Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science
Open accessAbstract
The discussion of "error" has gained momentum in forensic science in the wake of the Daubert guidelines and has intensified with the National Academy of Sciences' Report. Error has many different meanings, and too often, forensic practitioners themselves as well as the courts misunderstand scientific error and statistical error rates, often confusing them with practitioner error (or mistakes). Here, we present an overview of these concepts as they pertain to forensic science applications, discussing the difference between practitioner error (including mistakes), instrument error, statistical error, and method error. We urge forensic practitioners to ensure that potential sources of error and method limitations are understood and clearly communicated and advocate that the legal community be informed regarding the differences between interobserver errors, uncertainty, variation, and mistakes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In literature regarding the challenges of communicating issues identified in systems of forensic science service provision, the lack of standardized language has been cited as a key barrier.
“in literature regarding the challenges of communicating issues identified in systems of forensic science service provision, the lack of standardized language has been cited as a key barrier [8, 9, 28].”
From Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
Council, N. R. (2009) · CrimRxiv · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.b2d683d2 · Cited by 1,461 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Heavey, A. L., Turbett, G. R., Houck, M. M., & Lewis, S. W. (2023) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100339 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationToward a common language for quality issues in forensic science
Heavey, A. L., Turbett, G. R., Houck, M. M., & Lewis, S. W. (2022) · WIREs Forensic Science · doi:10.1002/wfs2.1452 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationForensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Understanding ‘error’ in the forensic sciences: A primer
Martire, K. A., Chin, J. M., Davis, C., Edmond, G., Growns, B., Gorski, S., Kemp, R. I., Lee, Z., Verdon, C. M., Jansen, G., et al. (2024) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100470 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions
Heavey, A. L., Houck, M. M., Turbett, G. R., & Lewis, S. W. (2025) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.70121 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“However, in literature regarding the challenges of communicating issues identified in systems of fo - rensic science service provision, the lack of standardized language has been cited as a key barrier [8, 9, 28].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Christensen, A. M., Crowder, C. M., Ousley, S. D., & Houck, M. M.
- Affiliations
- George Mason University (US)
- Office of Chief Medical Examiner (US)
- Mercyhurst University (US)
- District of Columbia Department of Forensic Sciences (US)
- Corresponding author
- Christensen, Angi M.
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-23
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 123-126
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2150582464
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 5.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- instrument error, method error, National Academy of Sciences report, scientific errors, uncertainty, interobserver error, variations, expert testimony
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Forensic Sciences, Mathematical Concepts
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
