Skip to content

Perceptions and estimates of error rates in forensic science: A survey of forensic analysts

Journal: Forensic Science International
Published: 2019
Primary Author: Daniel C. Murrie
Secondary Authors: Brett O. Gardner, Sharon Kelley, Itiel E. Dror

Every scientific technique features some error, and legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence (e.g., Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993; Kumho Tire Co v. Carmichael, 1999) guide trial courts to consider known error rates. However, recent reviews of forensic science conclude that error rates for some common techniques are not well-documented or even established (e.g., NAS, 2009; PCAST, 2016). Furthermore, many forensic analysts have historically denied the presence of error in their field. Therefore, it is important to establish what forensic scientists actually know or believe about errors rates in their disciplines. We surveyed 183 practicing forensic analysts to examine what they think and estimate about error rates in their various disciplines. Results revealed that analysts perceive all types of errors to be rare, with false positive errors even more rare than false negatives. Likewise, analysts typically reported that they prefer to minimize the risk of false positives over false negatives. Most analysts could not specify where error rates for their discipline were documented or published. Their estimates of error in their fields were widely divergent – with some estimates unrealistically low.

Related Resources

Blind Testing in Firearms Examination: Preliminary Results, Benefits, Limitations, and Future Directions

Blind Testing in Firearms Examination: Preliminary Results, Benefits, Limitations, and Future Directions

This CSAFE webinar was held on June 23, 2022. Presenters: Maddisen Neuman Quality / Research Associate, Houston Forensic Science Center   Presentation Description: Open proficiency tests created by external vendors…
Surveying Practicing Firearm Examiners

Surveying Practicing Firearm Examiners

A sample (n = 79) of practicing firearm and toolmark examiners was queried about casework as well as their views about the potential role that statistics might play in future…
Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program

Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program

Open proficiency tests meet accreditation requirements and measure examiner competence but may not represent actual casework. In December 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center began a blind quality control program…
Extracting Case-Specific Data from Validation Studies

Extracting Case-Specific Data from Validation Studies

This CSAFE webinar was held on May 10, 2022. Presenters: Steve Lund Statistical Engineering Division, NIST Hari Iyer Statistical Engineering Division, NIST Presentation Description: The legal and scientific communities agree…