ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025
The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The problem with eliminations: Why forensic comparisons need false negative rates.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Article
- On the Continuum of Foundational Validity: Lessons from Eyewitness Science for Latent Fingerprint Examination.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.