A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions

L. Hammer (Lead / Corresponding author), K. Duffy, J. Fraser, N. Nic Daeid (Lead / Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The 2009 National Academy of Science report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, cited a 1996 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were "considerable differences" found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1996 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)205-218
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Forensic Identification
Volume63
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Forensic Sciences
North America

Cite this

@article{d18bb0e1b0284b68897435d5e0e9d285,
title = "A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions",
abstract = "The 2009 National Academy of Science report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, cited a 1996 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were {"}considerable differences{"} found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1996 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.",
author = "L. Hammer and K. Duffy and J. Fraser and {Nic Daeid}, N.",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "205--218",
journal = "Journal of Forensic Identification",
issn = "0895-173X",
publisher = "International Association for Identification",
number = "2",

}

A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions. / Hammer, L. (Lead / Corresponding author); Duffy, K.; Fraser, J.; Nic Daeid, N. (Lead / Corresponding author).

In: Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2013, p. 205-218.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions

AU - Hammer, L.

AU - Duffy, K.

AU - Fraser, J.

AU - Nic Daeid, N.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - The 2009 National Academy of Science report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, cited a 1996 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were "considerable differences" found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1996 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.

AB - The 2009 National Academy of Science report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, cited a 1996 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were "considerable differences" found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1996 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875489785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84875489785

VL - 63

SP - 205

EP - 218

JO - Journal of Forensic Identification

JF - Journal of Forensic Identification

SN - 0895-173X

IS - 2

ER -