R. Chapman , S. Summersby , T. Lang , J. Raymond , K. Ballantyne
{"title":"新手不能胜任考官的工作:鞋类考官在鞋类比较方面专业知识的证据。","authors":"R. Chapman , S. Summersby , T. Lang , J. Raymond , K. Ballantyne","doi":"10.1016/j.scijus.2023.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The value of a footwear examiner’s opinion centres on their ability to determine whether a particular shoe made an impression with greater accuracy than a novice. However, there has been limited research on the expertise of footwear examiners and the accuracy and reproducibility of their decisions. In the current study, we measured the accuracy and consensus of 31 footwear examiners versus a comparison group of 29 novices. Participants completed 20 ground truth known mock shoe comparisons. Results demonstrated that footwear examiners were more accurate than novices, regardless of comparison difficulty. Overall, on trials where probative decisions were given, examiners made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 3% and 2% of trials, while novices made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 19% and 17% of trials. Examiners also demonstrated better consensus in their opinions than novices, although both groups demonstrated low levels of agreement in their responses and variability in their interpretation of the conclusion scale. In summary, these findings support the proposition that footwear examiners show expert-level performance in matching known and unknown footwear impressions. These performance estimates may help the criminal justice system to appropriately value footwear examination evidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49565,"journal":{"name":"Science & Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novices cannot fill the examiners’ shoes: Evidence of footwear examiners’ expertise in shoe comparisons\",\"authors\":\"R. Chapman , S. Summersby , T. Lang , J. Raymond , K. Ballantyne\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scijus.2023.07.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The value of a footwear examiner’s opinion centres on their ability to determine whether a particular shoe made an impression with greater accuracy than a novice. However, there has been limited research on the expertise of footwear examiners and the accuracy and reproducibility of their decisions. In the current study, we measured the accuracy and consensus of 31 footwear examiners versus a comparison group of 29 novices. Participants completed 20 ground truth known mock shoe comparisons. Results demonstrated that footwear examiners were more accurate than novices, regardless of comparison difficulty. Overall, on trials where probative decisions were given, examiners made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 3% and 2% of trials, while novices made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 19% and 17% of trials. Examiners also demonstrated better consensus in their opinions than novices, although both groups demonstrated low levels of agreement in their responses and variability in their interpretation of the conclusion scale. In summary, these findings support the proposition that footwear examiners show expert-level performance in matching known and unknown footwear impressions. These performance estimates may help the criminal justice system to appropriately value footwear examination evidence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science & Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science & Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623000825\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Justice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623000825","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Novices cannot fill the examiners’ shoes: Evidence of footwear examiners’ expertise in shoe comparisons
The value of a footwear examiner’s opinion centres on their ability to determine whether a particular shoe made an impression with greater accuracy than a novice. However, there has been limited research on the expertise of footwear examiners and the accuracy and reproducibility of their decisions. In the current study, we measured the accuracy and consensus of 31 footwear examiners versus a comparison group of 29 novices. Participants completed 20 ground truth known mock shoe comparisons. Results demonstrated that footwear examiners were more accurate than novices, regardless of comparison difficulty. Overall, on trials where probative decisions were given, examiners made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 3% and 2% of trials, while novices made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 19% and 17% of trials. Examiners also demonstrated better consensus in their opinions than novices, although both groups demonstrated low levels of agreement in their responses and variability in their interpretation of the conclusion scale. In summary, these findings support the proposition that footwear examiners show expert-level performance in matching known and unknown footwear impressions. These performance estimates may help the criminal justice system to appropriately value footwear examination evidence.
期刊介绍:
Science & Justice provides a forum to promote communication and publication of original articles, reviews and correspondence on subjects that spark debates within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector. The journal provides a medium whereby all aspects of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed. Science & Justice is published six times a year, and will be of interest primarily to practising forensic scientists and their colleagues in related fields. It is chiefly concerned with the publication of formal scientific papers, in keeping with its international learned status, but will not accept any article describing experimentation on animals which does not meet strict ethical standards.
Promote communication and informed debate within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector.
To promote the publication of learned and original research findings from all areas of the forensic sciences and by so doing to advance the profession.
To promote the publication of case based material by way of case reviews.
To promote the publication of conference proceedings which are of interest to the forensic science community.
To provide a medium whereby all aspects of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed.
To appeal to all those with an interest in the forensic sciences.