PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 17, 2020Journal of Forensic Sciences18 citations

Forensic Footwear Reliability: Part II—Range of Conclusions, Accuracy, and Consensus*

View Full Paper
NRNicole RichetelliLHLesley HammerJSJacqueline A. Speir

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Between February 2017 and August 2018, West Virginia University conducted a reliability study to determine expert performance among forensic footwear examiners in the United States. Throughout the study's duration, 70 examiners each performed 12 comparisons and reported a total of 840 conclusions. In order to assess the accuracy of conclusions, the similarities and differences between mated and nonmated pairs were evaluated according to three criteria: (i) inherent agreement/disagreement in class, wear, and randomly acquired features, (ii) limitations as a function of questioned impression quality, clarity, and totality, and (iii) adherence to the Scientific Working Group for Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD) 2013 conclusion standard. Using these criteria, acceptable/expected categorical conclusions were defined. Preliminary results from this study are divided into a series of three summaries. This manuscript (Part II) reports accuracy and reproducibility. For mated pairs, accuracy equals 76.3% ± 13.0% (median of 78.6% and a 90% confidence interval between 72.2% and 80.0%). For nonmated pairs, accuracy equals 87.4% ± 9.24% (median of 91.4% and a 90% confidence interval between 84.7% and 89.8%). In addition, the community assessed agreement (denoted by IQR) of reported results equals the research team's accepted/expected conclusions for 10 out of 12 comparisons. In terms of reproducibility, the 90% confidence interval for consensus was computed and found to equal 0.71-0.86 (median of 0.77) for the combined dataset. Although based on a limited sample size, these results provide a baseline estimate of accuracy and consensus/reproducibility as a function of the existing seven-point SWGTREAD 2013 conclusion standard.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Richetelli et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a337b8f6b65369c445ea42ahttps://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14551
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Forensic oral imaging quality of hand-held dental X-ray devices: Comparison of two image receptors and two devices2009 · 51 citations
  2. 2Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research2006 · 1,555 citations
  3. 3Consensus reaching in social network group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges2018 · 563 citations
  4. 4Learning Face Image Quality From Human Assessments2018 · 120 citations
  5. 5Forensic Footwear Reliability: Part I—Participant Demographics and Examiner Agreement*2020 · 13 citations