Skip to content

Latent print quality in blind proficiency testing: Using quality metrics to examine laboratory performance

Journal: Forensic Science International
Published: 2021
Primary Author: Brett O. Gardner
Secondary Authors: Maddisen Neuman, Sharon Kelley
Research Area: Latent Print

Calls for blind proficiency testing in forensic science disciplines intensified following the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report and were echoed in the 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Both practitioners and scholars have noted that “open” proficiency tests, in which analysts know they are being tested, allow for test-taking behavior that is not representative of behavior in routine casework. This study reports the outcomes of one laboratory’s blind quality control (BQC) program. Specifically, we describe results from approximately 2.5 years of blind cases in the latent print section (N = 376 latent prints submitted as part of 144 cases). We also used a widely available quality metrics software (LQMetrics) to explore relationships between objective print quality and case outcomes. Results revealed that nearly all BQC prints (92.0%) were of sufficient quality to enter into AFIS. When prints had a source present in AFIS, 41.7% of print searches resulted in a candidate list containing the true source. Examiners committed no false positive errors but other types of errors were more common. Average print quality was in the midpoint of the range (53.4 on a 0-to-100 scale), though prints were evenly distributed across the Good, Bad, and Ugly categories. Quality metrics were significantly associated with sufficiency determinations, examiner conclusions, and examiner accuracy. Implications for blind testing and the use of quality metrics in routine casework as well as proficiency testing are discussed.

Related Resources

Does Image Editing Improve the Quality of Latent Prints? An Analysis of Image‐Enhancement Techniques in One Crime Laboratory

Does Image Editing Improve the Quality of Latent Prints? An Analysis of Image‐Enhancement Techniques in One Crime Laboratory

The following was presented at the 74th Annual Scientific Conference of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Seattle, Washington, February 21-25, 2022
What types of information can and do latent print examiners review? A survey of practicing examiners

What types of information can and do latent print examiners review? A survey of practicing examiners

The following was presented at the 74th Annual Scientific Conference of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Seattle, Washington, February 21-25, 2022.
Investigative Leads in Latent Prints: A Comparison of Laboratory Procedures

Investigative Leads in Latent Prints: A Comparison of Laboratory Procedures

The following was presented at the 74th Annual Scientific Conference of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Seattle, Washington, February 21-25, 2022.
Characterizing verification and blind proficiency testing at forensic laboratories

Characterizing verification and blind proficiency testing at forensic laboratories

The 2014 Bureau of Justice survey of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories found that while 97% of the country’s 409 public forensic labs reported using some kind of proficiency testing,…