Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584822›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2026

Strengthening operational performance in canine detection teams with double-blind certification testing.

Adele Quigley-McBride, Paola A Prada-Tiedemann, Fred Helfers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Adele Quigley-McBrideSimon Fraser University, Department of Psychology, Canada.
Paola A Prada-TiedemannTexas Tech University, Department of Environmental Toxicology, USA.
Fred HelfersCanine Detection Services, LLC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study evaluated the performance of professional canine-handler teams on narcotics detection certification trials conducted under single-blind and double-blind conditions. Across six years of annual testing (2012-2017), we analyzed 667 first-attempt trials and 132 second-attempt trials from 133 distinct canine-handler teams. Teams demonstrated high accuracy under single-blind conditions (94% pass rate for vehicle searches and 100% for luggage searches), but performance dropped substantially under double-blind conditions (72% pass rate for vehicle searches and 88% for luggage searches), where neither handlers nor evaluators knew the number or location of the target odors. Many teams that failed an initial double-blind trial passed on a second attempt, suggesting that at least some observed deficits in performance may be easily remedied with additional practice participating in double-blind trials. A follow-up survey of 20 handlers indicated generally positive perceptions of double-blind testing-although double-blind trials are more difficult, handlers believe that these types of trials increase their confidence, improve training strategies, and more closely reflect real-world scenarios. Incorporating routine double-blind exercises into certification and maintenance training may provide agencies with a reliable means of preparing teams for unpredictable real-world scenarios. Thus, double-blind testing represents a straightforward, cost-efficient strategy for enhancing the accuracy, credibility, and overall integrity of canine detection.

Indexed as

AccreditationCanine detectionDouble-blind testingProficiencyTraining

Identifiers

PMID41584822
PMCPMC12830304

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.