ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2019
Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis.
Review in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current state: Assessing DNA results considering transfer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- HelixCross - Design and development of an AI-powered cross-examination simulation for forensic expert testimony training.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Nothing new under the sun: The NIST primer on "Probability and Likelihood Ratios" gives a misleading negative portrayal of the likelihood-ratio framework.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- 3D-printed models in the courtroom: mock-jurors' perceptions and experiences of 3D-printed models of human skeletal remains.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026Article
- Algorithms on Trial: Does evaluative probabilistic reporting of forensic evidence infringe the presumption of innocence?Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Quantifying the strength of palmprint comparisons: Majority identifications with surprisingly low value.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- On the Continuum of Foundational Validity: Lessons from Eyewitness Science for Latent Fingerprint Examination.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- You Understand, So I Understand: How a "Community of Knowledge" Shapes Trust and Credibility in Expert Testimony Evidence.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Understanding 'error' in the forensic sciences: A primer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- Perceptions of forensic scientists on statistical models, sequence data, and ethical implications for DNA evidence evaluations: A qualitative assessment.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Interpol review of fibres and textiles 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Review
- Advancing a paradigm shift in evaluation of forensic evidence: The rise of forensic data science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Review
- Probabilistic reporting and algorithms in forensic science: Stakeholder perspectives within the American criminal justice system.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
- Implementation of algorithms in pattern & impression evidence: A responsible and practical roadmap.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2021Review
- Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Interpol review of forensic science management literature 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- An inconvenient truth: More rigorous and ecologically valid research is needed to properly understand cognitive bias in forensic decisions.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic scientists and commentators including academics and statisticians have been embroiled in a debate over the best way to present evidence in the courtroom. Various forms of evidence presentation, both quantitative and qualitative, have been championed, yet amidst the furor over the most "correct" or "accurate" way to present evidence, the perspective of the fact-finder is often lost. Without comprehension, correctness is moot. Unbeknownst to many forensic practitioners, there is a large, though incomplete, body of literature from the cognitive psychology domain that explores the question of what jurors understand when forensic scientists testify. This body of work has begun to test different proposed methods of testimony in an effort to understand which are most effective at communicating the strength of evidence that is intended by the expert. This article is a review of that literature that is intended for the forensic scientist community. Its aim is to educate that community on the findings of completed studies and to identify suggestions for further research that will inform changes in testimony delivery and ensure that any modifications can be implemented with confidence in their effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.