Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40082061›Full record

ArticleScience & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society2025

Human factors in triaging forensic items: Casework pressures and ambiguity aversion.

Mohammed A Almazrouei, Itiel E Dror, Ruth M Morgan, Ohad Dan, Megan Paterson, Ifat Levy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Mohammed A AlmazroueiCenter for Neurocognition and Behavior, Wu Tsai Institute, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Comparative Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Centre for the Forensic Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: mohammed.almazrouei@yale.edu.
Itiel E DrorCentre for the Forensic Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, UK; Cognitive Consultants International (CCI-HQ), London, UK.
Ruth M MorganCentre for the Forensic Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, UK.
Ohad DanCenter for Neurocognition and Behavior, Wu Tsai Institute, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Comparative Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Megan PatersonCenter for Neurocognition and Behavior, Wu Tsai Institute, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Comparative Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ifat LevyCenter for Neurocognition and Behavior, Wu Tsai Institute, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Comparative Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Individual differences in decision making under uncertaintyR01MH118215 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI LEVY, IFAT · 2019 to 2023
$3.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH118215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Triaging is an important step in deciding which items collected from crime scenes to select for forensic analysis, and so subsequent examination and findings often depend on it. This study aims to evaluate the influence of casework pressures and tolerance to ambiguity on triaging of items collected from a crime scene. A realistic pressure manipulation paradigm was developed and was found to be effective in inducing feelings of pressure in participants in an online setting. This pressure manipulation did not affect triaging decisions for both triaging experts (N = 48) and non-experts (N = 98). However, the results revealed inconsistent decisions, even among experts under identical pressure conditions and comparable background demographics. The findings also suggest that ambiguity aversion is an important factor to consider, as it can play a role in early hypotheses (e.g., reaching a decisive or inconclusive impression about a case), among other considerations. This study offers valuable insight for the development of policies for more consistent forensic triaging decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingForensic SciencesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAmbiguity AversionCasework PressureForensic Decision-MakingHuman FactorsTriaging

Identifiers

PMID40082061
PMCPMC12503395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.