Addressing potential observer effects in forensic science: a perspective from a forensic scientist who uses linear sequential unmasking techniquesFootnote^*

* Given as a plenary session talk at the ANZFSS Conference in Auckland, NZ on 21 September 2016.

References

• Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, Risinger DM. Letter to the editor-context management toolbox: a linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(4):1111–1112. 10.1111/jfo.2015.60.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Cal L Rev. 2002;90(1):1–56. 10.2307/3481305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Kassin SM, Kukucka J. New application of psychology to law: improving forensic evidence and expert witness contributions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):78–81. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis Study and Technology [SWGFAST]. Standard for the application of blind verification. 2010 Aug 20, ver. 1.0; updated 2010 Sep 10, [cited 2016 Sep 11]. Available from: www.swgfast.org/CurrentDocuments.html
   Google Scholar
• Bieber FR, Buckleton JS, Budowle B, Butler JM, Coble MD. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion. BMC Genet. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 11];17:180. Available from: https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-016-0429-7. doi: 10.1186/s12863-016-0429-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Péron AE, Hind S, Charlton D. When emotions get to the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19(6):799–809. 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identification. 2006;56(4):600–616.
   Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Wertheim K, Fraser-Mackenzie P, Walajtys J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(2):343–352. 10.1111/jfo.2012.57.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204–208. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakhaeizadeh S, Dror IE, Morgan RM. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Sci Justice. 2014;54(3):208–214. 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smalarz L, Madon S, Yang Y, Guyll M, Buck S. The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis? Law Hum Behav. 2016;40(4):420–429. 10.1037/lhb0000190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne NKP, Zajac R. An imperfect match? crime-related context influences fingerprint decisions. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2016;30(1):126–134. 10.1002/acp.v30.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Péron AE, Hind S, Charlton D. When emotions get to the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19(6):799–809. 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langenburg G, Bochet F, Ford S. A report of statistics from latent print casework. Forensic Sci Policy Manage Int J. 2014;5(1-2):15–37. 10.1080/19409044.2014.929759
   Google Scholar
• Busey TA, Vanderkolk JR. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Res. 2005;45:431–448. 10.1016/j.visres.2004.08.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busey T, Yu C, Wyatte D, Vanderkolk J, Parada F, Akavipat R. Consistency and variability among latent print examiners as revealed by eye tracking methodologies. J Forensic Identification. 2011;61(1):60–91.
   Google Scholar
• Yu C, Busey T. The information content of friction ridge impressions as revealed by human experts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice; 2014. Report No. 2009-DN-BX-K226.
   Google Scholar
• Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(19):7733–7738. 10.1073/pnas.1018707108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langenburg G, Champod C, Genessay T. Informing the judgments of fingerprint analysts using quality metric and statistical assessment tools. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;219(1-3):183–198. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.12.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann C, Champod C, Yoo M, Genessay T, Langenburg G. Improving the understanding and the reliability of the concept of “sufficiency” in friction ridge examination. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice; 2013. Report No. 2010-DN-BX-K267.
   Google Scholar
• Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield IL, Risinger DM, Rudin N, Taylor MS, Thompson WC. Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53(4):1006–1007. 10.1111/jfo.2008.53.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder J, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Michael Risinger DM, Rudin N, Scott Taylor MS, Thompson WC. A perspective on errors, bias and interpretation in the forensic sciences and directions for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(1):273–274. 10.1111/jfo.2009.55.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inman K, Rudin N. Q&A: how much should the analyst know. CAC News [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2016 Sep 11]; Fall:18–19. Available from: http://www.cacnews.org/news/fall97.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Thornton JI. Letter to the editor-a rejection of “working blind” as a cure for contextual bias. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(6):1663. 10.1111/jfo.2010.55.issue-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margot P. Forensic science on trial - What is the law of the land? Aust J Forensic Sci. 2011;43(2-3):89–103. 10.1080/00450618.2011.555418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champod C. Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science. Sci Justice. 2014;54(2):107–109. 10.1016/j.scijus.2014.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts P, Willmore C. The role of forensic evidence in criminal proceedings. London: HMSO; 1993. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No. 11.
   Google Scholar
• Butt L. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions: commentary by a forensic examiner. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2:59–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risinger DM, Thompson WC, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Krane D, Mnookin JL, Rosenthal R, Saks MJ, Zabell SL. Regarding Champod, editorial: “research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science”. Sci Justice. 2014;54(6):508–509. 10.1016/j.scijus.2014.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson WC. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Aust J Forensic Sci. 2011;43(2-3):123–134. 10.1080/00450618.2010.541499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmond G, Thompson MB, Tangen JM. A guide to interpreting forensic testimony: scientific approaches to fingerprint evidence. Law, Prob & Ris. 2014;13(1):1–25. 10.1093/lpr/mgt011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):42–52. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmond G, Tangen JM, Searston IE. Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: the corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Prob & Ris. 2015;14(1):1–25. 10.1093/lpr/mgu018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE. Combating bias: the next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(1):276–277. 10.1111/jfo.2011.57.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of the Inspector General [OIG]. A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight & Review Division; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Langenburg G, Champod C. The GYRO system-a recommended approach to more transparent documentation. J Forensic Identification. 2011;61(4):373–384.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. Expert working group on human factors in latent print analysis. latent print examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Roberts MA, Buscaglia J. Changes in latent fingerprint examiners’ markup between analysis and comparison. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;247:54–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells GL, Wilford MM, Smalarz L. Forensic science testing: The forensic filler-control method for controlling contextual bias, estimating error rates, and calibrating analysts’ reports. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):53–55. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potchen EJ, Gard JW, Lazar P, Lahaie P, Andary M. The effect of clinical history data on chest film interpretation: direction or distraction. Invest Radiol. 1979;14:404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doubilet P, Herman PG. Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history. Am J Radiol. 1981;137:1055–1058.
   Google Scholar
• Song KS, Song HH, Park SH, Ahn KJ, Yang IK, Byun JY, Jeon JS, Kim JY, Kim BS, Lim GY, Kim YJ, Kim HS, Kim CY, Bahk YW. Impact of clinical history on film interpretation. Yonsei Med J. 1992;33(2):168–172. 10.3349/ymj.1992.33.2.168
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Potchen EJ, Cooper TG, Sierra AE, Aben GR, Potchen MJ, Potter MG, Siebert JE. Measuring performance in chest radiography. Radiology. 2000;217:456–459. 10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00nv14456
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loy CT, Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292(13):1602–1609. 10.1001/jama.292.13.1602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tape TG, Panzer RJ. Echocardiography, endocarditis, and clinical information bias. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(5):300–304. 10.1007/BF02596207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhingsa R, Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Jones KD, Swanson MG, Carroll PR, Hricak H, Kurhanewicz J. Prostate cancer localization with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging: effect of clinical data on read accuracy. Radiology. 2004;230:215–220. 10.1148/radiol.2301021562
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar