Skip to content

Psychometrics for Forensic Fingerprint Comparisons

Journal: Quantitative Psychology. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 353
Published: 2021
Primary Author: Amanda Luby
Secondary Authors: Anjali Mazumder, Brian Junker

Forensic science often involves the evaluation of crime-scene evidence to determine whether it matches a known-source sample, such as whether a fingerprint or DNA was left by a suspect or if a bullet was fired from a specific firearm. Even as forensic measurement and analysis tools become increasingly automated and objective, final source decisions are often left to individual examiners’ interpretation of the evidence. Furthermore, forensic analyses often consist of a series of steps. While some of these steps may be straightforward and relatively objective, substantial variation may exist in more subjective decisions. The current approach to characterizing uncertainty in forensic decision-making has largely centered around conducting error rate studies (in which examiners evaluate a set of items consisting of known-source comparisons) and calculating error rates aggregated across examiners and identification tasks. We propose a new approach using Item Response Theory (IRT) and IRT-like models to account for differences in examiner behavior and for varying difficulty among identification tasks. There are, however, substantial differences between forensic decision-making and traditional IRT applications such as educational testing. For example, the structure of the response process must be considered, “answer keys” for comparison tasks do not exist, and information about participants and items is not available due to privacy constraints. In this paper, we provide an overview of forensic decision-making, outline challenges in applying IRT in practice, and survey some recent advances in the application of Bayesian psychometric models to fingerprint examiner behavior.

Related Resources

Toward Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Minutiae Frequency Estimations

Toward Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Minutiae Frequency Estimations

This presentation is from the 76th Annual Conference of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Denver, Colorado, February 19-24, 2024.
Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of…
Interpretable algorithmic forensics

Interpretable algorithmic forensics

One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that…
What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency

What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency

Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae…