Nicholas Scurich PhD, Thomas D. Albright PhD, Peter Stout PhD, Donna Eudaley BS, Maddisen Neuman MA, Callan Hundl BS
{"title":"The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners","authors":"Nicholas Scurich PhD, Thomas D. Albright PhD, Peter Stout PhD, Donna Eudaley BS, Maddisen Neuman MA, Callan Hundl BS","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.70047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 4","pages":"1329-1337"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.70047","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.70047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.