CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are forensic scientists experts?

Towler, Alice, White, David, Ballantyne, Kaye, Searston, Rachel A., Martire, Kristy A., Kemp, Richard I.·2018·Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.010

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Association of Forensic Science Providers, 2009, Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion, Science & Justice, 49, 161, 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004 · DOI
  2. Ballantyne, 2017, Peer review in forensic science, Forensic Science International, 277, 66, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.05.020 · DOI
  3. Balsdon, T., Summersby, S., Kemp, R.I., & White, D. Improving face identification with specialist teams. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (in press).
  4. Bindemann, 2016, Matching faces against the clock, i-Perception, 7, 10.1177/2041669516672219 · DOI
  5. Bird, 2010, Forensic handwriting examiners’ opinions on the process of production of disguised and simulated signatures, Forensic Science International, 195, 103, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.12.001 · DOI
  6. Bird, 2010, Forensic document examiners’ skill in distinguishing between natural and disguised handwriting behaviors, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1291, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01456.x · DOI
  7. Burton, 2010, The Glasgow face matching test, Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Busey, 2005, Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts, Vision Research, 45, 431, 10.1016/j.visres.2004.08.021 · DOI
  9. Dror, 2011, Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a ‘target’ comparison, Forensic Science International, 208, 10, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013 · DOI
  10. Dror, 2006, Why experts make errors, Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600
  11. Dror, 2006, Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications, Forensic Science International, 156, 174, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dror, 2010, The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic science pattern recognition, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 161, 10.3758/PBR.17.2.161 · DOI
  13. Dror, 2010, The use of technology in human expert domains: Challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensic science, Law, Probability and Risk, 9, 47, 10.1093/lpr/mgp031 · DOI
  14. Edmond, 2016, Legal versus non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 20, 3, 10.1177/1365712715613470 · DOI
  15. Edmond, 2017, Model forensic science, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 144
  16. Edmond, 2014, How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for lawyers, Australian Bar Review, 39, 174
  17. Edmond, 2016, Before the High Court. Honeysett v The Queen: Forensic science, ‘specialised knowledge’ and the uniform evidence law, Sydney Law Review, 36, 323
  18. Edmond, 2017, Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners, Science and Justice, 57, 144, 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Found, 2003, The initial profiling trial of a program to characterise forensic handwriting examiners’ skill, Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, 6, 77, 10.69525/jasqde.95 · DOI
  20. Found, 2008, The probative character of forensic handwriting examiners’ identification and elimination opinions on questioned signatures, Forensic Science International, 178, 54, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.02.001 · DOI
  21. Henderson, 2001, Matching the faces of robbers captured on video, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 445, 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Kam, 2015, Simulation detection in handwritten documents by forensic document examiners, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 936, 10.1111/1556-4029.12801 · DOI
  23. Kam, 1997, Writer identification by professional document examiners, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 1, 10.1520/JFS14207J · DOI
  24. Kam, 2001, Signature authentication by forensic document examiners, Journal of Forensic Science, 46, 884, 10.1520/JFS15062J · DOI
  25. Kam, 1994, Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification, Journal of Forensic Science, 39, 5, 10.1520/JFS13565J · DOI
  26. Kassin, 2013, The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kerkhoff, 2015, Design and results of an exploratory double blind testing program in firearms examination, Science & Justice, 55, 514, 10.1016/j.scijus.2015.06.007 · DOI
  28. Kobus, 2011, Managing performance in the forensic sciences: Expectations in light of limited budgets, Forensic Science Policy and Management, 2, 36, 10.1080/19409044.2011.564271 · DOI
  29. Koehler, 2013, Proficiency tests to estimate error rates in the forensic sciences, Law, Probability & Risk, 12, 89, 10.1093/lpr/mgs013 · DOI
  30. Koehler, 2016, Forensics or fauxrensics? Ascertaining accuracy in the forensic sciences, Arizona State Law Journal, 49, 1
  31. Koehler, 2016, An empirical research agenda for the forensic sciences, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106, 1
  32. Kukucka, 2014, Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias, Law and Human Behavior, 38, 256, 10.1037/lhb0000066 · DOI
  33. Kundel, 2007, Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: Gaze-tracking study, Radiology, 242, 396, 10.1148/radiol.2422051997 · DOI
  34. Martire, 2018, Clear communication through clear purpose: Understanding statistical statements made by forensic scientists, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1, 10.1080/00450618.2018.1439101 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Martire, 2017, Re-thinking expert opinion evidence, Melbourne University Law Review, 40, 967
  36. Martire, 2016, Considerations when designing human performance tests in the forensic sciences, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1
  37. Martire, 2013, The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect, Law and Human Behavior, 37, 197, 10.1037/lhb0000027 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Memory and Cognition, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation, Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Mnookin, 2011, The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences, UCLA Law Review, 58, 725
  41. Norell, 2015, The effect of image quality and forensic expertise in facial image comparisons, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 331, 10.1111/1556-4029.12660 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Page, 2012, Context effects and observer bias – Implications for forensic odontology, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 108, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01903.x · DOI
  43. Risinger, 2002, The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion, California Law Review, 90, 1, 10.2307/3481305 · DOI
  44. Russell, 2009, Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 252, 10.3758/PBR.16.2.252 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Saks, 2005, The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science, Science, 309, 892, 10.1126/science.1111565 · DOI
  46. Saks, 2003, Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States, Science & Justice, 43, 77, 10.1016/S1355-0306(03)71747-X · DOI
  47. Searston, 2017, The emergence of perceptual expertise with fingerprints over time, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 442, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.08.006 · DOI
  48. Searston, 2017, Expertise with unfamiliar objects is flexible to changes in task but not changes in class, PLoS ONE, 12, e0178403, 10.1371/journal.pone.0178403 · DOI
  49. Searston, 2017, The style of a stranger: Identification expertise generalizes to coarser level categories, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1324, 10.3758/s13423-016-1211-6 · DOI
  50. Shakeshaft, 2015, Genetic specificity of face recognition, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 12887, 10.1073/pnas.1421881112 · DOI
  51. Sita, 2002, Forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise for signature comparison, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 1117, 10.1520/JFS15521J · DOI
  52. Tangen, 2011, Identifying fingerprint expertise, Psychological Science, 22, 995, 10.1177/0956797611414729 · DOI
  53. Thompson, 2014, The nature of expertise in fingerprint matching: Experts can do a lot with a little, PLoS ONE, 9, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0114759 · DOI
  54. Thompson, 2014, Human matching performance of genuine crime scene latent fingerprints, Law and Human Behavior, 38, 84, 10.1037/lhb0000051 · DOI
  55. Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 47
  56. Ulery, 2012, Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners, PLoS ONE, 7, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0032800 · DOI
  57. Vogelsang, 2017, Holistic processing of fingerprints by expert forensic examiners, Cognitive Research, 2, 1
  58. White, 2013, Crowd effects in unfamiliar face matching, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 769, 10.1002/acp.2971 · DOI · Paper page
  59. White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE, 9, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page
  60. White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282, 1814, 10.1098/rspb.2015.1292 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Wolfe, 2013, Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too, Journal of Vision, 13, 1, 10.1167/13.3.33 · DOI
  62. Wolfe, 2005, Rare items often missed in visual searches, Nature, 435, 439, 10.1038/435439a · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 29

Metadata

Authors
Towler, A., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-06
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
199-208
ISSN
  • 2211-369X
  • 2211-3681
DOI
10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.010
Cited by
29
References
4
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review