Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40211456›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025

The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.

Nicholas Scurich, Thomas D Albright, Peter Stout, Donna Eudaley, Maddisen Neuman, Callan Hundl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Nicholas ScurichPsychology Department, Criminology Department, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Thomas D AlbrightSalk Institute, La Jolla, California, USA.
Peter StoutHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Donna EudaleyHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Maddisen NeumanHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Callan HundlHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (CSAFE) 70NANB15H176Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (CSAFE) 70NANB20H019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Hawthorne effect refers to the tendency of individuals to behave differently when they know they are being studied. In the forensic science domain, concerns have been raised about the "strategic examiner," where the forensic examiner uses different decision thresholds depending on whether in a test situation or working on an actual case. The blind testing conducted by the Houston Forensic Science Center ("HFSC") in firearms examination presents a unique opportunity to test the hypothesis that the rate of inconclusive calls differs for discovered vs. undiscovered blind tests of firearm examination. Over 5 years, 529 test item comparisons were filtered into casework at the HFSC. The inconclusive rate for discovered items was 56.4%, while the inconclusive rate for undiscovered test items was 39.3%. Thus, the percentage of inconclusive calls was 43.5% higher among discovered test items than among undiscovered test items. This pattern of results held for bullet comparisons (83% vs. 59%) and cartridge case comparisons (29% vs. 20%) and for both same-source and different-source bullet and cartridge case comparisons. These findings corroborate concerns that examiners behave differently when they know they are being tested and demonstrate the necessity of blind testing if the research goal is to evaluate the performance of forensic examiners conducting casework.

Indexed as

blind proficiency testingdecision thresholdsfirearm and toolmark examinationfirearm examinationinconclusives

Identifiers

PMID40211456
PMCPMC12223340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.