppl 1:S33-40 [PMID: 19451045]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studydesignexaminersanalysisfirearmsrateinvolvingF/TdecisionqualifiedlaboratoriesaccuracyerrorrepeatabilityreproducibilitydecisionscomparisonsforensicfalseconclusionslogisticstestingevaluatedpaperdescribeslogisticalaspectsassessperformanceworkingaccreditedUnitedStatestermsfiredbulletscartridgecasespurposevalidatecurrentpracticedisciplinefirearms/toolmarksexaminationeliciteddatacountingnumberpositivenegativePrecededexperimentaldescribedhereinultimatelyadministered173practicingpublicprivatecrimefirstroundtwosubsequentroundsexaminerprojectexpandspreviousstudiesmanychallengingexecutingrecommendeddouble-blindformatPlanningstudy:FBI/AmesAccuracyBlackboxDecisionErrorExperimentalForensicidentificationReliability

Similar Articles

Cited By