A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions

Lesley Hammer, Kate Duffy, Jim Fraser, Niamh Nic Daeid

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The 2009 National Academy of Science report ‘Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward’ (NAS report) cited a 1994 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were ‘considerable differences’ found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1994 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.
LanguageEnglish
JournalJournal of Forensic Identification
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2012

Fingerprint

Forensic Sciences
North America

Keywords

  • footwear impression
  • forensic science

Cite this

@article{1aba7f76a9394346a4bb06fd90a7c266,
title = "A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions",
abstract = "The 2009 National Academy of Science report ‘Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward’ (NAS report) cited a 1994 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were ‘considerable differences’ found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1994 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.",
keywords = "footwear impression, forensic science",
author = "Lesley Hammer and Kate Duffy and Jim Fraser and {Nic Daeid}, Niamh",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Forensic Identification",
issn = "0895-173X",
publisher = "International Association for Identification",

}

A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions. / Hammer, Lesley; Duffy, Kate ; Fraser, Jim; Nic Daeid, Niamh.

In: Journal of Forensic Identification, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions

AU - Hammer, Lesley

AU - Duffy, Kate

AU - Fraser, Jim

AU - Nic Daeid, Niamh

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The 2009 National Academy of Science report ‘Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward’ (NAS report) cited a 1994 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were ‘considerable differences’ found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1994 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.

AB - The 2009 National Academy of Science report ‘Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward’ (NAS report) cited a 1994 European study of footwear examiner conclusions and used it to illustrate that there were ‘considerable differences’ found between conclusions of footwear examiners. The basic methodology of that study was repeated in 2009 in North America. Six footwear case studies were created and sent to participating certified footwear examiners. The examiners were asked to independently assess each case based on features that were clearly marked on each impression, and they were directed to use a specific scale of conclusions to report their findings. The results of this study, in contrast to the 1994 study, were that when experienced examiners used the same conclusion scale and compared the same features, there was little variability within their stated findings.

KW - footwear impression

KW - forensic science

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Forensic Identification

T2 - Journal of Forensic Identification

JF - Journal of Forensic Identification

SN - 0895-173X

ER -