ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2022
Planning, design and logistics of a decision analysis study: The FBI/Ames study involving forensic firearms examiners.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic firearm examination, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Assessing the foundations of forensic identification evidence: A critical examination of proficiency test design and results.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Quantifying the strength of firearms comparisons based on error rate studies.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- A call for open science in forensics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Hierarchical Bayesian non-response models for error rates in forensic black-box studies.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Article
- Accuracy of comparison decisions by forensic firearms examiners.Journal of forensic sciences · 2023Article
- Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis:Three statistical perspectives.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.