霍桑效应在枪械和工具痕迹检验研究中的应用。

Nicholas Scurich, Thomas D Albright, Peter Stout, Donna Eudaley, Maddisen Neuman, Callan Hundl
{"title":"霍桑效应在枪械和工具痕迹检验研究中的应用。","authors":"Nicholas Scurich, Thomas D Albright, Peter Stout, Donna Eudaley, Maddisen Neuman, Callan Hundl","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.70047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><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":94080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Scurich, Thomas D Albright, Peter Stout, Donna Eudaley, Maddisen Neuman, Callan Hundl\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.70047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><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\":94080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

霍桑效应指的是当个体知道自己正在被研究时,他们的行为倾向会有所不同。在法医学领域,“战略审查员”引起了人们的关注,在这种情况下,法医学审查员根据是在测试情境中还是在处理实际案件中使用不同的决策阈值。休斯敦法医科学中心("HFSC")在枪支检查中进行的盲测提供了一个独特的机会,可以检验这样一个假设,即在枪支检查中发现的盲测与未发现的盲测中,不确定呼叫的比率不同。在5年多的时间里,529个测试项目的比较被过滤到HFSC的个案工作中。发现项目的不确定率为56.4%,而未发现测试项目的不确定率为39.3%。因此,在已发现的测试项目中,不确定调用的百分比比未发现的测试项目高43.5%。这种结果模式适用于子弹比较(83%对59%)和弹壳比较(29%对20%),以及相同来源和不同来源的子弹和弹壳比较。这些发现证实了人们的担忧,即当法医知道他们正在接受测试时,他们的行为会有所不同,并且证明了如果研究目标是评估法医法医进行案件工作的表现,则需要进行盲测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信