MicroRNA-21 expression and susceptibility to HPV-induced carcinogenesis - role of microenvironment in K14-HPV16 mice model.

I. Paiva,R. M. Gil da Costa,J. Ribeiro,H. Sousa,M. Bastos,A. Faustino-Rocha,C. Lopes,P. Oliveira,R. Medeiros

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2015.02.020

2015-05-01

Life Science

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Rachel Rogers,Susan VanderPlas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6339/24-JDS1130

2024-05-16

Abstract:We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of statistical methods in forensic science is motivated by a lack of scientific validity and error rate issues present in many forensic analysis methods. We explore what our study says about how this type of forensic evidence is perceived in the courtroom where individuals unfamiliar with advanced statistical methods are asked to evaluate results in order to assess guilt. In the course of our initial study, we found that individuals overwhelmingly provided high Likert scale ratings in reliability, credibility, and scientificity regardless of experimental condition. This discovery of scale compression - where responses are limited to a few values on a larger scale, despite experimental manipulations - limits statistical modeling but provides opportunities for new experimental manipulations which may improve future studies in this area.

Computers and Society
Laypeople's beliefs about the effects of common estimator variables on memory

Anne Cormia,Tyler Shapland,Alaina Rasheed,Kathy Pezdek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1868527

Memory

Abstract:This research builds on James Ost's research investigating whether laypeople's beliefs align with those of experts. Recent studies that examined the relationship between high-confidence eyewitness identifications and accuracy proposed that the mechanism underlying this relationship may be based on a knowledge-conditional model. According to this model, the accuracy of a confidence judgment depends on knowledge about factors that affect memory accuracy. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of laypeople's knowledge about the effect on memory accuracy of many estimator variables known to influence the accuracy of eyewitnesses, specifically those relevant to research on the relationship between witness confidence and accuracy. This study consists of the development of a 30-item scale to assess laypeople's knowledge of the effect of 10 common estimator variables on memory accuracy from three points of view (POV): Self, Other, and Juror. Across MTurk and undergraduate samples, laypeople's beliefs about the effect of these estimator variables were generally consistent with research findings and did not differ as a function of POV. Additionally, for most estimator variables, participants' beliefs about memory were consistent with results in the confidence-accuracy literature; confidence and identification accuracy appear to be poorly calibrated for estimator variables that people know less about.
A Bayesian approach for the analysis of error rate studies in forensic science

Jessie Hendricks,Cedric Neumann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110047

2019-06-06

Abstract:Over the past decade, the field of forensic science has received recommendations from the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to study the validity and reliability of forensic analyses. More specifically, these committees recommend estimation of the rates of occurrence of erroneous conclusions drawn from forensic analyses. "Black box" studies for the various subjective feature-based comparison methods are intended for this purpose. In general, "black box" studies often have unbalanced designs, comparisons that are not independent, and missing data. These aspects pose difficulty in the analysis of the results and are often ignored. Instead, interpretation of the data relies on methods that assume independence between observations and a balanced experiment. Furthermore, all of these projects are interpreted within the frequentist framework and result in point estimates associated with confidence intervals that are confusing to communicate and understand. We propose to use an existing likelihood-free Bayesian inference method, called Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC), that is capable of handling unbalanced designs, dependencies among the observations, and missing data. ABC allows for studying the parameters of interest without recourse to incoherent and misleading measures of uncertainty such as confidence intervals. By taking into account information from all decision categories for a given examiner and information from the population of examiners, our method also allows for quantifying the risk of error for the given examiner, even when no error has been recorded for that examiner. We illustrate our proposed method by reanalysing the results of the "Noblis Black Box" study by Ulery et al. in 2011.

Applications
The effect of following best practice reporting recommendations on legal and community evaluations of forensic examiners reports

S. Summersby,G. Edmond,R.I. Kemp,K.N. Ballantyne,K.A. Martire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112034

IF: 2.676

2024-05-05

Forensic Science International

Abstract:Commentators have recommended that forensic scientists' reports contain various disclosures to facilitate comprehension. However, little research has explored whether following best practice recommendations for disclosure impacts on receivers' impressions of the evidence. We examined whether forensic science reports that are more compliant with these best practice recommendations reduced overvaluing of the evidence and sensitized legal and community decision-makers to evidence quality. Across three experiments, 240 legal practitioners/trainees and 566 community decision-makers were presented with a fingerprint or footwear report that was either compliant or non-compliant with best practice recommendations. Participants were then asked to make evaluations and decisions based on the report. We found mixed effects of report compliance. Report compliance affected community participant's evaluations of the persuasiveness of the evidence but had limited impact on the judgments of legal practitioners/trainees. When presented with compliant reports, we found that community participants regarded unknown reliability evidence as less reliable and less persuasive than high reliability evidence, suggesting disclosures helped reduce overvaluing of the evidence and create sensitivity to differences in evidence quality. These results suggest compliance with reporting recommendations does affect community impressions, while only minimally influencing legal impressions of forensic science evidence. The costs and/or benefits of this outcome require further examination.

medicine, legal
The Influence of Validation Data on Logical and Scientific Interpretations of Forensic Expert Opinions

Steven P. Lund,Hari Iyer

2024-03-05

Abstract:Forensic experts use specialized training and knowledge to enable other members of the judicial system to make better informed and more just decisions. Factfinders, in particular, are tasked with judging how much weight to give to experts' reports and opinions. Many references describe assessing evidential weight from the perspective of a forensic expert. Some recognize that stakeholders are each responsible for evaluating their own weight of evidence. Morris (1971, 1974, 1977) provided a general framework for recipients to update their own uncertainties after learning an expert's opinion. Although this framework is normative under Bayesian axioms and several forensic scholars advocate the use of Bayesian reasoning, few resources describe its application in forensic science. This paper addresses this gap by examining how recipients can combine principles of science and Bayesian reasoning to evaluate their own likelihood ratios for expert opinions. This exercise helps clarify how an expert's role depends on whether one envisions recipients to be logical and scientific or deferential. Illustrative examples with an expert's opinion expressed as a categorical conclusion, likelihood ratio, or range of likelihood ratios, or with likelihood ratios from multiple experts, each reveal the importance and influence of validation data for logical recipients' interpretations.

Methodology,Applications
Police evaluation of evidence: statistical format and evidence type

Jean J Cabell,Tyler N Livingston,Yueran Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgae010

2024-10-23

Law Probability and Risk

Abstract:Police must properly evaluate evidence to make consequential decisions. Erroneous evaluations of evidence could begin a process that leads to wrongful convictions through faulty guilt judgments. This study assessed the extent to which police accuracy in judging suspect guilt varied by the statistical format of evidence strength and the type of evidence. We recruited police participants ( n =209) from CloudResearch and randomly assigned them to a 3 (evidence format: LR vs. RMP vs. neutral) x 3 (evidence type: DNA vs. fingerprint vs. eyewitness) between-subjects factorial design. Police participants read a case scenario in which they investigated a murder case and evaluated suspect guilt based on a piece of evidence. Prior odds of guilt were controlled for as 1 in all conditions. In general, police under-weighed evidence in the RMP format and were more accurate at judging suspect guilt when the evidence was in the LR format and when the evidence was inconclusive. The effect of evidence format was particularly strong for DNA evidence. Additionally, police participants' responses did not differ between different guilt measures. Overall, police showed inconsistencies in their guilt judgments when evaluating evidence with different statistical formats and evidence types.

mathematics,statistics & probability,social sciences, mathematical methods,law
Forensic science as “risky business”: identifying key risk factors in the forensic process from crime scene to court

Roberta Julian,Sally F. Kelty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jcrpp-09-2015-0044

2015-12-07

Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice

Abstract:Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss key risk factors in the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system by adopting a holistic and systemic approach that examines the collection and use of forensic evidence from crime scene to court. Design/methodology/approach – The research on which the paper is based was a mixed-method five-year study of the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justice system in Australia using qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper draws on the in-depth analysis of qualitative data from 11 case studies of investigations of serious crime to identify key risk factors in the use of forensic science from crime scene to court. Findings – Six key risk factors in the forensic process from crime scene to court are identified: low level of forensic awareness among first responders; crime scene examiners (CSEs) as technicians rather than professionals; inefficient and/or ineffective laboratory processes; limited forensic literacy among key actors in the criminal justice system; poor communication between key actors in the criminal justice system; and, financial resources not directed at the front end of the forensic process. Overall the findings demonstrate that forensic science is not well embedded in the criminal justice system. Practical implications – The paper suggests that the risks inherent in the current practice of forensic science in the criminal justice system can be reduced dramatically through: forensic awareness training among first responders; the professionalisation of CSEs; continued improvements in efficiency and effectiveness at the laboratory with a focus on timeliness and quality; greater forensic literacy among actors in the criminal justice system; appropriate avenues of communication between agencies, practitioners and policymakers in the criminal justice system; and increased allocation of resources to the front end of the forensic process. Originality/value – By adopting a holistic, systemic approach to the analysis of forensic science in the criminal justice system, and identifying inherent risks in the system, this paper contributes to the emerging body of research on the social processes that impact on the effectiveness of forensic science.
Do inconclusive forensic decisions disadvantage the innocent?

Stephanie Madon,Kayla A. Burd,Max Guyll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000553

2024-04-06

Law and Human Behavior

Abstract:Objective: Two experiments examined the potential for inconclusive forensic decisions to disadvantage the innocent. Hypotheses: Both experiments tested the hypothesis that inconclusive decisions produce more incriminating legal judgments than do clearly exculpatory forensic decisions. Experiment 2 also examined whether this hypothesized effect conformed to a confirmation bias, a communication error, or perceptual accuracy. Method: In Experiment 1 (N = 492), a forensic expert testified that physical evidence recovered from a crime scene either matched or did not match a suspect's evidence or produced an inconclusive result. In Experiment 2 (N = 1,002), a forensic expert testified that physical evidence recovered from a crime scene either matched or did not match a suspect's evidence, produced an inconclusive result, or was unsuitable for analysis. A fifth condition omitted the forensic evidence and expert testimony. Results: The inconclusive decision produced less incriminating legal judgments than did the match forensic decision (|d| average = 0.96), more incriminating legal judgments than did the no-match forensic decision (|d| average = 0.62), and equivalent legal judgments to the unsuitable decision (|d| average = 0.12) and to legal judgments made in the absence of forensic evidence (|d| average = 0.07). These results suggest that participants interpreted the inconclusive decision to be forensically neutral, which is consistent with a communication error. Conclusion: The findings provide preliminary support for the idea that inconclusive decisions can put the innocent at risk of wrongful conviction by depriving them of a clearly exculpatory forensic decision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

law,psychology, social
Commentary on Guyll et al. (2023): Misuse of Statistical Method Results in Highly Biased Interpretation of Forensic Evidence

Michael Rosenblum,Elizabeth T. Chin,Elizabeth L. Ogburn,Akihiko Nishimura,Daniel Westreich,Abhirup Datta,Susan Vanderplas,Maria Cuellar,William C. Thompson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.04409

2023-09-09

Abstract:Since the National Academy of Sciences released their report outlining paths for improving reliability, standards, and policies in the forensic sciences NAS (2009), there has been heightened interest in evaluating and improving the scientific validity within forensic science disciplines. Guyll et al. (2023) seek to evaluate the validity of forensic cartridge-case comparisons. However, they make a serious statistical error that leads to highly inflated claims about the probability that a cartridge case from a crime scene was fired from a reference gun, typically a gun found in the possession of a defendant. It is urgent to address this error since these claims, which are generally biased against defendants, are being presented by the prosecution in an ongoing homicide case where the defendant faces the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence (DC Superior Court, 2023).

Applications
Evidential strength of categorical expert witness statements

Rolf JF Ypma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01809

2024-01-04

Abstract:In many jurisdictions, forensic evidence is presented in the form of categorical statements by forensic experts. Several large-scale performance studies have been performed that report error rates to elucidate the uncertainty associated with such categorical statements. There is growing scientific consensus that the likelihood ratio (LR) framework is the logically correct form of presentation for forensic evidence evaluation. Yet, results from the large-scale performance studies have not been cast in this framework. Here, I show how to straightforwardly calculate an LR for any given categorical statement using data from the performance studies. This number quantifies how much more we should believe the hypothesis of same source vs different source, when provided a particular expert witness statement. LRs are reported for categorical statements resulting from the analysis of latent fingerprints, bloodstain patterns, handwriting, footwear and firearms. The highest LR found for statements of identification was 376 (fingerprints), the lowest found for statements of exclusion was 1/28 (handwriting). The LRs found may be more insightful for those used to this framework than the various error rates reported previously. An additional advantage of using the LR in this way is the relative simplicity; there are no decisions necessary on what error rate to focus on or how to handle inconclusive statements. The values found are closer to 1 than many would have expected. One possible explanation for this mismatch is that we undervalue numerical LRs. Finally, a note of caution: the LR values reported here come from a simple calculation that does not do justice to the nuances of the large-scale studies and their differences to casework, and should be treated as ball-park figures rather than definitive statements on the evidential value of whole forensic scientific fields.

Applications
A response to: "NIST experts urge caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation method"

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1710.05878

2017-10-17

Abstract:A press release from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)could potentially impede progress toward improving the analysis of forensic evidence and the presentation of forensic analysis results in courts in the United States and around the world. "NIST experts urge caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation method" was released on October 12, 2017, and was picked up by the <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://phys.org" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> news service. It argues that, except in exceptional cases, the results of forensic analyses should not be reported as "likelihood ratios". The press release, and the journal article by NIST researchers Steven P. Lund & Harri Iyer on which it is based, identifies some legitimate points of concern, but makes a strawman argument and reaches an unjustified conclusion that throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Applications,Other Statistics
The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis

Michelle M Pena,Stephanie Stoiloff,Maria Sparacino,Nadja Schreiber Compo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15565

Abstract:Forensic examiners have come under scrutiny due to high-profile exonerations, highlighting the consequences that contextual bias can have on investigations. Researchers have proposed solutions to reduce the effects of bias including blind testing and redacting task-irrelevant information. Practitioners have concerns over the limitations of some of this research that uses untrained students to examine complex pieces of forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints) (1; but see 2 for studies including trained experts and/or actual casework). This study sought to (a) examine the effect of contextual bias on examiners' evaluation of forensic evidence by varying the amount of pre-comparison information available to participants, (b) compare student and expert examiners' performance and their vulnerability to contextual bias, and (c) examine the effects of contextual bias on examiners' evaluation of different types of forensic evidence. Expert fingerprint examiners and student participants were presented with varying amounts of pre-comparison case information and compared matching and non-matching fingerprint and footwear impression evidence. Results suggest no effects of blinding examiners from case information or redacting task-irrelevant information. As expected, expert fingerprint examiners were more likely to correctly identify matching fingerprints and correctly exclude non-matching fingerprints than students. However, expert fingerprint examiners were no better than student participants at comparing footwear impression evidence. These findings suggest that sample, stimulus selection, and discipline-specific training matter when investigating bias in forensic decision making. These findings suggest caution when using forensic stimuli with student samples to investigate forensic decision-making and highlight the need for more research on redaction procedures.
False-Positive Psychology

Joseph P. Simmons,Leif D. Nelson,Uri Simonsohn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

IF: 10.172

2011-10-17

Psychological Science

Abstract:In this article, we accomplish two things. First, we show that despite empirical psychologists’ nominal endorsement of a low rate of false-positive findings (≤ .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost, and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Convicting with confidence? Why we should not over-rely on eyewitness confidence

Shari R Berkowitz,Brandon L Garrett,Kimberly M Fenn,Elizabeth F Loftus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1849308

Memory

Abstract:Eyewitness memory researchers have recently devoted considerable attention to eyewitness confidence. While there is strong consensus that courtroom confidence is problematic, we now recognise that an eyewitness's initial confidence in their first identification - in certain contexts - can be of value. A few psychological scientists, however, have confidently, but erroneously claimed that in real-world cases, eyewitness initial confidence is the most important indicator of eyewitness accuracy, trumping all other factors that might exist in a case. This claim accompanies an exaggeration of the role of eyewitnesses' "initial confidence" in the DNA exoneration cases. Still worse, overstated claims about the confidence-accuracy relationship, and eyewitness memory, have reached our top scientific journals, news articles, and criminal cases. To set the record straight, we review what we actually know and do not know about the "initial confidence" of eyewitnesses in the DNA exoneration cases. Further reasons for skepticism about the value of the confidence-accuracy relationship in real-world cases come from new analyses of a separate database, the National Registry of Exonerations. Finally, we review new research that reveals numerous conditions wherein eyewitnesses with high initial confidence end up being wrong.
Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Cedric Neumann,Madeline A. Ausdemore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.05240

2019-10-11

Abstract:For several decades, legal and scientific scholars have argued that conclusions from forensic examinations should be supported by statistical data and reported within a probabilistic framework. Multiple models have been proposed to quantify the probative value of forensic evidence. Unfortunately, several of these models rely on ad-hoc strategies that are not scientifically sound. The opacity of the technical jargon used to present these models and their results, and the complexity of the techniques involved make it very difficult for the untrained user to separate the wheat from the chaff. This series of papers is intended to help forensic scientists and lawyers recognise limitations and issues in tools proposed to interpret the results of forensic examinations. This paper focuses on tools that have been proposed to leverage the use of similarity scores to assess the probative value of forensic findings. We call this family of tools "score-based likelihood ratios". In this paper, we present the fundamental concepts on which these tools are built, we describe some specific members of this family of tools, and we explore their convergence to the Bayes factor through an intuitive geometrical approach and through simulations. Finally, we discuss their validation and their potential usefulness as a decision-making tool in forensic science.

Applications
Accuracy of comparison decisions by forensic firearms examiners

Keith L Monson,Erich D Smith,Eugene M Peters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15152

Abstract:This black box study assessed the performance of forensic firearms examiners in the United States. It involved three different types of firearms and 173 volunteers who performed a total of 8640 comparisons of both bullets and cartridge cases. The overall false-positive error rate was estimated as 0.656% and 0.933% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, while the rate of false negatives was estimated as 2.87% and 1.87% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. The majority of errors were made by a limited number of examiners. Because chi-square tests of independence strongly suggest that error probabilities are not the same for each examiner, these are maximum-likelihood estimates based on the beta-binomial probability model and do not depend on an assumption of equal examiner-specific error rates. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals are (0.305%, 1.42%) and (0.548%, 1.57%) for false positives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, and (1.89%, 4.26%) and (1.16%, 2.99%) for false negatives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. The results of this study are consistent with prior studies, despite its comprehensive design and challenging specimens.
A Note on the Specific Source Identification Problem in Forensic Science in the Presence of Uncertainty about the Background Population

Danica M. Ommen,Christopher P. Saunders,Cedric Neumann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1503.08234

2015-03-28

Abstract:A goal in the forensic interpretation of scientific evidence is to make an inference about the source of a trace of unknown origin. The evidence is composed of the following three elements: (a) the trace of unknown origin, (b) a sample from a specific source, and (c) a collection of samples from the alternative source population. The inference process usually considers two propositions. The first proposition is usually referred to as the prosecution hypothesis and states that a given specific source is the actual source of the trace of unknown origin. The second, usually referred to as the defense hypothesis, states that the actual source of the trace of unknown origin is another source from a relevant alternative source population. One approach is to calculate a Bayes Factor for deciding between the two competing hypotheses. This approach commonly assumes that the alternative source population is completely known or uses point estimates for its parameters. Contrary to this common approach, we propose a development that incorporates the uncertainty on the alternative source population parameters in a reasonable and coherent manner into the Bayes Factor. We will illustrate the resulting effects on the calculation of several Bayes Factors for different situations with a well-studied collection of samples of glass fragments.

Applications
Empirical estimates suggest most published medical research is true

Leah R. Jager,Jeffrey T. Leek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.3718

2013-01-16

Applications

Abstract:The accuracy of published medical research is critical both for scientists, physicians and patients who rely on these results. But the fundamental belief in the medical literature was called into serious question by a paper suggesting most published medical research is false. Here we adapt estimation methods from the genomics community to the problem of estimating the rate of false positives in the medical literature using reported P-values as the data. We then collect P-values from the abstracts of all 77,430 papers published in The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, The British Medical Journal, and The American Journal of Epidemiology between 2000 and 2010. We estimate that the overall rate of false positives among reported results is 14% (s.d. 1%), contrary to previous claims. We also find there is not a significant increase in the estimated rate of reported false positive results over time (0.5% more FP per year, P = 0.18) or with respect to journal submissions (0.1% more FP per 100 submissions, P = 0.48). Statistical analysis must allow for false positives in order to make claims on the basis of noisy data. But our analysis suggests that the medical literature remains a reliable record of scientific progress.
Degrees of freedom as a breeding ground for biases-A threat to forensic practice

Aileen Oeberst,Verena Oberlader

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000579

2024-09-23

Abstract:Objective: Researcher-based degrees of freedom have been shown to contribute to low replication rates in science. That is, researchers' options within the process of designing and conducting empirical tests may increase the probability of false positive findings. The aim of this study was to transfer the concept of degrees of freedom to the practice of forensic-psychological assessment as it may likewise pose a severe threat to the reliability and validity of forensic assessments. Using an example from statement validity assessment, we identified degrees of freedom, calculated the different possible workflows that forensic experts can take, and elaborated on their consequences for the reliability and validity of their assessments. Importantly, we elaborated on why degrees of freedom likely not only increase noise in the results but also foster the occurrence of systematic biases in forensic practice. Conclusion: Degrees of freedom in forensic-psychological assessments exist and lead to an enormous number of different possible workflows. As this threatens the interrater reliability and validity of forensic assessments and may lead to biases, we call for research on this issue and put forward recommendations for forensic practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychometric analysis of forensic examiner behavior

Amanda Luby,Anjali Mazumder,Brian Junker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-020-00116-6

2020-06-13

Behaviormetrika

Abstract:Abstract Forensic science often involves the comparison of crime-scene evidence to a known-source sample to determine if the evidence and the reference sample came from the same source. Even as forensic analysis tools become increasingly objective and automated, final source identifications are often left to individual examiners’ interpretation of the evidence. Each source identification relies on judgements about the features and quality of the crime-scene evidence that may vary from one examiner to the next. The current approach to characterizing uncertainty in examiners’ decision-making has largely centered around the calculation of error rates aggregated across examiners and identification tasks, without taking into account these variations in behavior. We propose a new approach using IRT and IRT-like models to account for differences among examiners and additionally account for the varying difficulty among source identification tasks. In particular, we survey some recent advances (Luby 2019a) in the application of Bayesian psychometric models, including simple Rasch models as well as more elaborate decision tree models, to fingerprint examiner behavior.

MicroRNA-21 expression and susceptibility to HPV-induced carcinogenesis - role of microenvironment in K14-HPV16 mice model.

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Laypeople's beliefs about the effects of common estimator variables on memory

A Bayesian approach for the analysis of error rate studies in forensic science

The effect of following best practice reporting recommendations on legal and community evaluations of forensic examiners reports

The Influence of Validation Data on Logical and Scientific Interpretations of Forensic Expert Opinions

Police evaluation of evidence: statistical format and evidence type

Forensic science as “risky business”: identifying key risk factors in the forensic process from crime scene to court

Do inconclusive forensic decisions disadvantage the innocent?

Commentary on Guyll et al. (2023): Misuse of Statistical Method Results in Highly Biased Interpretation of Forensic Evidence

Evidential strength of categorical expert witness statements

A response to: "NIST experts urge caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation method"

The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis

False-Positive Psychology

Convicting with confidence? Why we should not over-rely on eyewitness confidence

Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Accuracy of comparison decisions by forensic firearms examiners

A Note on the Specific Source Identification Problem in Forensic Science in the Presence of Uncertainty about the Background Population

Empirical estimates suggest most published medical research is true

Degrees of freedom as a breeding ground for biases-A threat to forensic practice

Psychometric analysis of forensic examiner behavior