Cargando…

Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program

Open proficiency tests meet accreditation requirements and measure examiner competence but may not represent actual casework. In December 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center began a blind quality control program in firearms examination. Mock cases are created to mimic routine casework so that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neuman, Maddisen, Hundl, Callan, Grimaldi, Aimee, Eudaley, Donna, Stein, Darrell, Stout, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9313831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35349174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15031
_version_ 1784754170478198784
author Neuman, Maddisen
Hundl, Callan
Grimaldi, Aimee
Eudaley, Donna
Stein, Darrell
Stout, Peter
author_facet Neuman, Maddisen
Hundl, Callan
Grimaldi, Aimee
Eudaley, Donna
Stein, Darrell
Stout, Peter
author_sort Neuman, Maddisen
collection PubMed
description Open proficiency tests meet accreditation requirements and measure examiner competence but may not represent actual casework. In December 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center began a blind quality control program in firearms examination. Mock cases are created to mimic routine casework so that examiners are unaware they are being tested. Once the blind case is assigned to an examiner, the evidence undergoes microscopic examination and comparison to determine whether the fired evidence submitted was fired in the same firearm. Fifty‐one firearms blind cases resulting in 570 analysis and comparison determinations were reported between December 2015 and June 2021. No unsatisfactory results were obtained; however, 40.3% of comparisons in which the ground truth was either elimination or identification resulted in inconclusive conclusions. Due to the quality of some of the evidence submitted, inconclusive results were not unexpected. A ground truth of elimination and comparison result of inconclusive was observed at a rate of 74%, while a ground truth of identification and comparison result of inconclusive was observed at a rate of 31%. Bullets (61.8%) were the main contributors to inconclusive conclusions; variables such as the assigned examiners, training program, examiner experience, and the intended complexity of the case did not significantly contribute to the results. The program demonstrates that the quality management system and firearms section procedures can obtain accurate and reliable results and provides examiners added confidence in court. Additionally, the program can be tailored to target specific research questions and provide opportunities for collaboration with other laboratories and researchers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9313831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93138312022-07-30 Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program Neuman, Maddisen Hundl, Callan Grimaldi, Aimee Eudaley, Donna Stein, Darrell Stout, Peter J Forensic Sci PAPERS Open proficiency tests meet accreditation requirements and measure examiner competence but may not represent actual casework. In December 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center began a blind quality control program in firearms examination. Mock cases are created to mimic routine casework so that examiners are unaware they are being tested. Once the blind case is assigned to an examiner, the evidence undergoes microscopic examination and comparison to determine whether the fired evidence submitted was fired in the same firearm. Fifty‐one firearms blind cases resulting in 570 analysis and comparison determinations were reported between December 2015 and June 2021. No unsatisfactory results were obtained; however, 40.3% of comparisons in which the ground truth was either elimination or identification resulted in inconclusive conclusions. Due to the quality of some of the evidence submitted, inconclusive results were not unexpected. A ground truth of elimination and comparison result of inconclusive was observed at a rate of 74%, while a ground truth of identification and comparison result of inconclusive was observed at a rate of 31%. Bullets (61.8%) were the main contributors to inconclusive conclusions; variables such as the assigned examiners, training program, examiner experience, and the intended complexity of the case did not significantly contribute to the results. The program demonstrates that the quality management system and firearms section procedures can obtain accurate and reliable results and provides examiners added confidence in court. Additionally, the program can be tailored to target specific research questions and provide opportunities for collaboration with other laboratories and researchers. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-29 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9313831/ /pubmed/35349174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15031 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle PAPERS
Neuman, Maddisen
Hundl, Callan
Grimaldi, Aimee
Eudaley, Donna
Stein, Darrell
Stout, Peter
Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program
title Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program
title_full Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program
title_fullStr Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program
title_full_unstemmed Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program
title_short Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program
title_sort blind testing in firearms: preliminary results from a blind quality control program
topic PAPERS
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9313831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35349174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15031
work_keys_str_mv AT neumanmaddisen blindtestinginfirearmspreliminaryresultsfromablindqualitycontrolprogram
AT hundlcallan blindtestinginfirearmspreliminaryresultsfromablindqualitycontrolprogram
AT grimaldiaimee blindtestinginfirearmspreliminaryresultsfromablindqualitycontrolprogram
AT eudaleydonna blindtestinginfirearmspreliminaryresultsfromablindqualitycontrolprogram
AT steindarrell blindtestinginfirearmspreliminaryresultsfromablindqualitycontrolprogram
AT stoutpeter blindtestinginfirearmspreliminaryresultsfromablindqualitycontrolprogram