Forensic epistemology: testing the reasoning skills of crime scene experts

References

• Shaler RC. Crime scene forensics: a scientific method approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Crispino F. Nature and place of crime scene management within forensic sciences. Sci Justice. 2008;48(1):24–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crispino F, Ribaux O, Houck M, Margot P. Forensic science – a true science? Aust J for Sci. 2011;43(2–3):157–176.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig A, Fraser J, Williams R. Crime scene examiners and volume crime investigations: an empirical study of perception and practice. Forensic Sci Policy Manage: Intern J. 2012;3(2):53–61.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison K. Is crime scene examination science, and does it matter anyway? Sci Justice. 2006;46(2):65–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horswell J, Edwards M. Development of quality systems accreditation for crime scene investigators in Australia. Sci Justice. 1997;37(1):3–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson A. A rational approach to the principles and practice of crime scene investigation: I. Principles. Sci Justice. 2004;44(1):3–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julian R, Kelty S, Robertson J. Get it right the first time”: critical issues at the crime scene. Curr Issues Crim Justice. 2012;24(1):25–37.
   Google Scholar
• Makin DA. Symbolic evidence collection or “if all else fails, throw some dust around. Forensic Sci Policy Manage: Intern J. 2012;3(3):126–138.
   Google Scholar
• Milliet Q, Delémont O, Margot P. A forensic science perspective on the role of images in crime investigation and reconstruction. Sci Justice. 2014;54(6):470–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldivar A. Minimum education requirements for crime scene investigators. Themis: Res J Justice Studies and Forensic Sci. 2017;5(1):10.
   Google Scholar
• Perepechina I. Сrime stain as a forensic object: some essential aspects of examination. Forensic Sci Int: Genetics Sup Series. 2017;6:531–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Leeuwe R. The hiatus in crime scene documentation: visualisation of the location of evidence. J Forensic Rad Imag. 2017;8:13–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnikoff T, Ribaux O, Baylon A, Jendly M, Rossy Q. The polymorphism of crime scene investigation: an exploratory analysis of the influence of crime and forensic intelligence on decisions made by crime scene examiners. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;257:425–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houck MM, Crispino F, McAdam T. The science of crime scenes. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Baber C, Smith P, Cross J, Hunter JE, McMaster R. Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition. Prag Cogn. 2006;14(2):357–385.
   Google Scholar
• Kelty SF, Julian R, Robertson J. Professionalism in crime scene examination: the seven key attributes of top crime scene examiners. Forensic Sci Policy Manage: Intern J. 2011;2(4):175–186.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson AE. A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. J Res Sci Teach. 1985;22(7):569–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bao L, Xiao Y, Koenig K, Han J. Validity evaluation of the Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning. Phy Rev Phys Edu Res. 2018;14(2):020106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE. Hypothetico-deductive method. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media; 2013; 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Coletta VP, Phillips JA. Interpreting FCI scores: normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. Amer J Phys. 2005;73(12):1172–1182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teig N, Scherer R. Bringing Formal and informal reasoning together-a new era of assessment? Front Psychol. 2016;7:1097.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piaget J. The moral judgment of children. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace; 1932.
   Google Scholar
• Moore JC, Rubbo LJ. Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses. Phys Rev Spec Topics – Phys Educ Res. 2012;8(1):010106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE, Alkhoury S, Benford R, Clark BR, Falconer KA. What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. J Res Sci Teach. 2000;37(9):996–1018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelty SF. Professionalism in crime scene examination: recruitment strategies using the seven key attributes of top crime scene examiners. Forensic Sci Policy Manage: Intern J. 2011;2(4):198–204.
   Google Scholar
• Kelty SF, Gordon H. Professionalism in crime scene examination: recruitment strategies, part 2: using a psychometric profile of top crime scene examiners in selection decision making. Forensic Sci Policy Manage: Intern J. 2012;3(4):189–199.
   Google Scholar
• James SH, Kish PE, Sutton TP. Principles of bloodstain pattern analysis: theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Peschel O, Kunz S, Rothschild M, Mützel E. Blood stain pattern analysis. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2011;7(3):257–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latham HM. Using and articulating the scientific method in bloodstain pattern analysis. J Forensic Id. 2011;61(5):487–494.
   Google Scholar
• Latham HM. Reasoning, the scientific method, and bloodstain pattern analysis – assuring that the questions are being answered correctly. J Forensic Id. 2011;61(4):333–340.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor MC, Osborne N. Letter to the editor-a contribution to contextual information management in bloodstain pattern analysis: preliminary idea for a two-step method of analysis. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63(1):341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PCAST. Report to the President Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature – Comparison Methods (Executive Summary). USA, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• DOJ. Education and Training in Forensic Science: A Guide for Forensic Science Laboratories, Educational Institutions, and Students: National Institute of Justice, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Capsambelis CR. So your student wants to be a crime scene technician? J Crim Justice Edu. 2002;13(1):113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Police College (CPC). 2018 [updated cited 2018]. Available from: http://www.cpc-ccp.gc.ca/programs-programmes/forensic-ident-judiciaire/fic-cij-eng.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Illes MB, Dalley I, Kish PE, Taylor MC, Yamashita AB. Bloodstain pattern analysis part 1. Training and educational materials. J Can Soc Forensic Sci. 2010;43(1):31–37.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson AE, Daniel ES. Inferences of clinical diagnostic reasoning and diagnostic error. J Biomed Inform. 2011;44(3):402–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE. What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? J Res Sci Teach. 2005;42(6):716–740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE. The nature and development of scientific reasoning: a synthetic view. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2004;2(3):307–338.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson A. Allchin's Shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Sci Ed. 2003;12(3):331–337.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson AE, Baker WP, Didonato L, Verdi MP, Johnson MA. The role of hypothetico‐deductive reasoning and physical analogues of molecular interactions in conceptual change. J Res Sci Teach. 1993;30(9):1073–1085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE, McElrath CB, Burton MS, James BD, Doyle RP, Woodward SL, et al. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning skill and concept acquisition: testing a constructivist hypothesis. J Res Sci Teach. 1991;28(10):953–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE. The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. J Res Sci Teach. 1978;15(1):11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller RG, Campbell TC, Dykstra DI, Stevens SM. College teaching and the development of reasoning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Coletta VP. Reaching more students through thinking in physics. Phy Teach. 2017;55(2):100–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bao L, Cai T, Koenig K, Fang K, Han J, Wang J, Liu Q, Ding L, Cui L, Luo Y, Wang Y, Li L, Wu N. Learning and scientific reasoning. Science. 2009;323(5914):586–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore JC. Transitional to formal operational: Using authentic research experiences to get non-science students to think more like scientists. Eur J Physics Edu. 2012;3(4):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• PhysPort. [cited 2017]. Available from: https://www.physport.org/assessments/assessment.cfm?A=CTSR&S=4.
   Google Scholar
• WebAssign. [cited 2017]. Available from: http://www.webassign.net/features/textbooks/ctsr1/details.html?l=subject.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison DM. Factors correlated with students’ scientific reasoning ability in an introductory university physics course. Toronto: University of Toronto; 2015; 1–39.
   Google Scholar
• iStar Assessment. 2010 [updated 2010; cited 2017]. Available from: http://www.istarassessment.org/about/.
   Google Scholar
• Ding L, Wei X, Liu X. Variations in university students’ scientific reasoning skills across majors, years, and types of institutions. Res Sci Educ. 2016;46(5):613–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opitz A, Heene M, Fischer F. Measuring scientific reasoning–a review of test instruments. Educ Res Eval. 2017;23(3–4):78–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman C. The development of scientific reasoning skills. Develop Rev. 2000;20(1):99–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paciocco D. Taking a “Goudge” out of bluster and blarney: an” evidence-based approach” to expert testimony. Can Crim Law Rev. 2009;13(2):135.
   Google Scholar
• Leake LJ. A guide to producing an evidence-based report. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Carter K. Evidence-based medicine. Townsend Lett. 2015;96–98.:
   Google Scholar
• Cave R, Molina DK. Evidence-based evidence: a practical method for Bayesian analysis of forensic evidence. Law Prob Risk. 2015;14(2):135–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen HF. Organisation of evidence-based knowledge production: evidence hierarchies and evidence typologies. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42(13_suppl):11–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson ST. The assessment of scientific reasoning skills of high school science students: a standardized assessment instrument. Normal, IL: Illinois State University; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt C, Hacker RG. Is Lawson's classroom test of formal reasoning valid? Edu Psyc Meas. 1984;44(2):441–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker R. The construct validities of some group tests of intellectual development. Edu Psyc Meas. 1989;49(1):269–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coletta VP, Phillips JA, Steinert JJ. Interpreting force concept inventory scores: normalized gain and SAT scores. Phys Rev Special Topics-Phys Edu Res. 2007;3(1)010106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IAI. 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016]. Available from: https://www.theiai.org/index.php.
   Google Scholar
• IABPA. 2018 [updated 2018; cited 2018]. Available from: http://www.iabpa.org/.
   Google Scholar
• R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2018 [updated 2018; cited 2018]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Inhelder B, Piaget J. The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books; 1958.
   Google Scholar
• Kelty SF, Robertson J, Julian R. Beyond technical training to professionalism in crime scene examination: enhancing cognitive, leadership, and social abilities in career development programs. Forensic Sci Policy Manage: Intern J. 2017;8(3–4):65–78.
   Google Scholar
• OPC. Forensic Identification Officer Program: Course Training Standard. Ontario Police College, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctonal Services: Queen's Printer for Ontario. 2016;138.
   Google Scholar
• Goudge ST. Inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario. Toronto, 2008.
   Google Scholar