CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 353Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsBiometric Identification and Security

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

Open access
Ulery, Bradford T., Hicklin, R. Austin, Buscaglia, JoAnn, Roberts, Maria Antonia·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1018707108PMC PMC3093498
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. The National Research Council of the National Academies and the legal and forensic sciences communities have called for research to measure the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners’ decisions, a challenging and complex problem in need of systematic analysis. Our research is focused on the development of empirical approaches to studying this problem. Here, we report on the first large-scale study of the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners’ decisions, in which 169 latent print examiners each compared approximately 100 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints from a pool of 744 pairs. The fingerprints were selected to include a range of attributes and quality encountered in forensic casework, and to be comparable to searches of an automated fingerprint identification system containing more than 58 million subjects. This study evaluated examiners on key decision points in the fingerprint examination process; procedures used operationally include additional safeguards designed to minimize errors. Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1018707108

Cites

19 of 19 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

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. IW Evett, RL Williams, A review of the 16 point fingerprint standard in England and Wales. Fingerprint Whorld 21 (1995).
  2. K Wertheim, G Langenburg, A Moenssens, A report of latent print examiner accuracy during comparison training exercises. J Forensic Identification 56, 55–93 (2006).
  3. S Gutowski, Error rates in fingerprint examination: The view in 2006. Forensic Bulletin 2006, 18–19, Autumn. (2006).
  4. G Langenburg, A performance study of the ACE-V process. J Forensic Identification 59, 219–257 (2009).
  5. A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 2006).
  6. RA Huber, Expert witness. Criminal Law Quarterly 2, 276–296 (1959).
  7. C Champod, Edmond Locard—Numerical standards and “probable” identifications. J Forensic Identification 45, 136–155 (1995).
  8. DL Grieve, Possession of truth. J Forensic Identification 46, 521–528 (1996).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–353 of 353

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Noblis (US)
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (US)
Corresponding author
Buscaglia, JoAnn
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-04-25
Volume
108
Issue
19
Pages
7733-7738
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1018707108
PMC
PMC3093498
OpenAlex
W2009575609
Cited by
350
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
18.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Forensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
Keywords
forensic evidence reliability, false positives, false negative errors, automated fingerprint identification systems, fingerprint comparison
MeSH terms
Dermatoglyphics, Expert Testimony, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Professional Competence, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation

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