Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42908693›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2026

More skilled, more cautious: Expertise and decision thresholds in fingerprint examination.

N Aggadi, M Coon, G Kibbey, T Busey

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

N AggadiDepartment of Psychological Brain and Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
M CoonAVER, LLC, Washington, DC, USA.
G KibbeyDepartment of Psychological Brain and Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
T BuseyDepartment of Psychological Brain and Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fingerprint examination relies on expert judgment to determine whether two impressions originate from the same source, yet variability exists across examiners evaluating identical evidence. The present study investigates the sources of this variability by distinguishing between examiner expertise and decision thresholds within a signal detection theory framework. Using data from two large-scale black box studies: the Latent Print Black Box 2 Study [1] and the Kibbey et al. dataset, we estimated examiner-level discriminability (d') and decision thresholds using an extension of signal detection theory with multiple decision criteria. Across both datasets, examiner's expertise as operationalized by (d') was positively associated with identification thresholds in the signal detection theory model, indicating that more skilled examiners adopt more conservative (risk averse) threshold when making same-source conclusions. In contrast, expertise was not associated with exclusion thresholds, suggesting that the threshold for different-source decisions operate independently of perceptual sensitivity. Additionally, we examined whether individual differences in personality predicted decision thresholds and found no statistically significant relationships, suggesting that these traits may exert influence primarily under conditions of ambiguity rather than in standard casework-like comparisons. This work extends prior signal detection theory findings by demonstrating that a change in discriminability (as measured by d') is accompanied by differences in decision-threshold placement, such that examiners with greater discriminability also tend to adopt a more conservative Identification threshold.

Indexed as

ExpertiseFingerprint examinersNeed for closureSignal detection theoryThresholds

Identifiers

PMID42908693
PMCPMC13683028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.