Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35800204›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2022

Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis:Three statistical perspectives.

Alan H Dorfman, Richard Valliant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A call for open science in forensics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Inconclusive decisions and error rates in forensic science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024
    Article
  5. Understanding 'error' in the forensic sciences: A primer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024
    Review
  6. Scientific guidelines for evaluating the validity of forensic feature-comparison methods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  7. Validity of forensic cartridge-case comparisons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  8. Hierarchical Bayesian non-response models for error rates in forensic black-box studies.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. On the (mis)calculation of forensic science error rates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  11. Registered reports in forensic science.Royal Society open science · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alan H DorfmanNational Center for Health Statistics (retired), Bethesda, MD, 20814-1345, USA.
Richard ValliantUniversities of Michigan & Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cognitive biasLikelihood ratioNonresponseTest-blindVirtual comparison microscopy

Identifiers

PMID35800204
PMCPMC9254335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.