CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Forensic and Genetic ResearchLegal processes and jurisprudenceClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach

Open access
Taylor, Melissa K·2024
DOI 10.6028/nist.ir.8503
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The study of human factors in forensic science informs our understanding of the interaction between humans and the systems they use.The Expert Working Group (EWG) on Human Factors in Forensic DNA Interpretation used a systems approach to conduct a scientific assessment of the effects of human factors on forensic DNA interpretation with the goal of recommending approaches to improve practice and reduce the likelihood and consequence of errors.This effort resulted in 44 recommendations.The EWG designed many of these recommendations to improve the production, interpretation, evaluation, documentation, and communication of DNA comparison results.Additional discussions include:• The potential for cognitive bias and how to reduce it.• DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence, and recovery.• Work environments and how they can impact productivity and morale.• Building a more equipped workforce through investment in centralized forensic education and training.• How forensic science service provider management and leadership can foster a culture where errors are seen as a learning opportunity and not treated punitively.• Future research and funding directions in forensic DNA interpretation.This report serves to educate both forensic science service providers and criminal justice partners (e.g., legal practitioners, law enforcement investigators, parent organization leadership, forensic science educators).

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 · 10.6028/nist.ir.8503

Cites

6 citation errors · 2 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The ongoing commitment from the global forensic community to improving standards of quality, validity, and professionalism is evident throughout the literature and initiatives emerging from within the industry, along with academia and professional bodies.

    “The ongoing commitment from the global forensic community to improving standards of quality, validity, and professionalism is evident throughout the literature and initiatives emerging from within the industry, along with academia and professional bodies [24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].”

    From Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions (2025) · cites this paper as [39]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 267

  1. Kalafut T, Bright JA, Taylor D, Buckleton J. Investigation into the Effect of Mixtures Comprising Related People on Non-Donor Likelihood Ratios, and Potential Practises to Mitigate Providing Misleading Opinions. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2022; 59:102691. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102691. 164 · DOI
  2. Aitken C, Taroni F. A Verbal Scale for the Interpretation of Evidence. Science & Justice. 1998; 38(4):279-281. doi:10.1016/S1355- 0306(98)72128-8. 213 · DOI
  3. Taylor D, Balding D. How Can Courts Take into Account the Uncertainty in a Likelihood Ratio? Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2020; 48:102361. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102361. p. 2. 217 · DOI
  4. Balding DJ, Steele CD. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: West Sussex, UK, 2015. doi:10.1002/9781118814512; · DOI
  5. Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, Biedermann A. Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: West Sussex, England, 2006. doi:10.1002/0470091754. 219 · DOI
  6. Taylor D, Balding D. How Can Courts Take into Account the Uncertainty in a Likelihood Ratio? Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2020; 48:102361. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102361. 220 · DOI
  7. Balding DJ, Steele CD. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: West Sussex, UK, 2015. doi:10.1002/9781118814512; · DOI
  8. Kloosterman A, Sjerps M, Quak A. Error Rates in Forensic DNA Analysis: Definition, Numbers, Impact and Communication. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2014; 12:77-85. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014. 221 Forensic Science Regulator. Codes of Practice and Conduct: Development of Evaluative Opinions. FSR-C-118, Issue 1. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/960051/FSR-C- 118_Interpretation_Appendix_Issue_1__002_.pdf. 222 Reporting cap of 100 billion is in line with advice from the Biology Special Advisory Group in Australia. 245 European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science: Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe (STEOFRAE), Version 3.0. 2015. https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/m1_guideline.pdf; · DOI
  9. Marquis R, Biedermann A, Cadola L, Champod C, Gueissaz L, Massonnet G, Mazzella WD, Taroni F, Hicks T. Discussion on How to Implement a Verbal Scale in a Forensic Laboratory: Benefits, Pitfalls and Suggestions to Avoid Misunderstandings. Science & Justice. 2016; 56(5):364-70. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.009; Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). Recommendations of the SWGDAM Ad Hoc Working Group on Genotyping Results Reported as Likelihood Ratios. 2018. https://www.swgdam.org/_files/ugd/4344b0_dd5221694d1448588dcd0937738c9e46.pdf. 246 Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). Recommendations of the SWGDAM Ad Hoc Working Group on Genotyping Results Reported as Likelihood Ratios. 2018. https://www.swgdam.org/_files/ugd/4344b0_dd5221694d1448588dcd0937738c9e46.pdf. 247 Ibid., p. 3. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.09.007; · DOI
  10. Ypma RJF, Maaskant- van Wijk PA, Gill R, Sjerps M, van den Berge M. Calculating LRs for Presence of Body Fluids from mRNA Assay Data in Mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2021; 52:102455. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102455. 306 · DOI
  11. de Keijser J, Elffers H. Understanding of Forensic Expert Reports by Judges, Defense Lawyers and Forensic Professionals. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2012; 18(2):191-207. doi:10.1080/10683161003736744. 310 Ibid.; Howes LM, Kirkbride KP, Kelty SF, Julian R, Kemp N. Forensic Scientists' Conclusions: How Readable Are They for Non-Scientist Report- Users? Forensic Science International. 2013; 231(1-3):102-12. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026; · DOI
  12. van Straalen EK, de Poot CJ, Malsch M, Elffers H. The Interpretation of Forensic Conclusions by Criminal Justice Professionals: The Same Evidence Interpreted Differently. Forensic Science International. 2020; 313:110331. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110331. 312 · DOI
  13. McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ. The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Factfinders Hear. Law and Human Behavior. 2009; 33(5):436-53. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1; · DOI
  14. van Straalen EK, de Poot CJ, Malsch M, Elffers H. The Interpretation of Forensic Conclusions by Criminal Justice Professionals: The Same Evidence Interpreted Differently. Forensic Science International. 2020; 313:110331. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110331. 341 · DOI
  15. Feigenson N, Eryn N, Jalbert M. Cognitive Fluency in the Courtroom. The Routledge International Handbook of Legal and Investigative Psychology. 2019:102-15. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752317 347
  16. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM. Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2009; 13(3):219-35. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564. 349 · DOI
  17. Koehler JJ. If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2011; 8(s1):21-48. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x. p. 39. 407 · DOI
  18. Hicks T, Buckleton J, Castella V, Evett IW, Jackson G. A Logical Framework for Forensic DNA Interpretation. Genes (Basel). 2022; 13(6):957. doi:10.3390/genes13060957. 442 · DOI
  19. Jackson G, Biedermann A. "Source" or "Activity" What Is the Level of Issue in a Criminal Trial? Significance. 2019; 16(2):36-9. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01253.x. 443 · DOI
  20. Gittelson S, Kalafut T, Myers S, Taylor D, Hicks T, Taroni F, Evett IW, Bright JA, Buckleton J. A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016; 61(1):186-95. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12907. 445 · DOI
  21. Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. Interpreting Small Quantities of DNA: The Hierarchy of Propositions and the Use of Bayesian Networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2002; 47(3):520-30. doi:10.1520/jfs15291j; · DOI
  22. Hicks T, Buckleton J, Castella V, Evett IW, Jackson G. A Logical Framework for Forensic DNA Interpretation. Genes (Basel). 2022; 13(6):957. doi:10.3390/genes13060957. 446 · DOI
  23. Gill P, Hicks T, Butler JM, Connolly E, Gusmao L, Kokshoorn B, Morling N, van Oorschot RAH, Parson W, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Sijen T, Taylor D. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Assessing the Value of Forensic Biological Evidence -Guidelines Highlighting the Importance of Propositions. Part II: Evaluation of Biological Traces Considering Activity Level Propositions. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2020; 44:102186. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102186. 447 Ibid. 448 · DOI
  24. Gill P, Hicks T, Butler JM, Connolly E, Gusmao L, Kokshoorn B, Morling N, van Oorschot RAH, Parson W, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Sijen T, Taylor D. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Assessing the Value of Forensic Biological Evidence -Guidelines Highlighting the Importance of Propositions. Part II: Evaluation of Biological Traces Considering Activity Level Propositions. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2020; 44:102186. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102186. 459 · DOI
  25. Kokshoorn B, Luijsterburg M. Reporting on Forensic Biology Findings Given Activity Level Issues in the Netherlands. Forensic Science International. 2023; 343:111545. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111545; · DOI
  26. Taylor D, Kokshoorn B. Forensic DNA Trace Evidence Interpretation: Activity Level Propositions and Likelihood Ratios. CRC Press: Boca Raton, 2023. doi:10.4324/9781003273189. 460 · DOI
  27. Taylor D, Kokshoorn B, Biedermann A. Evaluation of Forensic Genetics Findings Given Activity Level Propositions: A Review. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018; 36:34-49. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.06.001. 461 DNA-TrAC. Keeping Track of DNA Transfer. Accessed Feb 10, 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jf286hcollyerlf/AABQHfhGGiB03YdcJgpO4NUga?+dl=0. 462 For example, the establishment of a Trace DNA Transfer Rate Repository & Bayes Net to Calculate LRs (Understanding the transfer of DNA), https://enfsi.eu/projects/monopoly-programmes-mp/mp2020/). 475 · DOI
  28. Ricardo & Barbosa. Using Human Factors, Human Error Prevention, and Mistake Proofing. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.ricardo- barbosa.com/using-human-factors-human-error-prevention-and-mistake-proofing/. 476 InVita Healthcare Technologies. DNA & Forensic Sample Management Solutions. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.invitahealth.com/solutions/dna-and-forensics/. 477 Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. 34 USC 12591: Part A-DNA Identification: Quality Assurance and Proficiency Testing Standards. 2023. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title34-chapter121- subchapter8-partA&edition=prelim. 478 American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). Forensic Examination Accreditation Program. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://a2la.org/accreditation/forensics/; ibid. 479 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html. 480 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories. 2020. https://le.fbi.gov/file- repository/forensic-qas-070120.pdf/view. 481 ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB). AR 3125: Accreditation Requirements for Forensic Testing and Calibration (2023). 2023. https://anab.qualtraxcloud.com/ShowDocument.aspx?ID=12371. 482 American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). Forensic Examination Accreditation Program. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://a2la.org/accreditation/forensics/. 489 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). About ISO. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.iso.org/about-us.html. 490 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html. 491 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Forensic Sciences -Part 1: Terms and Definitions, ISO/IEC 21043-1:20018(En). 2018. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:21043:-1:ed-1:v1:en. 492 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Forensic Sciences -Part 2: Recognition, Recording, Collecting, Transport, and Storage of Items, ISO/IEC 21043-2:2018. 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/72041.html. 493 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Forensic Sciences -Part 1: Terms and Definitions, ISO/IEC 21043-1:20018(En). 2018. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:21043:-1:ed-1:v1:en. 494 Ibid. 495 Standards Australia. Forensic Analysis Reporting. AS 5388.4-2013 2013. https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-us/standards/as-5388-4-2013- 120014_saig_as_as_251524/. 496
  29. U.S. 579. 1993. 526 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Participants. 2016. doi: doi.org/10.56759/rgxl7405. 527 United States Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR 46: Protection of Human Subjects. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. 528 · DOI
  30. Resnik DB. Employees as Research Participants: Ethical and Policy Issues. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2016; 38(4):11-16. 529
  31. Resnik DB. Employees as Research Participants: Ethical and Policy Issues. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2016; 38(4):11-16. 531
  32. Borsuk LA, Vallone PM, Gettings KB. STRSeq: FAQ for Submitting. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2022; 8:245-7. ;
  33. Lyle JR, Guttman B, Butler JM, Sauerwein K, Reed C, Lloyd C. Digital Investigation Techniques: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2022. NIST IR 8354. doi: 10.6028/NIST.IR.8354. 534 GovInfo. 28 CFR 46 -Protection of Human Subjects. 2022. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2022-title28-vol2/CFR-2022-title28- vol2-part46/summary. 535 United States Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR 46: Protection of Human Subjects. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. 536 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST Store: Forensic DNA Resource Samples. 2024, Accessed Feb 5, 2024. https://shop.nist.gov/ccrz__ProductDetails?sku=10235&cclcl=en_US. 537 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST Research Grade Test Material (RGTM) 10235: Forensic DNA Resource Samples, Information and Ordering. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://strbase.nist.gov/Information/RGTM_10235. 538 · DOI
  34. Butler JM. Debunking Some Urban Legends Surrounding Validation Within the Forensic DNA Community. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. 2006. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/literature/debunking%20validation%20butler.pdf;
  35. Hlinka V, Muharam I, Ientile VK. Chapter 11: Method Validation in Forensics and the Archaeological Sciences. In:
  36. Gill P, Rowlands D, Tully G, Bastisch I, Staples T, Scott P. Manufacturer Contamination of Disposable Plastic-Ware and Other Reagents -an Agreed Position Statement by ENFSI, SWGDAM and BSAG. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2010; 4(4):269-70. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.08.009. 561 Promega. Forensic-Grade Products for Human Identification: Preparing for ISO 18385 Requirements. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.promega.com/resources/profiles-in-dna/2014/forensic-grade-products-for-human-identification/#RelatedResourcesId-9273fe46- d63f-4c23-be66-e2fba4f5f333. 562 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Minimizing the Risk of Human DNA Contamination in Products Used to Collect, Store and Analyze Biological Material for Forensic Purposes. ISO 18385:2016 2016. https://www.iso.org/standard/62341.html. 573 National Commission on Forensic Science. Views of the Commission: Use of Checklists in Forensic Science. 2017. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs/page/file/1004656/dl. 574 · DOI
  37. Sita J, Found B, Rogers DK. Forensic Handwriting Examiners' Expertise for Signature Comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2002; 47(5):1117-24. doi:10.1520/jfs15521j. 608 · DOI
  38. Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011; 108(19):7733-8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018707108. 609 · DOI
  39. Edmond G, Towler A, Growns B, Ribeiro G, Found B, White D, Ballantyne KN, Searston RA, Thompson MB, Tangen JM, Kemp RI, Martire K. Thinking Forensics: Cognitive Science for Forensic Practitioners. Science & Justice. 2017; 57(2):144-154. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005. 611 · DOI
  40. McCarthy Wilcox A, NicDaeid N. Jurors' Perceptions of Forensic Science Expert Witnesses: Experience, Qualifications, Testimony Style and Credibility. Forensic Science International. 2018; 291:100-8. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.030. 612 · DOI
  41. Prieto L, Haned H, Mosquera A, Crespillo M, Aleman M, Aler M, Alvarez F, Baeza-Richer C, Dominguez A, Doutremepuich C, Farfan MJ, Fenger-Gron M, Garcia-Ganivet JM, Gonzalez-Moya E, Hombreiro L, Lareu MV, Martinez-Jarreta B, Merigioli S, Milans Del Bosch P, Morling N, Munoz-Nieto M, Ortega-Gonzalez E, Pedrosa S, Perez R, Solis C, Yurrebaso I, Gill P. Euroforgen-NoE Collaborative Exercise on LRmix to Demonstrate Standardization of the Interpretation of Complex DNA Profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2014; 9:47-54. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.10.011. 619 · DOI
  42. Carracedo A, Beckmann A, Bengs A, Brinkmann B, Caglia A, Capelli C, Gill P, Gusmao L, Hagelberg C, Hohoff C, Hoste B, Kihlgren A, Kloosterman A, Myhre Dupuy B, Morling N, O'Donnell G, Parson W, Phillips C, Pouwels M, Scheithauer R, Schmitter H, Schneider PM, Schumm J, Skitsa I, Stradmann-Bellinghausen B, Stuart M, Syndercombe Court D, Vide C. Results of a Collaborative Study of the EDNAP Group Regarding the Reproducibility and Robustness of the Y-Chromosome STRs DYS19, DYS389 I and II, DYS390 and DYS393 in a PCR Pentaplex Format. Forensic Science International. 2001; 119(1):28-41. doi:10.1016/s0379-0738(00)00395-9; · DOI
  43. Ropero-Miller JD, Jones N. Forensic Science State Commissions and Oversight Bodies-a 2022 Update. Washington, DC. 2022. Forensic Technology Center of Excellence. doi: 10.4324/9780429326530. https://forensiccoe.org/private/6387e3c0cb5a7. 681 National Commission on Forensic Science. Views of the Commission: Certification of Forensic Science Practitioners. 2016. https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/page/file/905897/dl. 682 National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Education and Training in Forensic Science: A Guide for Forensic Science Laboratories, Educational Institutions, and Students. 2004. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/203099.pdf. 683 National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009. doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.b2d683d2. 684 · DOI
  44. Collins J. HR Management in the Forensic Science Laboratory: A 21st Century Approach to Effective Crime Lab Leadership. Waltham: Academic Press: 2018. doi:10.106/C2013-0-19010-1. 732 Information presented by Martina Bison-Huckaby to the Expert Working Group during a virtual meeting on 11/30/2020 -Presentation titled Focus on Forensic Management Competencies Crucial for Successful Leadership. 733
  45. Collins J. HR Management in the Forensic Science Laboratory: A 21st Century Approach to Effective Crime Lab Leadership. Waltham: Academic Press: 2018. doi:10.106/C2013-0-19010-1. 734 Information presented by Martina Bison-Huckaby to the Expert Working Group during a virtual meeting on 11/30/2020 -Presentation titled Focus on Forensic Management Competencies Crucial for Successful Leadership. 735
  46. Yapp R. Lee Iaccoca -The 10cs of Leadership. Accessed May 19, 2023. https://www.leadershipforces.com/lee-iacocca-leadership/. 741 International Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) News. The Importance of Leadership Training in the Forensic Field. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.ishinews.com/the-importance-of-leadership-training-in-the-forensic-field/. 742
  47. Sinek S. Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. Portfolio: New York, NY, 2009. doi:10.1037/e515802011-001. 786 · DOI
  48. Dawley DD, Munyon TP. The Effects of Politics on Job Satisfaction in Crime Lab Employees. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal. 2012; 3(4):159-64. doi:10.1080/19409044.2013.826306. 803 · DOI
  49. Banbury SP, Berry DC. Office Noise and Employee Concentration: Identifying Causes of Disruption and Potential Improvements. Ergonomics. 2005; 48(1):25-37. doi:10.1080/00140130412331311390. 885 · DOI
  50. Sundstrom E, Town JP, Rice RW, Osborn DP, Brill M. Office Noise, Satisfaction, and Performance. Environment and Behavior. 2016; 26(2):195- 222. doi:10.1177/001391659402600204. 887 · DOI
  51. Banbury SP, Berry DC. Office Noise and Employee Concentration: Identifying Causes of Disruption and Potential Improvements. Ergonomics. 2005; 48(1):25-37. doi:10.1080/00140130412331311390. 889 · DOI
  52. Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Banbury S, Parasuraman R. Attention in the Auditory Modality. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 4th ed. Psychology Press: Sussex, England, 2015. 890
  53. Schlittmeier SJ, Liebl A. The Effects of Intelligible Irrelevant Background Speech in Offices -Cognitive Disturbance, Annoyance, and Solutions. Facilities. 2015; 33(1/2):61-75. doi:10.1108/f-05-2013-0036. 892 · DOI
  54. De Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH. The Effect of Office Concepts on Worker Health and Performance: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Ergonomics. 2005; 48(2):119-34. doi:10.1080/00140130512331319409. 893 · DOI
  55. Schlittmeier SJ, Liebl A. The Effects of Intelligible Irrelevant Background Speech in Offices -Cognitive Disturbance, Annoyance, and Solutions. Facilities. 2015; 33(1/2):61-75. doi:10.1108/f-05-2013-0036. 894 · DOI
  56. Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Banbury S, Parasuraman R. Attention in the Auditory Modality. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 4th ed. Psychology Press: Sussex, England, 2015. 896
  57. Schlittmeier SJ, Liebl A. The Effects of Intelligible Irrelevant Background Speech in Offices -Cognitive Disturbance, Annoyance, and Solutions. Facilities. 2015; 33(1/2):61-75. doi:10.1108/f-05-2013-0036. 898 · DOI
  58. Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Banbury S, Parasuraman R. Attention in the Auditory Modality. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 4th ed. Psychology Press: Sussex, England, 2015. 899
  59. Schlittmeier SJ, Liebl A. The Effects of Intelligible Irrelevant Background Speech in Offices -Cognitive Disturbance, Annoyance, and Solutions. Facilities. 2015; 33(1/2):61-75. doi:10.1108/f-05-2013-0036. 900 · DOI
  60. Haapakangas A, Hongisto V, Eerola M, Kuusisto T. Distraction Distance and Perceived Disturbance by Noise -An Analysis of 21 Open-Plan Offices. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2017; 141(1):127-36. doi:10.1121/1.4973690. 901 · DOI
  61. Colvin J, Tobler N, Anderson JA. Productivity and Multi-Screen Computer Displays. Rocky Mountain Communication Review. 2004;2(1). https://workolyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/utahdisplaystudy.pdf 922
  62. Stringfellow PF. Evaluation of Large-Screen Display Use: Identifying Relevant Tasks and Associated Ergonomic Risks. Doctoral dissertation.
  63. Staats BR, Gino F. Specialization and Variety in Repetitive Tasks: Evidence from a Japanese Bank. Management Science. 2012; 58(6):1141-59. doi:doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1482; · DOI
  64. Staats BR, Gino F. Specialization and Variety in Repetitive Tasks: Evidence from a Japanese Bank. Management Science. 2012; 58(6):1141-59. doi:doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1482.p. 1155. 935 · DOI
  65. Staats BR, Gino F. Specialization and Variety in Repetitive Tasks: Evidence from a Japanese Bank. Management Science. 2012; 58(6):1141-59. doi:doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1482. 938 · DOI
  66. Bird C, Nagappan N, Murphy B, Gall H, Devanbu P. Don't Touch My Code!: Examining the Effects of Ownership on Software Quality. Presented at: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering; 2011; Szeged, Hungary. p. 6. 939 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html. See 7.8.1.1. 941
  67. Peterson JL, Leggett AS. The Evolution of Forensic Science: Progress Amid the Pitfalls. Stetson Law Review. 2006; 36:621-60. ;
  68. Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, Fisher BAJ, Houck M, Inman K, Kaye DH, Koehler J, Langenburg G, Risinger M, Rudin N, Siegel D, Stoney DA. The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences. UCLA Law Review. 2011; 58(3):725-80. 944 Australian Academy of Science. Open Science and Scientific Excellence. Accessed May 19, 2023. https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy- features/open-science-and-scientific-excellence.
  69. 3.1 The Case for Open Science Openness and transparency are key elements of a positive research culture. Open Science is a movement that aims to make scientific research, data, and findings accessible to all. 955 The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) defined Open Science as "the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all, while respecting diverse cultures, maintaining security and privacy, and fostering collaborations, reproducibility, and equity." 956 Examples of Open Science practices include publicly preregistering research designs and analysis plans prior to starting research (e.g., via Open Science Framework 957 ), publishing registered reports where proposed methods are vetted and accepted by journals in principle prior to data collection (e.g., via Forensic Science International: Synergy 958 ), sharing research datasets and associated metadata, using open-source software (e.g., R 959 ), and publishing research findings in Open Access journals or using preprint servers (e.g., bioRxiv 960 ) to democratize knowledge. Federal agencies with research and development programs will have to comply with the OSTP public access mandate by 2025. 961 This will require all federally funded, peer-reviewed research publications and the underlying data to be freely accessible upon publication. Most of these Open Science practices are primarily relevant to the research produced in academic institutions and industry where they can help mitigate biases in analysis and interpretation of results, 962 increase research accountability, facilitate the publication of null findings, 963 promote independent secondary analysis and results verification (see Sec. 8.3: Scientific Quality and Standardization), and broadly improve research quality. The open sharing 955 ORION. What Is Open Science? Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.orion-openscience.eu/resources/open-science. 956
  70. R Core Team. The R Project for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.r- project.org/. 960 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://www.biorxiv.org/. 961
  71. Abbott TEF, Ahmad T, Phull MK, Fowler AJ, Hewson R, Biccard BM, Chew MS, Gillies M, Pearse RM, International Surgical Outcomes Study g. The Surgical Safety Checklist and Patient Outcomes after Surgery: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2018; 120(1):146-55. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2017.08.002. · DOI
  72. Aitken C, Taroni F. A Verbal Scale for the Interpretation of Evidence. Science & Justice. 1998; 38(4):279-281. doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72128-8. · DOI
  73. Aitken C, Taroni F, Bozza S. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Hoboken, NJ, 2021.
  74. Almazrouei MA, Dror IE, Morgan RM. Organizational and Human Factors Affecting Forensic Decision-Making: Workplace Stress and Feedback. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2020; 65(6):1968-77. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14542. · DOI
  75. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM. Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2009; 13(3):219-35. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564. American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://www.aafs.org/FEPAC. American Academy of Forensic Sciences. SWGDAM Notice on QAS Educational Requirements. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://www.aafs.org/article/swgdam-notice-qas- educational-requirements?utm_source=swgdam- notice&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dec-9-newsletter. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. ANSI/ASB Standard 115: Standard for Training in Forensic Short Tandem Repeat Typing Methods Using Amplification, DNA Separation, and Allele Detection. 2020. https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/115_Std_e1.pdf. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. ASB Standard 041, First Edition 2021: Formulating Propositions for Likelihood Ratios in Forensic DNA Interpretations. 2021. https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/041_Std_Ballot02.pdf American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. ASB Standard 139, First Edition 2022: Reporting DNA Conclusions. 2022. https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/139_Std_Ballot02.pdf. American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). Forensic Examination Accreditation Program. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://a2la.org/accreditation/forensics/. · DOI
  76. American Bar Association. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Discovery, Fourth Edition. PART II Discovery Obligations of The Prosecution and Defense. 2020. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/discovery-fourth- edition/. American Board of Criminalistics. ABC Rules of Professional Conduct. 2016. https://www.criminalistics.com/uploads/3/2/3/3/32334973/09- 0001f_v1.0.1_abc_rules_of_professional_conduct.pdf. American Board of Criminalistics. American Board of Criminalistics History. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://www.criminalistics.com/history.html. American Board of Criminalistics. Certification. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://www.criminalistics.com/certification.html. American Board of Criminalistics. Forensic DNA Examination. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://www.criminalistics.com/forensic-dna.html. American Board of Criminalistics. Recertification Point Structure. 2020. https://www.criminalistics.com/uploads/3/2/3/3/32334973/recertification_point_struc ture.pdf. American Heart Association. Why Is Physical Activity So Important for Health and Well-Being? Accessed March 23, 2024. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness- basics/why-is-physical-activity-so-important-for-health-and-wellbeing.
  77. Antonsen S, Almklov P, Fenstad J. Reducing the Gap between Procedures and Practice -Lessons from a Successful Safety Intervention. Safety Science Monitor. 2008; 12(1):1-16.
  78. Balding DJ, Steele CD. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: West Sussex, UK, 2015. doi:10.1002/9781118814512. · DOI
  79. Banbury SP, Berry DC. Office Noise and Employee Concentration: Identifying Causes of Disruption and Potential Improvements. Ergonomics. 2005; 48(1):25-37. doi:10.1080/00140130412331311390. · DOI
  80. Barrio PA, Crespillo M, Luque JA, Aler M, Baeza-Richer C, Baldassarri L, Carnevali E, Coufalova P, Flores I, Garcia O, Garcia MA, Gonzalez R, Hernandez A, Ingles V, Luque GM, Mosquera- Miguel A, Pedrosa S, Pontes ML, Porto MJ, Posada Y, Ramella MI, Ribeiro T, Riego E, Sala A, Saragoni VG, Serrano A, Vannelli S. GHEP-ISFG Collaborative Exercise on Mixture Profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting Conclusions: Results and Evaluation. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018; 35:156-163. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.05.005. · DOI
  81. Barshi I, Healy AF. Checklist Procedures and the Cost of Automaticity. Memory and Cognition. 1993; 21(4):496-505. doi:10.3758/bf03197181. · DOI
  82. Basset P, Blandin P, Grini A, Delemont S, Samie L, Castella V. A Simplified Protocol for the Detection of Blood, Saliva, and Semen from a Single Biological Trace Using Immunochromatographic Tests. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. 2022; 18(2):141-8. doi:10.1007/s12024-021-00453-2. · DOI
  83. Benschop CCG, Connolly E, Ansell R, Kokshoorn B. Results of an Inter and Intra Laboratory Exercise on the Assessment of Complex Autosomal DNA Profiles. Science & Justice. 2017; 57(1):21-7. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.10.001. · DOI
  84. Biedermann A, Taroni F. Bayesian Networks for Evaluating Forensic DNA Profiling Evidence: A Review and Guide to Literature. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2011; 6(2):147- 57. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.06.009. · DOI
  85. Bird C, Nagappan N, Murphy B, Gall H, Devanbu P. Don't Touch My Code!: Examining the Effects of Ownership on Software Quality. Presented at: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering; 2011; Szeged, Hungary.
  86. Borsuk LA, Vallone PM, Gettings KB. STRSeq: FAQ for Submitting. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2022; 8:245-7.
  87. Bright JA, Cheng K, Kerr Z, McGovern C, Kelly H, Moretti TR, Smith MA, Bieber FR, Budowle B, Coble MD, Alghafri R, Allen PS, Barber A, Beamer V, Buettner C, Russell M, Gehrig C, Hicks T, Charak J, Cheong-Wing K, Ciecko A, Davis CT, Donley M, Pedersen N, Gartside B, Granger D, Greer-Ritzheimer M, Reisinger E, Kennedy J, Grammer E, Kaplan M, Hansen D, Larsen HJ, Laureano A, Li C, Lien E, Lindberg E, Kelly C, Mallinder B, Malsom S, Yacovone-Margetts A, McWhorter A, Prajapati SM, Powell T, Shutler G, Stevenson K, Stonehouse AR, Smith L, Murakami J, Halsing E, Wright D, Clark L, Taylor DA, Buckleton J. STRmix™ Collaborative Exercise on DNA Mixture Interpretation. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2019; 40:1-8. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.01.006. · DOI
  88. Bright JA, Jones Dukes M, Pugh S, Evett I, Buckleton J. Applying Calibration to LRs Produced by a DNA Interpretation Software. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2021; 53(2):147- 53. doi:doi: 10.1080/00450618.2019.1682668. · DOI
  89. Bright JA, Stevenson KE, Curran JM, Buckleton J. The Variability in Likelihood Ratios Due to Different Mechanisms. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2015; 14:187-90. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.10.013. · DOI
  90. Budowle B, Sajantila A. Revisiting Informed Consent in Forensic Genomics in Light of Current Technologies and the Times. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2023; 137(2):551- 65. doi:10.1007/s00414-023-02947-w. · DOI
  91. Bull R, Blandón-Gitlin I. The Routledge International Handbook of Legal and Investigative Psychology. Routledge: London, UK, 2019. doi:10.4324/9780429326530. · DOI
  92. Burmuzoska I, Hogg K, Raymond J, Hitchcock C, Meakin GE. Comparison of Operational DNA Recovery Methods: Swabs Versus Tapelifts. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2022; 8:50-2. doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2022.09.019. · DOI
  93. Butler JM. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation. Elsevier Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2014.
  94. Butler JM. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology. Elsevier Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2011.
  95. Butler JM. Debunking Some Urban Legends Surrounding Validation Within the Forensic DNA Community. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. 2006. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/literature/debunking%20validation%20 butler.pdf.
  96. Butler JM. Recent Advances in Forensic Biology and Forensic DNA Typing: INTERPOL Review 2019-2022. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2023; 6:100311. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100311. · DOI
  97. Butler JM, Kline MC. NIST Mixture Interpretation Interlaboratory Study 2005 (MIX05). Presented at: Promega 16th International Symposium on Human Identification 2005; Grapevine, TX. https://strbase-archive.nist.gov/interlab/MIX05/MIX05poster.pdf
  98. Butler JM, Kline MC, Coble MD. NIST Interlaboratory Studies Involving DNA Mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation Observed and Lessons Learned. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018; 37:81-94. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.07.024. · DOI
  99. Butler JM, Willis S. Interpol Review of Forensic Biology and Forensic DNA Typing 2016-2019. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2020; 2:352-67. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.12.002. · DOI
  100. Cadola L, Charest M, Lavallée C, Crispino F. The Occurrence and Genesis of Transfer Traces in Forensic Science: A Structured Knowledge Database. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. 2021; 54(2):86-100. doi:10.1080/00085030.2021.1890941. · DOI
  101. Carracedo A, Beckmann A, Bengs A, Brinkmann B, Caglia A, Capelli C, Gill P, Gusmao L, Hagelberg C, Hohoff C, Hoste B, Kihlgren A, Kloosterman A, Myhre Dupuy B, Morling N, O'Donnell G, Parson W, Phillips C, Pouwels M, Scheithauer R, Schmitter H, Schneider PM, Schumm J, Skitsa I, Stradmann-Bellinghausen B, Stuart M, Syndercombe Court D, Vide C. Results of a Collaborative Study of the EDNAP Group Regarding the Reproducibility and Robustness of the Y-Chromosome STRs DYS19, DYS389 I and II, DYS390 and DYS393 in a PCR Pentaplex Format. Forensic Science International. 2001; 119(1):28-41. doi:10.1016/s0379-0738(00)00395-9. · DOI
  102. Chaitanya L, Walsh S, Andersen JD, Ansell R, Ballantyne KN, Ballard D, Banemann R, Bauer CM, Bento AM, Brisighelli F, Capal T, Clarisse L, Gross TE, Haas C, Hoff-Olsen P, Hollard C, Keyser C, Kiesler KM, Kohler P, Kupiec T, Linacre A, Minawi A, Morling N, Nilsson H, Noren L, Ottens R, Palo JU, Parson W, Pascali VL, Phillips C, Porto MJ, Sajantila A, Schneider PM, Sijen T, Sochtig J, Syndercombe-Court D, Tillmar A, Turanska M, Vallone PM, Zatkalikova L, Zidkova A, Branicki W, Kayser M. Collaborative EDNAP Exercise on the IrisPlex System for DNA-Based Prediction of Human Eye Colour. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2014; 11:241-51. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.006. · DOI
  103. Chapman W, Hicklin RA, Taylor M. Beginners Guide to Biometric and Forensic Science Human Subjects Research Protections. NIST Special Publication (Sp) 1289. National Institute of Standards and Technology,. 2023. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1289. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1289.pdf. · DOI
  104. Chin JM, McFadden R, Edmond G. Forensic Science Needs Registered Reports. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2020; 2:41-5. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.10.005. · DOI
  105. Coble MD, Buckleton J, Butler JM, Egeland T, Fimmers R, Gill P, Gusmao L, Guttman B, Krawczak M, Morling N, Parson W, Pinto N, Schneider PM, Sherry ST, Willuweit S, Prinz M. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the Validation of Software Programs Performing Biostatistical Calculations for Forensic Genetics Applications. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2016; 25:191-7. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.09.002. · DOI
  106. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://www.biorxiv.org/.
  107. Cole SA, Dioso-Villa R. Investigating the 'CSI Effect' Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law. Stanford Law Review. 2008; 61:1335. doi:ssrn.com/abstract=1401417.
  108. Collins J. HR Management in the Forensic Science Laboratory: A 21st Century Approach to Effective Crime Lab Leadership. Waltham: Academic Press: 2018. doi:10.106/C2013-0- 19010-1.
  109. Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services. Quality Incident Review 2024. QP 11 ISO 710, Revision 5: 3/21/2024. https://cbifs.qualtraxcloud.com/ShowDocument.aspx?ID=6959.
  110. Colvin J, Tobler N, Anderson JA. Productivity and Multi-Screen Computer Displays. Rocky Mountain Communication Review. 2004;2(1). https://workolyk.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/utahdisplaystudy.pdf Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE). Method of Measuring and Specifying Colour Rendering Properties of Light Sources. Vol. 13.3. Vienna. 1995. doi: doi.org/10.1002/col.5080200313. https://cie.co.at/publications/method-measuring- and-specifying-colour-rendering-properties-light-sources Committee on Recommendations for Quality and Quantity of Illumination of the IES (RQQ). Selection of Illuminance Values for Interior Lighting Design. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society. 1980; 9(3):188-90. doi:10.1080/00994480.1980.10747897. Community Oriented Policing Services. Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act: Report to Congress. 2019. https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2019AwardDocs/lemhwa/Report_to_Congress.pdf. · DOI
  111. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A Hierarchy of Propositions: Deciding Which Level to Address in Casework. Science & Justice. 1998; 38(4):231-9. doi:10.1016/S1355- 0306(98)72117-3. · DOI
  112. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection. 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16 Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Frye Standard. Updated December 2022. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frye_standard. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Participants. 2016. doi: doi.org/10.56759/rgxl7405. Council of Australian University Librarians. Open Research Toolkit. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://caul.libguides.com/open-research-toolkit/incentives. · DOI
  113. Crespillo M, Barrio PA, Luque JA, Alves C, Aler M, Alessandrini F, Andrade L, Barretto RM, Bofarull A, Costa S, Garcia MA, Garcia O, Gaviria A, Gladys A, Gorostiza A, Hernandez A, Pinero MH, Hombreiro L, Ibarra AA, Jimenez MJ, Luque GM, Madero P, Martinez-Jarreta B, Masciovecchio MV, Modesti NM, Moreno F, Pagano S, Pedrosa S, Plaza G, Prat E, Puente J, Rendo F, Ribeiro T, Sala A, Santamaria E, Saragoni VG, Whittle MR. GHEP-ISFG Collaborative Exercise on Mixture Profiles of Autosomal STRs (GHEP-MIX01, GHEP- MIX02 and GHEP-MIX03): Results and Evaluation. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2014; 10:64-72. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.01.009. · DOI
  114. Czerwinski M, Robertson G, Meyers B, Smith G, Robbins D, Tan D. Large Display Research Overview. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2006:69-74. doi:10.1145/1125451.1125471. · DOI
  115. Damelio R. The Basics of Process Mapping. 2nd ed. CRC Press: New York, NY, 2011.
  116. Davis MC, Leach DJ, Clegg CW. The Physical Environment of the Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2011; 26(1):193-255. doi:10.1002/9781119992592.ch6. · DOI · Paper page
  117. Dawley DD, Munyon TP. The Effects of Politics on Job Satisfaction in Crime Lab Employees. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal. 2012; 3(4):159-64. doi:10.1080/19409044.2013.826306. · DOI
  118. De Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH. The Effect of Office Concepts on Worker Health and Performance: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Ergonomics. 2005; 48(2):119-34. doi:10.1080/00140130512331319409. · DOI · Paper page
  119. de Zoete J, Oosterman W, Kokshoorn B, Sjerps M. Cell Type Determination and Association with the DNA Donor. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2016; 25:97-111. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.08.004. · DOI
  120. Dismukes K, Nowinski J. Chapter 16: Prospective Memory, Concurrent Task Management and Pilot Error. Attention: From Theory to Practice. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 2006:225-36.
  121. Edmond G, Towler A, Growns B, Ribeiro G, Found B, White D, Ballantyne KN, Searston RA, Thompson MB, Tangen JM, Kemp RI, Martire K. Thinking Forensics: Cognitive Science for Forensic Practitioners. Science & Justice. 2017; 57(2):144-154. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005. · DOI · Paper page
  122. Elaad E. Tunnel Vision and Confirmation Bias among Police Investigators and Laypeople in Hypothetical Criminal Contexts. SAGE Open. 2022; 12(2):1-10. doi:10.1177/:21582440221095022. · DOI
  123. Eldridge H. Juror Comprehension of Forensic Expert Testimony: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2019; 1:24-34. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.03.001. · DOI
  124. Elster N. How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions. JSTOR Daily. 2017. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead- wrongful-convictions/ Engineering ToolBox. Illuminance -Recommended Light Levels. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-level-rooms-d_708.html.
  125. Ericsson K, Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2006. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816796. · DOI
  126. Errickson D, Fawcett H, Thompson TJU, Campbell A. The Effect of Different Imaging Techniques for the Visualisation of Evidence in Court on Jury Comprehension. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2020; 134(4):1451-5. doi:10.1007/s00414-019-02221-y. · DOI
  127. Evett IW. Avoiding the Transposed Conditional. Science & Justice. 1995; 35(2):127-31. doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(95)72645-4. · DOI
  128. Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. Interpreting Small Quantities of DNA: The Hierarchy of Propositions and the Use of Bayesian Networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2002; 47(3):520-30. doi:10.1520/jfs15291j. · DOI
  129. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA. More on the Hierarchy of Propositions: Exploring the Distinction between Explanations and Propositions. Science & Justice. 2000; 40(1):3-10. doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(00)71926-5. · DOI
  130. Expert Working Group for Human Factors in Handwriting Examination. Forensic Handwriting Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach. NIST IR 8282r1. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2021. doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.8282r1 Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2012. doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.7842 · DOI
  131. Feigenson N, Eryn N, Jalbert M. Cognitive Fluency in the Courtroom. The Routledge International Handbook of Legal and Investigative Psychology. 2019:102-15. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752317
  132. Fenton N, Neil M, Hsu A. Calculating and Understanding the Value of Any Type of Match Evidence When There Are Potential Testing Errors. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2013; 22(1):1-28. doi:10.1007/s10506-013-9147-x. · DOI
  133. Findley KA, Scott MS. The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases. Wisconsin Law Review. 2006:291-397.
  134. Found B, Edmond G. Reporting on the Comparison and Interpretation of Pattern Evidence: Recommendations for Forensic Specialists. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2012; 44(2):193-6. doi:10.1080/00450618.2011.644260. · DOI
  135. Gallagher KM, Cameron L, De Carvalho D, Boule M. Does Using Multiple Computer Monitors for Office Tasks Affect User Experience? A Systematic Review. Human Factors. 2021; 63(3):433-49. doi:10.1177/0018720819889533. · DOI
  136. Garrett BL, Crozier WE, Grady R. Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2020; 65(4):1199-1209. doi:10.1111/1556- 4029.14323. · DOI
  137. Gill P, Haned H. A New Methodological Framework to Interpret Complex DNA Profiles Using Likelihood Ratios. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2013; 7(2):251-63. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.11.002. · DOI
  138. Gill P, Hicks T, Butler JM, Connolly E, Gusmao L, Kokshoorn B, Morling N, van Oorschot RAH, Parson W, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Sijen T, Taylor D. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Assessing the Value of Forensic Biological Evidence -Guidelines Highlighting the Importance of Propositions. Part II: Evaluation of Biological Traces Considering Activity Level Propositions. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2020; 44:102186. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102186. · DOI
  139. Gill P, Hicks T, Butler JM, Connolly E, Gusmao L, Kokshoorn B, Morling N, van Oorschot RAH, Parson W, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Sijen T, Taylor D. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Assessing the Value of Forensic Biological Evidence -Guidelines Highlighting the Importance of Propositions: Part I: Evaluation of DNA Profiling Comparisons Given (Sub-) Source Propositions. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018; 36:189-202. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.07.003. · DOI
  140. Gill P, Rowlands D, Tully G, Bastisch I, Staples T, Scott P. Manufacturer Contamination of Disposable Plastic-Ware and Other Reagents -an Agreed Position Statement by ENFSI, SWGDAM and BSAG. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2010; 4(4):269-70. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.08.009. · DOI
  141. Gittelson S, Kalafut T, Myers S, Taylor D, Hicks T, Taroni F, Evett IW, Bright JA, Buckleton J. A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016; 61(1):186-95. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12907. · DOI
  142. Gosch A, Courts C. On DNA Transfer: The Lack and Difficulty of Systematic Research and How to Do It Better. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2019; 40:24-36. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.01.012. GovInfo. 28 CFR 46 -Protection of Human Subjects. 2022. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2022-title28-vol2/CFR-2022-title28-vol2- part46/summary. · DOI
  143. Grady C. Enduring and Emerging Challenges of Informed Consent. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015; 372(9):855-62. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1411250. · DOI
  144. Greiter BS, Renfro S, Carriquiry AL, Stern HS, Fabricant C, Meis M, Garcia L. The Scientific Literacy Project: A Collaborative Effort in Educating Legal Professionals on Forensic Evidence. 75th Annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences Symposium, Orlando, FL 2023. https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2023Proceedings_FINAL- june-1-23.pdf
  145. Haapakangas A, Hongisto V, Eerola M, Kuusisto T. Distraction Distance and Perceived Disturbance by Noise -An Analysis of 21 Open-Plan Offices. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2017; 141(1):127-36. doi:10.1121/1.4973690. · DOI
  146. Haas C, Hanson E, Anjos MJ, Ballantyne KN, Banemann R, Bhoelai B, Borges E, Carvalho M, Courts C, De Cock G, Drobnic K, Dotsch M, Fleming R, Franchi C, Gomes I, Hadzic G, Harbison SA, Harteveld J, Hjort B, Hollard C, Hoff-Olsen P, Huls C, Keyser C, Maronas O, McCallum N, Moore D, Morling N, Niederstatter H, Noel F, Parson W, Phillips C, Popielarz C, Roeder AD, Salvaderi L, Sauer E, Schneider PM, Shanthan G, Court DS, Turanska M, van Oorschot RA, Vennemann M, Vidaki A, Zatkalikova L, Ballantyne J. RNA/DNA Co-Analysis from Human Menstrual Blood and Vaginal Secretion Stains: Results of a Fourth and Fifth Collaborative EDNAP Exercise. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2014; 8(1):203-12. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.09.009. · DOI
  147. Halwachs-Baumann G. Concepts for Lean Laboratory Organization. Journal of Medical Biochemistry. 2010; 29(4):330-8. doi:10.2478/v10011-010-0036-5. · DOI
  148. Harrington HJ. Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness. McGraw Hill: New York, NY, 1991.
  149. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2nd ed. Springer: New York, NY, 2009.
  150. Hewson L, Goodman-Delahunty J. Using Multimedia to Support Jury Understanding of DNA Profiling Evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2008; 40(1):55-64. doi:10.1080/00450610802050782. · DOI
  151. Hicklin RA, Winer KR, Kish PE, Parks CL, Chapman W, Dunagan K, Richetelli N, Epstein EG, Ausdemore MA, Busey TA. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Conclusions by Forensic Bloodstain Pattern Analysts. Forensic Science International. 2021; 325:110856. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110856. · DOI
  152. Hicks T, Buckleton J, Castella V, Evett IW, Jackson G. A Logical Framework for Forensic DNA Interpretation. Genes (Basel). 2022; 13(6):957. doi:10.3390/genes13060957. · DOI
  153. Hicks T, Kerr Z, Pugh S, Bright JA, Curran JM, Taylor D, Buckleton J. Comparing Multiple POI to DNA Mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2021; 52:102481. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102481. · DOI
  154. Houck MM, Chin J, Swofford H, Gibb C. Registered Reports in Forensic Science. Royal Society Open Science. 2022; 9(11):221076. doi:10.1098/rsos.221076. · DOI
  155. Howes LM, Kirkbride KP, Kelty SF, Julian R, Kemp N. Forensic Scientists' Conclusions: How Readable Are They for Non-Scientist Report-Users? Forensic Science International. 2013; 231(1-3):102-12. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026. · DOI · Paper page
  156. Iacob D, Fürst A, Hadrys T. A Machine Learning Model to Predict the Origin of Forensically Relevant Body Fluids. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2019; 7(1):392-4. doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.025. · DOI
  157. Imran MK, Ilyas M, Fatima T. Achieving Organizational Performance through Knowledge Management Capabilities: Mediating Role of Organizational Learning. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences. 2017; 11(1):106-25. doi:10419/188284.
  158. Inal TC, Goruroglu Ozturk O, Kibar F, Cetiner S, Matyar S, Daglioglu G, Yaman A. Lean Six Sigma Methodologies Improve Clinical Laboratory Efficiency and Reduce Turnaround Times. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2018; 32(1):e22180. doi:10.1002/jcla.22180. International Association for Identification. Certifications. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.theiai.org/certifications.php. International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc (ICISF). Certification of Knowledge in Critical Incident Stress Management (CCISM). Accessed March 27, 2024. https://cismcertifications.org/. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). About ISO. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.iso.org/about-us.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Conformity Assessment: General Requirements for the Competency of Proficiency Testing Providers, ISO/IEC 17043:2023. 2023. https://www.iso.org/standard/80864.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Conformity Assessment: Vocabulary and General Principles, ISO/IEC 17000:2020 2004. https://www.iso.org/standard/73029.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Forensic Sciences -Part 1: Terms and Definitions, ISO/IEC 21043-1:20018(En). 2018. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:21043:-1:ed-1:v1:en. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Forensic Sciences -Part 2: Recognition, Recording, Collecting, Transport, and Storage of Items, ISO/IEC 21043-2:2018. 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/72041.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). International Electrotechnical Commission. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.iso.org/organization/70.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Minimizing the Risk of Human DNA Contamination in Products Used to Collect, Store and Analyze Biological Material for Forensic Purposes. ISO 18385:2016 2016. https://www.iso.org/standard/62341.html. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Risk Management Guidelines, ISO/IEC 31000:2018. 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html. International Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) News. The Importance of Leadership Training in the Forensic Field. Accessed March 27, 2024. https://www.ishinews.com/the-importance-of-leadership-training-in-the-forensic-field/. · DOI
  159. Ip SCY, Lin S-W, Lai K-M. An Evaluation of the Performance of Five Extraction Methods: Chelex® 100, QIAamp® DNA Blood Mini Kit, QIAamp® DNA Investigator Kit, QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator® Kit and DNA IQ. Science & Justice. 2015; 55(3):200-8. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2015.01.005. · DOI
  160. Jackson G, Biedermann A. "Source" or "Activity" What Is the Level of Issue in a Criminal Trial? Significance. 2019; 16(2):36-9. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01253.x. · DOI
  161. Johnston N. The Paradox of Rules: Procedural Drift in Commercial Aviation. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH, 2003. https://cognitivesystemsdesign.net/Papers/Johnston%20(2003).pdf
  162. Jones D. The Cognitive Psychology of Auditory Distraction: The 1997 BPS Broadbent Lecture. British Journal of Psychology. 1999; 90(2):167-87. doi:10.1348/000712699161314. · DOI
  163. Kalafut T, Bright JA, Taylor D, Buckleton J. Investigation into the Effect of Mixtures Comprising Related People on Non-Donor Likelihood Ratios, and Potential Practises to Mitigate Providing Misleading Opinions. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2022; 59:102691. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102691. · DOI
  164. Kalafut T, Pugh S, Gill P, Abbas S, Semaan M, Mansour I, Curran JM, Bright JA, Hicks T, Wivell R, Buckleton J. A Mixed DNA Profile Controversy Revisited. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2022; 67(1):128-35. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14912. · DOI
  165. Kaye DH. The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010.
  166. Kaye DH. The Expected Value Fallacy in State v. Wright. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology. 2011; 51(4):1921082. doi:ssrn.com/abstract=1921082.
  167. Kaye DH. Plemel as a Primer on Proving Paternity. Willamette Law Review. 1988; 24(4):867-83.
  168. Kaye DH. Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academics. Brooklyn Law Review. 2010; 75(4):1163-85.
  169. Kaye DH, Bernstein DE, Mnookin JL. The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence -Expert Evidence. 3rd ed. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business: 2020.
  170. Keel P. Psychological Stress Caused by Work: Burnout Syndrome. Soz Praventivmed. 1993; 38(2):S131-2. Psychische Belastungen durch die Arbeit: Burnout-Syndrom. doi:10.1007/BF01305364. · DOI
  171. Keith N, Frese M. Enhancing Firm Performance and Innovativeness through Error Management Culture. In: Ashkanasy NM, Wilderom CPM, Peterson MF, eds. The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2011. doi:10.4135/9781483307961. · DOI
  172. Kilberger KB. Something Doesn't Add Up: Solving DNA Forensic Science Statistical Fallacies in Trial Testimony. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 2023; 25(1):181-209.
  173. Kim CS, Spahlinger DA, Kin JM, Coffey RJ, Billi JE. Implementation of Lean Thinking: One Health System's Journey. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2009; 35(8):406-13. doi:10.1016/S1553-7250(09)35057-6. · DOI
  174. Kloosterman A, Sjerps M, Quak A. Error Rates in Forensic DNA Analysis: Definition, Numbers, Impact and Communication. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2014; 12:77-85. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014. · DOI
  175. Koehler JJ. If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2011; 8(s1):21-48. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x. · DOI
  176. Koehler JJ. Intuitive Error Rate Estimates for the Forensic Sciences. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology. 2017; 57(2):153-68.
  177. Koehler JJ, Chia A, Lindsey S. The Random Match Probability in DNA Evidence: Irrelevant and Prejudicial? Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology. 2009; 35(2):201- 19.
  178. Koehler JJ, Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ, McQuiston DE. Science, Technology, or the Expert Witness: What Influences Jurors' Judgments About Forensic Science Testimony? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2016; 22(4):401-13. doi:10.1037/law0000103. · DOI · Paper page
  179. Kokshoorn B, Luijsterburg M. Reporting on Forensic Biology Findings Given Activity Level Issues in the Netherlands. Forensic Science International. 2023; 343:111545. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111545. · DOI
  180. Krcmar M, Ewoldsen DR, Koerner A. Communication Science Theory and Research: An Advanced Introduction. Routledge: New York, NY, 2016.
  181. Kroemer KHE, Grandjean E. Fitting The Task to The Human: A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics. 5th ed. CRC Press: London, UK, 1997. doi:10.1201/9780367807337. · DOI
  182. Kukucka J, Hiley A, Kassin SM. Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information? Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2020; 65(6):1978-90. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14546. · DOI
  183. Lawrenson JG, Hull CC, Downie LE. The Effect of Blue-Light Blocking Spectacle Lenses on Visual Performance, Macular Health and the Sleep-Wake Cycle: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2017; 37(6):644-54. doi:10.1111/opo.12406. · DOI
  184. Lin M-H, Bright JA, Pugh SN, Buckleton J. The Interpretation of Mixed DNA Profiles from a Mother, Father, and Child Trio. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2020; 44:102175. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102175. · DOI
  185. Lindley DV. Understanding Uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
  186. MacEwen BT, MacDonald DJ, Burr JF. A Systematic Review of Standing and Treadmill Desks in the Workplace. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 70(1):50-8. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.11.011. · DOI
  187. Maeder EM, Ewanation LA, Monnink J. Jurors' Perceptions of Evidence: The Relative Influence of DNA and Eyewitness Testimony When Presented by Opposing Parties. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. 2016; 32(1):33-42. doi:10.1007/s11896-016-9194-9. · DOI
  188. Maeder EM, McManus LA, McLaughlin KJ, Yamamoto S, Stewart H, Walla P. Jurors' Perceptions of Scientific Testimony: The Role of Gender and Testimony Complexity in Trials Involving DNA Evidence. Cogent Psychology. 2016; 3(1):1264657. doi:10.1080/23311908.2016.1264657. · DOI
  189. Marciano MA, Maynard HP. Enhancing Research and Collaboration in Forensic Science: A Primer on Data Sharing. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2023; 6:100323. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100323. · DOI
  190. McCarthy Wilcox A, NicDaeid N. Jurors' Perceptions of Forensic Science Expert Witnesses: Experience, Qualifications, Testimony Style and Credibility. Forensic Science International. 2018; 291:100-8. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.030. · DOI
  191. McInerny GJ, Chen M, Freeman R, Gavaghan D, Meyer M, Rowland F, Spiegelhalter DJ, Stefaner M, Tessarolo G, Hortal J. Information Visualisation for Science and Policy: Engaging Users and Avoiding Bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2014; 29(3):148-57. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.003. · DOI
  192. McKenna PJ. Strategies for Overcoming Obstacles to Change. Of Counsel. 2017; 36(7):6-12. doi:proquest.com/trade-journals/strategies-overcoming-obstacles- change/docview/1915769056/se-2.
  193. McLendon M, Jones II JP. What's Happening (or Not?) with Forensic Science Training for Officers of the Court. 75th Annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences Symposium, Orlando, FL 2023.
  194. McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ. Communicating Opinion Evidence in the Forensic Identification Sciences: Accuracy and Impact. Hastings Law Journal. 2008; 59(5):1159-90.
  195. McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ. The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Factfinders Hear. Law and Human Behavior. 2009; 33(5):436- 53. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1. · DOI
  196. Meakin G, Jamieson A. DNA Transfer: Review and Implications for Casework. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2013; 7(4):434-43. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.03.013. · DOI
  197. Melbourn H, Smith G, McFarland J, Rogers M, Wieland K, DeWilde D, Lighthart S, Quinn M, Baxter A, Quarino L. Mandatory Certification of Forensic Science Practitioners in the United States: A Supportive Perspective. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2019; 1:161-9. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.08.001. · DOI
  198. Mills E, Borg N. Trends in Recommended Illuminance Levels: An International Comparison. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society. 2013; 28(1):155-63. doi:10.1080/00994480.1999.10748262. · DOI
  199. Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, Fisher BAJ, Houck M, Inman K, Kaye DH, Koehler J, Langenburg G, Risinger M, Rudin N, Siegel D, Stoney DA. The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences. UCLA Law Review. 2011; 58(3):725-80.
  200. Murphy E, Thompson WC. Common Errors and Fallacies in Forensic DNA Statistics: An Amicus Brief in McDaniel v. Brown. Criminal Law Bulletin. 2010; 46:709.

200 of 267 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Taylor, M. K.
Affiliations
National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Melissa K
ORCID
Taylor, Melissa K
Publisher
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Published
2024
DOI
10.6028/nist.ir.8503
OpenAlex
W4390750343
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Funders
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
forensic DNA interpretation, human factors, cognitive biases, DNA transfer, DNA persistence, DNA recovery, forensic science education, error reduction, error culture, work environment

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