ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2026
More skilled, more cautious: Expertise and decision thresholds in fingerprint examination.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.