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 , Meghan Prusinowski , Hal Arkes , David Flohr , Cedric Neumann , Scott Ryland , Donna Sirk , 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 , Meghan Prusinowski , Hal Arkes , David Flohr , Cedric Neumann , Scott Ryland , Donna Sirk , 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}
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.
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.