ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2022
Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis:Three statistical perspectives.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Inconclusive decisions and error rates in forensic science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
- Understanding 'error' in the forensic sciences: A primer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- Scientific guidelines for evaluating the validity of forensic feature-comparison methods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Validity of forensic cartridge-case comparisons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Hierarchical Bayesian non-response models for error rates in forensic black-box studies.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Article
- A method for quantifying individual decision thresholds of latent print examiners.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- On the (mis)calculation of forensic science error rates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Registered reports in forensic science.Royal Society open science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Error rates that have been published in recent open black box studies of forensic firearms examiner performance have been very low, typically below one percent. These low error rates have been challenged, however, as not properly taking into account one of the categories, "Inconclusive", that examiners can reach in comparing a pair of bullets or cartridges. These challenges have themselves been challenged; how to consider the inconclusives and their effect on error rates is currently a matter of sharp debate. We review several viewpoints that have been put forth, and then examine the impact of inconclusives on error rates from three fresh statistical perspectives: (a) an ideal perspective using objective measurements combined with statistical algorithms, (b) basic sampling theory and practice, and (c) standards of experimental design in human studies. Our conclusions vary with the perspective: (a) inconclusives can be simple errors (or, on the other hand, simply correct or at least well justified); (b) inconclusives need not be counted as errors to bring into doubt assessments of error rates; (c) inconclusives are potential errors, more explicitly, inconclusives in studies are not necessarily the equivalent of inconclusives in casework and can mask potential errors in casework. From all these perspectives, it is impossible to simply read out trustworthy estimates of error rates from those studies which have been carried out to date. At most, one can put reasonable bounds on the potential error rates. These are much larger than the nominal rates reported in the studies. To get straightforward, sound estimates of error rates requires a challenging but critical improvement to the design of firearms studies. A proper study-one in which inconclusives are not potential errors, and which yields direct, sound estimates of error rates-will require new objective measures or blind proficiency testing embedded in ordinary casework.
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.