We identify methodological problems in Langenburg et al. (2014), which undermine its conclusions about the size of the observer effect problem and the importance of sequential unmasking as a solution. The scoring method of Langenburg et al. (2014) appears to be subjective. The classification of cases is not congruent with the three keys to observer effects in forensic science: the analyst's state of expectation, the analyst's state of desire, and the degree of ambiguity in the evidence being examined. Nor does the paper adequately support its claim, “[I]t has been asserted that the high context/high interaction cases are essentially where there is the most danger of bias.” While the paper tends to minimize concern over observer effects, the evidence in it seems to support the view that fingerprint analysts look to contextual information to help them make decisions.
(Publisher abstract provided.)
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Identifying Subtypes of Image-Based Sexual Abuse and their Distinct Incident Characteristics, Victimization Histories, and Personal Correlates
- The Impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Reform: A Comparative Analysis
- A Quantitative Understanding of Uniqueness and Reproducibility of Firearm Toolmark Surfaces