油漆证据的法医比较的解释和报告写作:一个实验室间的练习

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL
Andria Mehltretter , Meghan Prusinowski , Hal Arkes , David Flohr , Cedric Neumann , Scott Ryland , Donna Sirk , Tatiana Trejos
{"title":"油漆证据的法医比较的解释和报告写作:一个实验室间的练习","authors":"Andria Mehltretter ,&nbsp;Meghan Prusinowski ,&nbsp;Hal Arkes ,&nbsp;David Flohr ,&nbsp;Cedric Neumann ,&nbsp;Scott Ryland ,&nbsp;Donna Sirk ,&nbsp;Tatiana Trejos","doi":"10.1016/j.forc.2023.100513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This interlaboratory study evaluated a guide for interpreting and reporting trace evidence examinations. The online survey aimed to assess the examiners' interpretation of casework scenarios designed by a subject matter expert panel (SMEP), specifically for paint evidence. A pool of 30 scenarios was created, and 15 were assigned to each participant using multi-factor design to evaluate agreement among examiners on case sets with different conclusion ranges and difficulty levels. Exploratory data analysis and three generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess the data. From the 1267 responses received from 85 participants, approximately 93% of responses were consistent between participants and within the SMEP consensus and the next best category, while 73% agreed with the SMEP consensus that was considered the ground truth. Most disagreements were observed in worst-case scenarios created with intended higher difficulty and complex circumstances.</p><p>The statistical models showed a strong positive relationship between the reported and expected conclusions, indicating that participants' findings align with the SMEP consensus. On the other hand, the exercise's difficulty level and participant's experience did not have a significant impact on the reported conclusions. However, the credible intervals for the probabilities of the different reported conclusions indicate that more experienced participants achieve greater consensus for a given exercise. The consensus reached among practitioners represents an advance in the trace community’s efforts to standardize reporting of results and opinions when following systematic criteria.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":324,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Chemistry","volume":"35 ","pages":"Article 100513"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpretation and report writing in forensic comparisons of paint evidence: An interlaboratory exercise\",\"authors\":\"Andria Mehltretter ,&nbsp;Meghan Prusinowski ,&nbsp;Hal Arkes ,&nbsp;David Flohr ,&nbsp;Cedric Neumann ,&nbsp;Scott Ryland ,&nbsp;Donna Sirk ,&nbsp;Tatiana Trejos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forc.2023.100513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This interlaboratory study evaluated a guide for interpreting and reporting trace evidence examinations. The online survey aimed to assess the examiners' interpretation of casework scenarios designed by a subject matter expert panel (SMEP), specifically for paint evidence. A pool of 30 scenarios was created, and 15 were assigned to each participant using multi-factor design to evaluate agreement among examiners on case sets with different conclusion ranges and difficulty levels. Exploratory data analysis and three generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess the data. From the 1267 responses received from 85 participants, approximately 93% of responses were consistent between participants and within the SMEP consensus and the next best category, while 73% agreed with the SMEP consensus that was considered the ground truth. Most disagreements were observed in worst-case scenarios created with intended higher difficulty and complex circumstances.</p><p>The statistical models showed a strong positive relationship between the reported and expected conclusions, indicating that participants' findings align with the SMEP consensus. On the other hand, the exercise's difficulty level and participant's experience did not have a significant impact on the reported conclusions. However, the credible intervals for the probabilities of the different reported conclusions indicate that more experienced participants achieve greater consensus for a given exercise. The consensus reached among practitioners represents an advance in the trace community’s efforts to standardize reporting of results and opinions when following systematic criteria.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"35 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100513\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468170923000498\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468170923000498","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本实验室间研究评估了解释和报告痕量证据检验的指南。在线调查旨在评估审查员对主题专家小组(SMEP)设计的案例场景的解释,特别是油漆证据。创建了30个场景池,并使用多因素设计将15个场景分配给每个参与者,以评估审查员对不同结论范围和难度级别的案例集的一致性。探索性数据分析和三种广义混合效应模型用于评估数据。从85名参与者收到的1267份回复中,大约93%的回复在参与者之间是一致的,并且在SMEP共识和下一个最佳类别内,而73%的人同意被认为是基本事实的SMEP共识。大多数分歧是在最坏的情况下观察到的,这些最坏的情况是有更高的难度和复杂的环境。统计模型显示报告结论和预期结论之间存在强烈的正相关关系,表明参与者的发现与SMEP共识一致。另一方面,练习的难度和参与者的经验对报告的结论没有显著影响。然而,不同报告结论概率的可信区间表明,经验丰富的参与者对给定的练习达成了更大的共识。从业者之间达成的共识代表了跟踪团体在遵循系统标准时标准化结果和意见报告的努力的进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Interpretation and report writing in forensic comparisons of paint evidence: An interlaboratory exercise

Interpretation and report writing in forensic comparisons of paint evidence: An interlaboratory exercise

This interlaboratory study evaluated a guide for interpreting and reporting trace evidence examinations. The online survey aimed to assess the examiners' interpretation of casework scenarios designed by a subject matter expert panel (SMEP), specifically for paint evidence. A pool of 30 scenarios was created, and 15 were assigned to each participant using multi-factor design to evaluate agreement among examiners on case sets with different conclusion ranges and difficulty levels. Exploratory data analysis and three generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess the data. From the 1267 responses received from 85 participants, approximately 93% of responses were consistent between participants and within the SMEP consensus and the next best category, while 73% agreed with the SMEP consensus that was considered the ground truth. Most disagreements were observed in worst-case scenarios created with intended higher difficulty and complex circumstances.

The statistical models showed a strong positive relationship between the reported and expected conclusions, indicating that participants' findings align with the SMEP consensus. On the other hand, the exercise's difficulty level and participant's experience did not have a significant impact on the reported conclusions. However, the credible intervals for the probabilities of the different reported conclusions indicate that more experienced participants achieve greater consensus for a given exercise. The consensus reached among practitioners represents an advance in the trace community’s efforts to standardize reporting of results and opinions when following systematic criteria.

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
Forensic Chemistry
Forensic Chemistry CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
14.80%
发文量
65
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Chemistry publishes high quality manuscripts focusing on the theory, research and application of any chemical science to forensic analysis. The scope of the journal includes fundamental advancements that result in a better understanding of the evidentiary significance derived from the physical and chemical analysis of materials. The scope of Forensic Chemistry will also include the application and or development of any molecular and atomic spectrochemical technique, electrochemical techniques, sensors, surface characterization techniques, mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance, chemometrics and statistics, and separation sciences (e.g. chromatography) that provide insight into the forensic analysis of materials. Evidential topics of interest to the journal include, but are not limited to, fingerprint analysis, drug analysis, ignitable liquid residue analysis, explosives detection and analysis, the characterization and comparison of trace evidence (glass, fibers, paints and polymers, tapes, soils and other materials), ink and paper analysis, gunshot residue analysis, synthetic pathways for drugs, toxicology and the analysis and chemistry associated with the components of fingermarks. The journal is particularly interested in receiving manuscripts that report advances in the forensic interpretation of chemical evidence. Technology Readiness Level: When submitting an article to Forensic Chemistry, all authors will be asked to self-assign a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to their article. The purpose of the TRL system is to help readers understand the level of maturity of an idea or method, to help track the evolution of readiness of a given technique or method, and to help filter published articles by the expected ease of implementation in an operation setting within a crime lab.
×
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