NISTIR 7403 Page 1 03/05/2007 

NISTIR 7403

Usability Testing of Ten-Print 

Fingerprint Capture

Mary Theofanos

Brian Stanton

Shahram Orandi

Ross Micheals

Nien-Fan Zhang

Information Access Division

Information Technology Laboratory

March 2007
NISTIR 7403 Page 2 03/05/2007 

NISTIR 7403

Usability Testing of Ten-Print 

Fingerprint Capture

Mary Theofanos 

Brian Stanton 

Ross Micheals 

Nien-Fan Zhang 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Technology Administration 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Information Technology Lab 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Shahram Orandi 

MitreTek Systems 

Falls Church, VA 

March 2007

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

 William Jeffrey, Director
NISTIR 7403 Page 3 03/05/2007 

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................7

2. METHOD .........................................................................................................................................................8

2.1 PARTICIPANTS .....................................................................................................................................8

2.2 MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................................11

2.3 EQUIPMENT......................................................................................................................................12

2.3.1 Digital Fingerprint Scanner..........................................................................................................12

2.3.2 Capture Software..........................................................................................................................14

2.3.3 Behavioral Observation Software ................................................................................................14

2.4 FACILITY ...........................................................................................................................................14

2.5 PROCEDURE.......................................................................................................................................15

3. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................18

3.1 USABILITY METRICS..........................................................................................................................18

3.1.1 Efficiency.....................................................................................................................................18

3.1.2 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................24

3.1.3 User Satisfaction ..........................................................................................................................25

3.1.4 Reference Task.............................................................................................................................29

4. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................30

4.1 POSTER..............................................................................................................................................30

4.2 VIDEO................................................................................................................................................31

4.3 VERBAL.............................................................................................................................................32

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ...................................................................................................32

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................................34

7. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................35

APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................37

APPENDIX B: POST TEST QUESTIONNAIRE...........................................................................................39

APPENDIX C: INSTRUCTIONAL POSTERS ..............................................................................................44

APPENDIX D: VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS...................................................................................................47

APPENDIX E: NOLDUS EVENTS .................................................................................................................55
NISTIR 7403 Page 4 03/05/2007 

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: US-VISIT SCANNER INSTRUCTIONAL PLACARDS (LEFT) AND INSTRUCTIONAL HANDOUT(RIGHT) .......7

FIGURE 2: US-VISIT EXIT KIOSK ...........................................................................................................................8

FIGURE 3: PARTICIPANT AGE RANGE .....................................................................................................................9

FIGURE 4: PARTICIPANT HANDEDNESS ...................................................................................................................9

FIGURE 5: PARTICIPANT HEIGHT..........................................................................................................................10

FIGURE 6: PREVIOUS FINGERPRINT EXPERIENCE ..................................................................................................10

FIGURE 7: SURVEY QUESTION “HOW CONCERNED WERE YOU ABOUT HAVING YOUR FINGERPRINTS RECORDED?”

....................................................................................................................................................................11

FIGURE 8: FINGERPRINT PROCESS POSTER (RIGHT HAND START) ........................................................................12

FIGURE 9: FINGERPRINT SCANNER........................................................................................................................13

FIGURE 10: FINGERPRINT SCANNER (COVERED)...................................................................................................14

FIGURE 11: TEST ROOM LAYOUT.........................................................................................................................15

FIGURE 12: CAPTURE OF INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO .................................................................................................16

FIGURE 13: CAPTURE SEQUENCE..........................................................................................................................17

FIGURE 14: EVENT TIMELINE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MODES.................................................................................20

FIGURE 15: SURVEY QUESTION “THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS EFFECTIVE IN HELPING ME COMPLETE THE 

FINGERPRINT PROCESS.”..............................................................................................................................26

FIGURE 16: SURVEY QUESTION “THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS CONFUSING.”..............................................26

FIGURE 17: SURVEY QUESTION “IT WAS CLEAR WHICH HAND WAS TO BE SCANNED FIRST.” ................................27

FIGURE 18: SURVEY QUESTION “IT WAS CLEAR HOW TO POSITION YOUR HAND ON THE SENSOR.”.......................27

FIGURE 19: SURVEY QUESTION “THE ORDER OF FINGERPRINT CAPTURE WAS CLEAR.” ........................................27

FIGURE 20: SURVEY QUESTION “IT WAS CLEAR WHEN TO REMOVE YOUR HAND.” ...............................................28

FIGURE 21: INSTRUCTIONAL POSTER (RIGHT HAND START) ................................................................................45

FIGURE 22: INSTRUCTIONAL POSTER (LEFT HAND START)...................................................................................46
NISTIR 7403 Page 5 03/05/2007 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States Visitor and Immigrant 

Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program are migrating from a two print capture 

process (left and right index fingers) to a ten-print slap fingerprint capture process (all fingers 

on both hands). The NIST Biometrics Usability group performed a usability test to evaluate 

the time required to acquire a 10 print slap fingerprint image. Users accustomed with leaving 

two index fingerprints at US-VISIT may not be familiar with the ten slap fingerprint capture 

process. Thus, in addition to measuring the time necessary to acquire the 10 print slap, the 

study also evaluated various methods of providing instructional information to the users. 

This report presents the results of a study that examined the 10-print collection process. The 

study was designed to answer three questions: 

1. How long does it take to capture a 10-print image? 

2. What is the impact of instructional mode (poster, verbal or video) on user 

performance? 

3. What are the frequency and nature of the errors that occur in this process? 

The experimental procedure may be summarized as follows. The participants were 300 

adults recruited from a pool of 10,000 people. There were 151 women and 149 men ranging 

in ages from 18 to over 65 years. Each participant received instructions on how to complete 

the 10-print collection process in one of the three formats -- a 76 x 115 cm poster, verbal 

instructions spoken by the test conductor, or a 50 second soundless video. The instructional 

materials portrayed three steps. Participants were asked to present a left slap, a right slap, and 

both thumb prints (simultaneously) according to the instructional materials. Participants 

were randomly assigned to either a right or left leading hand condition for one of the three 

instructional techniques. 

Applying the definition of usability from the International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO) we measured efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction. Efficiency was measured 

as the time required for a participant to complete the 10-print collection process including 

capturing a right-slap, left-slap and both thumb print images according to the instructions 

provided to the participant by one of the instructional methods. For each participant, the task 

was successfully completed if all three fingerprint images were captured. Effectiveness was 

measured by the number of participants who were unable to complete the task and by the 

number of errors incurred by the participants who successfully completed the task. Following 

collection of fingerprints, participants were asked questions about their satisfaction with the 

fingerprint process relative to the instructional modes provided. 

This report describes four main results. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 6 03/05/2007 

1. Participants who received instructions via the poster had the most difficulty 

performing the fingerprinting task. Statistical analysis shows that participants who 

received the poster instructions took significantly longer to complete the 10-print 

collection process than participants in the video or verbal instructional groups. Fewer 

participants in the poster condition were able to complete the task and made 

significantly more errors than either the video or verbal conditions. Only 56% of 

these participants were able to successfully complete the fingerprinting process. 

2. Participants who received the verbal and video instructions performed equally well. 

Verbal instructions were rated highest in preference by participants followed by 

video, and poster was rated the lowest of the three instructional modes. Verbal 

instructions may be difficult in an operational setting. Video instructions may be 

presented to many people waiting in line simultaneously providing an effective 

instructional delivery method by adding no additional time for the operator during the 

collection process and still providing optimum capture times and low-error incidence. 

3. Operators are critical to the acquisition process. It appears that operators are able to 

assist individuals to overcome the deficits of the instructional materials. With 

operator assistance 98% of the participants were able to successfully complete the 

fingerprint process. 

4. On average the time required to capture a 10-print sequence (a right slap, left slap and 

simultaneous thumbs) without operator assistance ranges from 48 to 64 seconds and 

the medians ranged from 45 to 59 seconds, and with operator assistance from 50 to 54 

seconds (the medians ranged from 45 to 46 seconds) for our biometric system 

configuration The minimum time to successfully complete a capture sequence of the 

3 images in our configuration is approximately 30 seconds. This includes 

approximately 21 seconds for image capture and 9 seconds of overhead for 

initialization and other operational chores. 

 
NISTIR 7403 Page 7 03/05/2007 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States Visitor and Immigrant 

Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program are migrating from a two print capture 

process (left and right index fingers) to a ten-print slap capture process (all fingers on both 

hands). This transition is based on recommendations from the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) that were made in the joint report to Congress titled “Summary of 

NIST Patriot Act Recommendations” [NIST1]. The report indicated that “with available 

fingerprint scanning technology, the acquisition of 10 slap fingerprints should take only 

slightly more time than the acquisition of two flat fingerprints” [NIST1]. 

US-VISIT processing is currently based on a two-print capture process, the left and right 

index fingers of the individual. This is an operator assisted capture process with an 

experienced Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent guiding each step of processing 

primarily using verbal instructions. In addition to assistance from the operator, some visual 

assistance is provided via placards that have symbols describing the fingerprint process as 

seen in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: US-VISIT Scanner Instructional Placards (left) and Instructional Handout(right) 

The US-VISIT exit procedure involves an unmanned kiosk that guides the user by written 

instructions as well as video/animation. In the exit procedure, digital fingerprints and 

photographs are again collected from the individual. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 8 03/05/2007 

Figure 2: US-VISIT Exit kiosk 

The NIST Biometrics Usability group performed a usability test to evaluate the time required 

to acquire a 10 print slap image 1. Users accustomed with leaving two index fingerprints at 

US-VISIT may not be familiar with the ten slap fingerprint capture process. In addition to 

measuring the time necessary to acquire the 10 slap image, the study also evaluated how to 

present instructional information to the users. The study was designed to answer three 

questions: 

1. How does the instructional mode (poster, video, or verbal) affect user performance? 

2. How long does it take to capture a 10-print image? 

3. What are the frequency and nature of the errors that occur in this process? 

2. METHOD 

2.1 PARTICIPANTS 

The participants were 300 adults recruited from a pool of 10,000 people who had previously 

agreed to participate in usability tests. There were 151 women and 149 men ranging in ages 

from 18 to over 65 years. 

 

1 These tests were performed for the Department of Homeland Security in accordance with section 303 of the 

Border Security Act, codified as 8 U.S.C. 1732. Specific hardware and software products identified in this 

report were used in order to perform the evaluations described in this document. In no case does such

identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

nor does it imply that the products and equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 9 03/05/2007 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

25-34 35-44 18-24 55-64 45-54 65+

Age Range (Years)

Number of Participants

Figure 3: Participant Age Range 

Of the 300 participants, 265 were right handed, 31 left handed, two ambidextrous, and two 

did not respond. As representative of the general population most of the participants were 

right-handed at 89%, while 11% were either left-handed or ambidextrous. Available 

research shows that approximately 87% of the general population is right handed with the 

remaining 13% of the population either left handed or ambidextrous.[PORAC] 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Right Left Ambidextrous

Handedness

Number of Participants

Figure 4: Participant Handedness 

The participants ranged in self-reported height from 56 inches (142 cm) to 79 inches (201 

cm) with the range being fairly normally distributed with an average height of 70.2 inches 

(178.3 cm) for males and 64.4 inches (163.6) for females. According to the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the mean individual height of men is 69 inches (175 

cm) and the mean individual height of women is 63 inches (160 cm) in the US[CDC]. The 

height data collected showed that our mean population height is within 2% of the mean in the 

US general population. According to the World Health Organization the worldwide mean 

individual male height is 5 feet 8 inches (173 cm) and the female height is 5 feet 2 inches 

(158 cm). 
NISTIR 7403 Page 10 03/05/2007 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 79

Subject Height (Inches)

Number of Participants

Figure 5: Participant Height 

No participants worked in law enforcement or with fingerprints. All participants had self 

reported, normal color vision, and all ten digits. All participant spoke English fluently. 

The participants indicated whether they had been previously fingerprinted. 

Of the 300 participants 70% had been fingerprinted, only 9.7% had been electronically 

fingerprinted (see Figure 6). This is consistent with a telephone survey on public attitudes 

towards biometrics that was conducted in September 2001 where 69% had been fingerprinted 

and August 2002 where 66% had been fingerprinted [ORC]. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Yes-Ink Only No Yes-Digital & Ink Yes-Digital Only Yes-Other

Experience With Being Fingerprinted

Number of Participants

Figure 6: Previous Fingerprint Experience 

Participants were also asked “How concerned were you about having your fingerprints 

recorded?” – Very concerned, Fairly concerned, Not very concerned, Not at all concerned, or 

Don’t know. Of the 300 participants 84% were not at all or not very concerned about having 

their fingerprints recorded (see Figure 7). This is consistent with previous surveys that 

suggests that people have positive attitudes towards finger-imaging and are comfortable with 

biometric techniques [ORC]. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 11 03/05/2007 

42%

42%

10%

4% 2%

Not at All

Not Very

Fairly

Very

Don't Know

Figure 7: Survey Question “How concerned were you about having your fingerprints recorded?” 

Finally participants were asked if they would be in favor or opposed to providing fingerprint 

images as a means of establishing identity for passport purposes. Of the 300 participants 230 

or 77% were in favor or strongly in favor. This study’s population mirrored the high 

acceptance for law enforcement to require fingerprint scans to verify identity for passports 

of the previous survey of 88% [ORC]. 

2.2 MATERIALS 

Three different types of instructional materials were used. The participants were given 

instructions on how to give digital fingerprints via verbal instructions spoken by the test 

conductor (see Appendix D), a 50 second soundless video presented on a 17” monitor, or a 

76 x 115 cm poster (see Appendix C). The instructional materials portrayed three steps: 

1. Presenting four fingers of the right hand (right slap), 

2. Presenting four fingers of the left hand (left slap), and 

3. Presenting both thumbs to the fingerprint sensor. 

The start of the right slap step was indicated by the rightmost, of three, green Light Emitting 

Diodes (LEDs) illuminating. The start of the left slap step was indicated by the leftmost 

LED illuminating. The start of the thumbs step was indicated by the center LED 

illuminating. Each step ended when their respective LED darkened. 

The three-slap capture process where thumbs are captured simultaneously as opposed to a 

four-slap capture process where thumbs are captured individually was selected because of the 

predominant use of the three-slap process by law enforcement. One of the reason for this 
NISTIR 7403 Page 12 03/05/2007 

popularity is because capturing both thumbs together can virtually eliminate the possibility of 

the user transposing the left and right thumb prints during the capture process. 

Figure 8: Fingerprint Process Poster (Right Hand Start) 

There were two versions of each instructional material. One version started with a right hand 

and a second version started with a left hand. 

2.3 EQUIPMENT 

2.3.1 Digital Fingerprint Scanner 

The digital fingerprint scanner selected for this experiment was the Smiths-Heimann 

(Crossmatch) LS2 Check digital fingerprint scanner [SHB] (see Figure 9) . The LS2 scanner 

has a large 3.2 inch x 2.9 inch platen (81mm x 74mm) that allows for the capture of one or 

more fingers simultaneously. The LS2 scanner has a height of 6 inches (152mm). There are 

three Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicators on the top surface of the scanner. These 

indicators are capable of red and green illumination. The scanner was situated on a work 
NISTIR 7403 Page 13 03/05/2007 

surface height of 36 inches (914 mm) which has been identified as an optimal height for the 

collection of ten-print slap images [NIST2]. 

Figure 9: Fingerprint Scanner 

The fingerprint scanner’s top was covered by a piece of opaque paper to obscure any 

markings. The paper had openings cut into it to allow manual access to the scanner’s platen 

and visual access to the three LED indicators (see Figure 10). 
NISTIR 7403 Page 14 03/05/2007 

Figure 10: Fingerprint Scanner (Covered) 

2.3.2 Capture Software 

This experiment utilized the MBARK software package [NIST5] for controlled capture of 

images from a given participant. The custom software’s high-level operational flow can be 

described in the following three steps: 

1) Subject is prompted for a hand/finger combination 

2) Once the hand/finger is detected, capture images for a set amount of time 

3) Repeat step 2 for the next finger/hand combination until all combinations are 

complete 

2.3.3 Behavioral Observation Software 

Noldus Observer v5.0.31 running on Desktop PC and Noldus Pocket Observer v2.0 

(handheld version) running on HP Ipaq 2495 PDAs were used to record errors and the timing 

of events. 

2.4 FACILITY 

The test was conducted in a usability testing facility consisting of two rooms separated by a 

one-way mirror. The participant, test conductor and scanner operator were in one room and 

an observer was in the other room (see Figure 11). 
NISTIR 7403 Page 15 03/05/2007 

Figure 11: Test Room Layout 

2.5 PROCEDURE 

Each participant had three steps to complete. Participants were asked to present a left slap, a 

right slap, and both thumb prints (simultaneously). Participants were randomly assigned to 

either a right or left leading hand condition for one of the three instructional techniques. 

Leading Hand

Instructions Participants Right Left 

Verbal 100 50 50 

Poster 100 50 50 

Video 100 50 50 

Table 1: 10 Print Experimental Design 

Every participant was greeted and thanked for their participation. After a brief description of 

the fingerprint scanner, a consent and demographic form was filled out (see Appendix A). 

The participant was then given instructions on how to present their fingerprints by one of 

three techniques. In one condition the instructions were given verbally by the test conductor 

(see Appendix D for text). In the second condition the participant was shown a poster 

depicting the three presentations (right slap, left slap and thumbs). Each depiction of a 

presentation consisted of a picture for each of four stages (see Appendix C). The first picture 

showed the scanner with no LEDs illuminated. The second picture showed the scanner with 

an illuminated LED and the corresponding hand over the scanner platen. The third picture 
NISTIR 7403 Page 16 03/05/2007 

showed either fingers or thumbs pressing on the platen while the LED was illuminated. The 

fourth picture showed a non-illuminated scanner with a hand above the platen and a arrow, 

pointing upwards, over the hand. The third presentation technique consisted of a 50 second, 

silent, live action video of the three presentations. The video was framed so only the 

scanner and the hand was visible (see Figure 12). The participant pool for each instructional 

method was divided equally so half of the participants would receive a instruction that started 

with the right hand and the other half would receive instructions that started with the left 

hand. 

Figure 12: Capture of Instructional Video 

Participants could receive the instructions as many times as they wanted and were asked if 

they had any questions after receiving instructions. Participants were instructed to walk over 

to the scanner area once they were satisfied with the instructions. The test conductor stopped 

the video or turned the poster away from the participant so neither could be seen from the 

fingerprint capture area. Once the participant was standing in front of the scanner, the 

operator started the scanner and indicated to the participant that they may begin. Depending 

on the experimental condition either the rightmost or leftmost LED on the scanner would 

illuminate. The scanning system would give the participant three opportunities to present for 

each step. Once a capture sequence was started the system would wait 25 seconds to sense if 

fingers were placed on the platen. If the system sensed fingers within the 25 seconds it 

would capture images for five seconds. At five seconds the system would check to see if it 

still sensed a hand. If it did sense a hand, the step was marked as successful, if not, an error 

was generated and the scanner would offer any remaining opportunities. If the system did 

not sense fingers on the platen within the 25 seconds, it would re-initiate the capture 

sequence up to three times. If nothing was sensed in three opportunities, the system would 

mark that step as unsuccessful and move on to the next step, as indicated by a new LED 

illuminating. A visual representation of this sequence is provided in Figure 13.
NISTIR 7403 Page 17 03/05/2007 

Figure 13: Capture Sequence 

Using the Noldus systems, the test conductor and observer marked certain participant 

actions which the systems would timestamp (see Appendix E). The scanner software also 

created a time-stamped log of events. 

After the completion of the fingerprint scanning the participant was asked to fill out a 

questionnaire (see Appendix B). 
NISTIR 7403 Page 18 03/05/2007 

3. RESULTS 

3.1 USABILITY METRICS 

According to ISO 9241-11 [ISO], usability is defined as “the extent to which a product can 

be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and 

satisfaction in a specified context of use”. The standard identifies three areas of 

measurement: effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction, where 

• efficiency is a measure of the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and 

completeness with which users achieve goals. Efficiency is related to productivity 

and is generally measured as task time 

• effectiveness is a measure of the accuracy and completeness with which users achieve 

specified goals. Common metrics include completion rate and number of errors. 

• user satisfaction is the degree to which the product meets the users’ expectations—a 

subjective response in terms of ease of use, satisfaction, and usefulness. 

In this study, we used the ISO definition and measured efficiency, effectiveness, and user 

satisfaction. 

3.1.1 Efficiency 

We measured efficiency as the time required for a participant to complete the task. A task is 

defined as capturing a right-slap, left-slap and both thumb prints images according to the 

instructions provided to the participant by one of the instructional methods. For each 

participant, the task was successfully completed if fingerprint images were captured for the 

three slaps 

As described in the procedure section, the leading hand of the instruction sequence was 

counterbalanced. While it was determined later in analysis that there was no interaction 

between leading hand and any other factor. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 19 03/05/2007 

Due to hardware and software failures during the data collection process, timing data for 

several participants was found to be corrupt. Data was available for 284 participants of the 

300 participants. Table 2 indicates the number of participants for each instructional method 

where data was completely available as well as the breakdown of leading hand start sequence 

provided by the instructional material to each group. 

Instructional 

Method 

Number of 

Participants 

Instructions Start 

With Right Hand 

Instructions Start 

With Left Hand 

Poster 96 46 50 

Verbal 90 51 39 

Video 98 50 48 

Table 2: Available data after elimination of corrupted trials 

This subset of the population was further refined for this discussion by those participants 

where the three images were collected thus successfully completing the task. Of the 284 

participants where data was available, 222 or 78% successfully completed the task. Table 3 

indicates the number of participants for each instructional method that successfully 

completed the task. 

Instructional Method Number of Participants 

Poster 52 

Verbal 85 

Video 85 

Table 3: Participants who successfully completed the task

For completeness we identified a sequence of events that are required to complete the overall 

task from receiving the instructions to successful capture of fingerprint images. In addition 

to capturing the time required to complete the overall task we also measured the time 

required to complete these individual events or subtasks. These events are illustrated in 

Figure 14. Individual events include the presentation of the instructions, the approach to the 

sensor, and capturing the images. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 20 03/05/2007 

Figure 14: Event Timeline for Instructional Modes

Presentation of Instructional Material 

The first event was the presentation of the instructional material. We measured this as the 

time the participant entered the room until he/she crossed a taped line on the floor. Once the 

participant crossed this line (Figure 11), he/she had clearly finished viewing the instructional 

materials. The mean and median times that participants required to receive each respective 

instructional method is provided in Table 4. The minimum time to receive the verbal 

instructions was approximately 45 seconds. The minimum time to view the video was 50 

seconds. The minimum length of time the participants viewed the poster was at their 

discretion. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 21 03/05/2007 

Instructional Method Mean Time (sec) Median Time (sec) 

Poster 31.27 29.60 

Verbal 65.34 58.85 

Video 86.93 81.15 

Table 4: Time to receive instructional materials 

A histogram with a normal probability density plot of task times showed that the data did not 

follow a normal distribution. This was verified by the Shapiro test for normality. All tests 

give p-values < 0.01. It is clear these variable are definitely not normally distributed. Other 

tests such as the Chi-squared test and the tests based on skewness and kurtosis were also 

applied again, all give p-value <0.01. 

. 

Due to the non-normal distribution of the data the Kruskal-Wallis test and the median test 

were used to determine if the medians for the 3 methods are different. Both tests give a pvalue < 0.01 indicating that the medians for the 3 methods are different. To complete the 

analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used to test the pairs. 

1. For Method 1 vs. Method 2 (poster vs. verbal), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p-value < 0.01. 

2. For Method 1 vs. Method 3 (poster vs. video), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p-value < 0.01. 

3. For Method 2 vs. Method 3 (verbal vs. video), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p-value <0.01. 

Therefore, participants spent the least amount of time with the poster instructions, followed 

by the verbal instructions. Participants spent the most time with the video instructions .

Approaching the Sensor and Capturing Images 

The second event was the approach to the sensor. This task time was measured from the 

time the participant crossed the taped line on the floor until the software application end. The 

mean and median time taken are presented in Table 5. 

Instructional Method Number of Participants Mean Time 

(sec) 

Median Time 

(sec) 

Poster 52 114.40 91.50 

Verbal 85 86.40 65.00 

Video 85 76.30 65.00 

Table 5: Time from approaching sensor to end of capture 
NISTIR 7403 Page 22 03/05/2007 

Due to the non-normal distribution of the data the Kruskal-Wallis test and the median test 

were used to determine if the medians for the three methods are different. Both tests give a 

p-value <0.01 indicating that the medians for the three methods are different. To complete 

the analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used to test different medians for Methods 2 and 3 

(verbal and video) which resulted in a p-value > 0.05. Thus they are not different. The time 

to complete the tasks when given the poster is statistically significant from both the time to 

complete the task when receiving verbal and video instructions, but there is no significant 

difference between the task completion time for the video or verbal instructions. 

 

Capturing Images 

The third event was capturing the images. This time is measured from the software 

application capture start to the application capture end. The minimum time to successfully 

complete a capture sequence is approximately 30 seconds. This includes approximately 21 

seconds for image capture and 9 seconds of overhead for initialization and other operational 

chores. The mean and median times are presented in Table 6. 

Method Participants Mean (sec) Median (sec) 

Poster 52 64.13 58.50 

Verbal 85 48.21 45.00 

Video 85 50.87 46.00 

Table 6: Time of software start capture and end capture 

The Kruskal-Wallis test and the median test were used to determine if the medians for the 3 

methods are different. Both tests give a p-value<0.01 indicating that the medians for the 3 

methods are different. To complete the analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used to test 

different medians for Methods 2 and 3 (verbal and video) which resulted in a p-value > 0.05. 

Thus they are not different. Therefore, participants in the poster condition took significantly 

longer than either video or verbal conditions to complete the tasks. 

Total Time 

Finally, we measured the total time a participant took to complete the task, from receiving 

the instructions to end of capture. The mean and median times are presented in Table 7. 

Method Participants Mean (sec) Median (sec) 

Poster 52 145.67 126.85

Verbal 85 151.73 129.32

Video 85 163.22 152.18

Table 7: Total Time
NISTIR 7403 Page 23 03/05/2007 

Again, due to the non-normal distribution of the data, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the median 

test were used to determine if the medians for the 3 methods are different. Both tests give a 

p-value<0.01 indicating that the medians for the 3 methods are different. To complete the 

analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used to test the pairs. 

1. For Method 1 vs. Method 2 (poster vs. verbal), the medians of the two methods are 

not statistically different, p-value > 0.05. 

2. For Method 1 vs. Method 3 (poster vs. video), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p-value <0.01. 

3. For Method 2 vs. Method 3 (verbal vs. video), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p-value < 0.01. 

Therefore, the difference of the methods is based on the significant difference between poster 

and video and verbal and video. 

Error-free Image Capture 

In order to eliminate the effect of errors on the time required to capture images, we identified 

those participants who successfully completed the task with no errors. Of the 222 

participants who successfully completed the task, 155 completed the task with no errors. 

Again, we measured the time to capture the images from the software application capture 

start to the application capture end. The minimum time to successfully complete a capture 

sequence is approximately 30 seconds. This includes approximately 21 seconds for image 

capture and 9 seconds of overhead for initialization and other operational chores. The mean 

and median times are presented in Table 8. 

Method Participants Mean (sec) 

((sec)

Median (sec) 

Poster 17 59.20 55.00 

Verbal 68 46.10 45.00 

Video 70 47.60 44.00 

Table 8: Time of software start capture and end capture with no errors 

Due to the non-normal distribution of the data, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the median test 

were used to determine if the medians for the 3 methods are different. Both tests give a pvalue <0.01 indicating that the medians for the 3 methods are different. To complete the 

analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used to test the pairs. 

 

1. For Method 1 vs. Method 2 (poster vs. verbal), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p < 0.01. 

2. For Method 2 vs. Method 3 (verbal vs. video), the medians of the two methods are 

not statistically different, p-value > 0.05. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 24 03/05/2007 

3. For Method 1 vs. Method 3 (poster vs. video), the medians of the two methods are 

statistically different, p < 0.01. 

Therefore, the difference of the methods is based on the significant difference between poster 

and video and verbal and video. 

 

3.1.2 Effectiveness

In this experiment we measured effectiveness in two ways: 

1. the number of participants who were unable to complete the task 

2. the number of errors incurred by the participants who successfully completed the 

task. 

Of the 284 participants for whom data was available, 78% were able to complete the task. 

The remaining 62 were unable to complete the task, meaning that they were unable to leave a 

left slap, right slap, and both thumb images. For each image these participants were given 

three attempts. Table 9 shows the number of participants that were unable to complete the 

task by instructional mode. The overwhelming majority (71%) of participants who were 

unable to complete the task were in the poster condition. 

 

Instructional Method Number of Participants 

Poster 44 

Verbal 5 

Video 13 

Table 9: Subjects that did not successfully complete the task

Next we measured the number of errors incurred by the participant for each instructional 

mode for those that successfully completed the task. Thus the participant did not conform to 

the instructions but the attempt was acceptable (prints were captured)[NIST4] to complete 

the task within three tries for each stage. Errors included placing wrong hand on the scanner, 

lifting hand too soon, placing hand down too late, and a general error such as not placing a 

hand down at all. The following table shows the mean and median number of errors incurred. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 25 03/05/2007 

For the 222 participants that successfully completed the task, the Table 10 shows the number 

of errors incurred. 

Instructional 

Method 

Number of 

Participants 

Mean Error 

Count 

Median Error 

Count 

Max Error 

Count 

Poster 52 2.02 2 8 

Verbal 85 0.29 0 3 

Video 85 0.33 0 3 

Table 10: Error Summary For Completed Cases 

For error count, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the median test both give p-value < 0.01 

indicating that the medians for the 3 methods are different. The Mann-Whitney test was used 

to test different medians for Methods 2 and 3 with p-value=0.82. Thus they are not different. 

Finally, of the 222 that successfully completed the task 155 or 55% completed error free 

trials. Table 11 shows the distribution by instructional mode. Fewer participants from the 

poster condition had error free tasks than either the verbal or video conditions. 

Method Error Free % of Successful

Poster 17 33% 

Verbal 68 80% 

Video 70 82% 

Table 11: Error Free Completion by Instructional Method 

In conclusion, fewer participants in the poster condition were able to complete the task and 

made significantly more errors than either the video or verbal conditions. There is no 

significant difference between the error count for the video or verbal instructions. 

 

3.1.3 User Satisfaction 

Each participant was given a satisfaction survey after completing the test (See Appendix B 

for the actual questionnaire). The questions focused on the fingerprint process and the 

specific instructional mode provided. 

The following 7 questions rating the instructional materials on a 5-point Likert-scale 

[LIKERT] where 1 was poor and 5 was good were answered by each participant: 

1. The information provided was effective in helping me complete the 

fingerprint process. 

2. The information provided clearly described the fingerprint process. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 26 03/05/2007 

3. The information provided was confusing. 

4. It was clear which hand was to be scanned first. 

5. The order of fingerprint capture was clear. 

6. It was clear how to position your hand on the sensor 

7. It was clear when to remove your hand. 

Overall participants were satisfied with the instructions they were provided to complete the 

fingerprint process. The verbal instructions were rated highest by the participants followed 

by the video and the poster was rated the lowest of the three instructional modes. The verbal 

instructions were ranked the highest on all but one question. Participants ranked the video as 

clearer with respect to how to position your hand on the sensor than either the poster or the 

verbal instructions. Figure 15 through Figure 20 indicate the results of the 7 questions 

concerning the effectiveness and clarity of the instructional materials. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Good)

Number of Participants

Poster

Video

Verbal

Figure 15: Survey Question “The information provided was effective in helping me complete the fingerprint 

process.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Good)

Number of Participants

Poster

Video

Verbal

Figure 16: Survey Question “The information provided was confusing.” 
NISTIR 7403 Page 27 03/05/2007 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Good)

Number of Participants

Poster

Video

Verbal

Figure 17: Survey Question “It was clear which hand was to be scanned first.” 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Good)

Number of Participants

Poster

Video

Verbal

Figure 18: Survey Question “It was clear how to position your hand on the sensor.” 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Good)

Number of Participants

Poster

Video

Verbal

Figure 19: Survey Question “The order of fingerprint capture was clear.”
NISTIR 7403 Page 28 03/05/2007 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Good)

Number of Participants

Poster

Video

Verbal

Figure 20: Survey Question “It was clear when to remove your hand.”

After rating the instructional materials, the participants were asked two open-ended 

questions. First they were asked “What was the most confusing part of the process?” 

followed by “What additional information would you recommend to improve the fingerprint 

capture process?”. 

Most of the comments from the participants that viewed the poster revolved around when to 

remove their hand from the platen. Of the 100 participants that received the poster as the 

instructional material 39% commented that they were unsure when to remove their hand 

from the scanner. In addition, 20% commented that they missed or did not understand the 

lights. Fourteen percent of the participants mentioned that they were confused about how 

long to leave their hand on the scanner. Only 7% commented on how to position their hand 

on the scanner. Many (37%) suggested that adding text to the poster would be helpful. 

Seventeen percent responded that the green blinking light should be emphasized in order to 

indicate when to remove your hand, 10% recommended that the poster should include 

additional timing information. 

Those who saw the video also commented that they were unsure of when to remove their 

hand from the scanner, but this time only 18% mentioned this, 11% commented that they 

were confused by the lights, and 9% were unsure how long to leave their hand on the 

scanner. However, 14% mentioned that they were unsure how to position their hands on the 

scanner. Just as in the poster, many 45% suggested that the video should include text or 

audio. Another 20% indicated that the video or the scanner should emphasize how to 

position your hand. Only 7% felt the video needed to include timing information. 

Most participants stated that the verbal instructions clearly described the tasks, 32% had no 

comments or complaints and 22% had favorable comments. Concern about how to position 

their hand on the scanner was mentioned by 20% of the verbal participants. Thus adding 
NISTIR 7403 Page 29 03/05/2007 

instructions on how to position your hand was suggested by 22% of the participants while 

17% would include a visual element with the verbal instructions. 

Finally, cleanliness of the scanner was an issue that several participants identified. About 

2% of the participants did express concern about the cleanliness of the devices with which 

they would have physical contact. However, when participants were questioned about their 

thoughts on cleanliness, they indicated that they were not as concerned in this particular 

environment since it was a controlled laboratory setting. They assumed the platen was 

cleaned routinely and adequately. But they expressed concerns about the operational setting, 

indicating that they would immediately wash their hands or use a wet wipe after touching the 

fingerprint scanner [NIST3]. 

3.1.4 Reference Task 

After completing the user satisfaction survey, participants were asked to repeat the 

fingerprint collection task. This second set of images is important in order to perform 

matches of images. This fingerprint task was operated assisted. Once again, we collected 

timing and error data. Time is measured from the software application capture start to the 

application capture end. The minimum time to successfully complete a capture sequence is 

approximately 30 seconds. This includes approximately 21 seconds for image capture and 9 

seconds of overhead for initialization and other operational chores. 

Of the 276 participants who agreed to repeat the collection process all but 7 were successful 

in completing the three steps. The timing and error data for the 269 participants who were 

successful in this second task is presented in Table 12. 

Participants Instructional 

Method 

Mean 

Time 

(sec)

Median 

Time (sec) 

Mean 

Errors 

Median 

Errors 

Max 

Errors 

269 All 52.63 46 0.17 0 5 

90 Poster 53.89 46 0.19 0 5 

87 Verbal 49.56 45 0.10 0 2 

92 Video 54.29 46 0.21 0 4 

Table 12: Error Analysis For Reference Task 

We compared the timing data for the reference task in Table 12 to the timing data for the 

original task presented in Table 6. The tables have been combined for convenience in Table 

13. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 30 03/05/2007 

Method Original Task Reference Task 

Participants Mean 

Time (sec)

Median 

Time (sec)

Participants Mean Time 

(sec) 

Median 

Time 

Poster 52 64.13 58.50 90 53.89 46.00 (sec)

Verbal 85 48.21 45.00 87 49.56 45.00 

Video 85 50.87 46.00 92 54.29 46.00 

Table 13: Comparison of Medians for Original and Reference Task 

To complete the analysis we used a Mann-Whitney test. 

1. For the poster, the medians of 58.50 and 46.50 are different with a p-value < 0.01 

2. For the verbal condition, the medians of 45.00 and 45.00 are not different, p-value > 

0.05. 

3. For the video condition, the medians of 46.00 and 45.00 are not different, p-value 

>0.05. 

For this operator assisted second task 97% of the participants were able to successfully 

complete the task compared to 78% for the first task. Overall those in the poster condition 

committed fewer errors and completed the task faster than the original task. 

4. DISCUSSION 

This study was designed to examine the impact of instructional mode on user performance. 

In particular the goals were to determine: 

1. How the instructional mode (poster, video, or verbal) affected user performance? 

2. How long it took to capture a 10-print image? and 

3. What were the frequency and nature of the errors that occurred in this process? 

We address these questions with respect to each instructional method. 

 

4.1 POSTER 

Participants who received instructions via the poster had the most difficulty performing the 

fingerprinting task. 54% of these participants were unable to successfully complete the 

fingerprinting process, those who did took longer and committed more errors. The reasons 

for these errors varied. Some of the participants stated that the poster offered too much 

information and did not inform them as to the most important parts. Therefore, participants 

remembered only certain pieces of information, neglecting others. The most common error 
NISTIR 7403 Page 31 03/05/2007 

made by these participants was removing their fingers before a capture had taken place. 

During the follow-up interviews participants explained that the poster either failed to show 

the importance of the green lights or failed to show that the green lights were flashing. Some 

participants noted that they failed to see the lights at all. Overall participants who removed 

their hand too quickly stated that the poster failed to articulate any timing information. 

Participants also did not seem to notice from the poster that the lights on the fingerprinting 

device conveyed significant information in the fingerprint capture process. Participants who 

did notice the light were perplexed to see a blinking light on the device. They had not 

gleaned from the poster illustration that a blinking light was involved. 

An important consideration with the poster is the short time that participants took to study it. 

Many times participants would only glance at the poster and then continue with the process. 

With the verbal or video presentations, participants were more inclined to wait until the 

instructions had run their course. Thus they spent more time concentrating on the instructions 

than when confronted with the poster. The lack of a time dimension of the poster instructions 

also led to some confusion as to the required length of time of the parts of the fingerprinting 

process. Many participants guessed at the time required to give the fingerprints. 

A number of participants also stated that in the poster it looked as if the hand was pressing a 

button with the thumb before placing the hand on the scanner. This led to people looking for 

a button on the device and then experiencing confusion when they could not find it. 

One persistent issue with regards to the poster instructions was that participants often 

expected further instructions to follow. There were multiple instances where the participant 

would view the poster, approach the fingerprint device, and then ask the operator for 

instructions. Once the operator informed the participant that he/she was not in a position to 

answer any questions, the participant would ask to see the poster again or simply explain that 

they only briefly viewed the poster as they expected further details. 

4.2 VIDEO 

Participants who viewed the video instructions generally performed well in the fingerprinting 

task. One problem identified by the participants was with the timing of the green light 

turning off. People stated they could not tell, or had to watch more than once to determine, if 

the light went off before or after the hand was removed. Participants seemed split in their 

opinions about the duration of the video. Some people stated the video was excessively long 

and that the critical information could be conveyed in a shorter version. Others stated that the 

fact the video was in real-time helped to inform them as to how long to keep their hands on 

the scanner. This information was derived independently from their realization about the 

purpose of the lights, as some people actually counted the seconds as the video played. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 32 03/05/2007 

Another problem associated with the video instructions, was that the hand in the video 

seemed to press a button with the thumb. They also noted that it would have been helpful to 

have been informed at the beginning of the video that there were three steps demonstrated in 

the video. 

4.3 VERBAL 

Participants overwhelmingly stated that the verbal instructions clearly described the task. In 

general, participants who received the verbal instructions fared better than those who were 

instructed by the poster. Some concerns raised by participants about the verbal instructions 

were that they seemed “too wordy” or that they were overly complicated. 

The few mistakes made following the verbal instructions could be attributed to the lack of a 

frame of reference. Since all participants were using the device for the first time, the 

instructions were being read without any visual reference, therefore, leaving room for 

interpretation. The instructions inform the participant to place his/her finger on the scanner. 

They do not specify where on the scanner to place the fingers, and as a result some people 

placed their fingers on the plastic casing located behind the platen. During the follow-up 

interview participants stated that a lack of reference in regards to the green lights also created 

confusion during the instructions. Not having a sense of what the device would look like 

until they approached it also caused participants who were instructed verbally to take extra 

time inspecting the device, trying to relate what they were seeing to what they had previously 

heard. 

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 

This study examined the impact of instructional mode on user performance. In particular we 

examined the impact of poster, video, and verbal instructions on the time required to capture 

a 10-print slap as well as the number of errors incurred during the process For this study a 

10-print slap capture includes a right slap, left slap and simultaneous thumbs images. This 

study was performed in a controlled environment. This controlled environment did not 

attempt to simulate a point of entry environment or the stress associated with traveling and 

encountering the fingerprint process. 

From this study we observed four main results. First, participants who received instructions 

via the poster had the most difficulty performing the fingerprinting task. Only 56% of these 

participants were able to successfully complete the fingerprinting process. Participants who 

received instructions by poster and successfully completed the fingerprinting capture process 

took significantly longer and committed significantly more errors than participants receiving 

video or verbal instructions. Although the poster or placard is a cost effective method of 

providing information for the 2-print process, this study illustrates the challenges of 
NISTIR 7403 Page 33 03/05/2007 

depicting a dynamic process in a static medium for a more complex 10-print process. We 

took great care in developing the poster for this study. Numerous versions of the poster were 

developed as we iteratively tested each version with small test groups before finalizing the 

design.[NIST6] However, additional study is required to develop a family of static symbols 

that can be used selectively to depict dynamic processes if poster instructions are to be used 

at all. 

Second, participants who received the verbal and video instructions performed equally well. 

While the verbal method may have been equally as effective as the video in providing 

optimal capture time and minimal error count, in this particular context, in an operational 

setting it may not always be possible to depend on verbal instructions due to language 

barriers. Moreover, the verbal instructions must be delivered to each participant 

individually, in this study the verbal instructions took approximately 45 seconds. With this 

in mind, the video instructions may be more conducive to the operational environment. 

Video instructions can be presented to all the participants at once as they wait in line. 

Video instructions may be the optimal method of instructional delivery providing for 

efficiency by adding no additional time for the operator during the collection process and still 

providing optimum capture times and low-error incidence. 

Third, operators are critical to the acquisition process. It appears that operators are able to 

assist individuals to overcome the deficits of the instructional materials. Without the 

assistance of an operator 45% of the participants who received the poster were not able to 

complete the fingerprinting process correctly. Overall, only 78% were able to successfully 

complete the collection process without assistance compared to 98% with operator 

assistance. In addition, participants for the poster condition committed fewer errors and took 

less time when assisted by an operator. 

Finally we measured the time required to capture a 10-print sequence—in this case a right 

slap, left slap and simultaneous thumbs. With our biometric system configuration and a five 

second capture time, the minimum time to successfully complete a capture sequence of the 

three images is approximately 30 seconds. This includes approximately 21 seconds for 

image capture and 9 seconds of overhead for initialization and other operational chores. On 

average without operator assistance the collection process ranged from 48 to 64 seconds 

while the medians ranged from 45 to 59 seconds, and with operator assistance the collection 

process ranged from 50 to 54 seconds and the medians ranged from 45 to 46 seconds. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 34 03/05/2007 

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We thank Dick Horst and the staff of UserWorks, Silver Spring MD USA who conducted 

the testing and collected the data for this research.
NISTIR 7403 Page 35 03/05/2007 

7. REFERENCES 

[CDC] US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. (2004). Advanced Data From Vital and 

Health Statistics (DHHS Publication No. 2005-1250-04-0467). 

Hyattsville, MD: Ogden C.L., Fryar C.D., Carrol M.D., Flegal 

K.M. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf 

[ISO] Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display 

terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: guidance on usability, ISO 9241-11, 

1998. 

[LIKERT] Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,

Archives of Psychology 140, 55. 

[NIST1] National Institute of Standards and Technology. Summary of NIST 

Patriot Act Recommendations. Gaithersburg, MD. Retrieved 

January 4, 2007 from 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/pact/NIST_PACT_REC.pd

f

[NIST2] Theofanos, M., Orandi, S., Micheals, R.J., Stanton, B., Zhang, 

N.F. (2006). Effects of Scanner Height on Fingerprint Capture.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST IR 7382. 

Retrieved February 20, 2007 from 

http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/biousa/docs/NISTIR_7382_Height_S

tudy.pdf

[NIST3] Theofanos, M. (2006). Health and Safety Perceptions of 

Biometric Devices. November 28, 2006. Retrieved February 

20, 2007 from 

http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/biousa/docs/Health_Safety.pdf 

[NIST4] Micheals, R.J., Stanton, B., Theofanos, M., Orandi, S. A 

Taxonomy of Definitions for Usability Studies in Biometrics. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST IR 7378. 

Retrieved February 20, 2007 from 
NISTIR 7403 Page 36 03/05/2007 

http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/biousa/docs/NISTIR_7378_Taxonomy_for

_Biometric_Usability.pdf 

[NIST5] National Institute of Standards and Technology. Multimodal 

Biometric Application Resource Kit. Gaithersburg, MD. Retrieved 

from http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/mbark.html

[NIST6] Theofanos, M and Stanton, Brian. (2007). Development of 

Instructional Poster for Fingerprint Capture. Gaithersburg MD: 

US National Institute of Standards and Technology. Manuscript in 

preparation. 

[ORC] Westin, A. (2002). Public attitudes toward the uses of biometric 

identification technologies by government and the private sector: 

Summary of survey findings. Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) 

International. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from 

http://www.search.org/files/pdf/Biometricsurveyfindings.pdf

[SHB] Smiths-Heimann LS2 Check Scanner Specifications (2005), Cross 

Match Corporation. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from

http://www.shb-jena.com/Products/LS2_CHECK.pdf
NISTIR 7403 Page 37 03/05/2007 

APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 
NISTIR 7403 Page 38 03/05/2007 

Demographic Questionnaire 

1. Age 

 18 to 24 

 25 to 34 

 35 to 44 

 45 to 54 

 55 to 64 

 65 +

2. Gender 

 Male 

 Female

3. Handedness 

 Right Handed 

 Left Handed

 Ambidextrous

4. Height 

Feet Inches

5. Country of Origin 6. Profession 

7. Have you ever had your fingerprints captured before? 

 No 

 Yes 

8. Before you took part in the trial how concerned were you about having your 

fingerprints recorded?

 Very concerned 

 Fairly concerned 

 Not very concerned 

 Not at all concerned 

 Don’t know

If you answered Yes, check all that 

apply: 

 Fingerprinted electronically 

Fingerprinted with ink/paper 
NISTIR 7403 Page 39 03/05/2007 

APPENDIX B: POST TEST QUESTIONNAIRE 
NISTIR 7403 Page 40 03/05/2007 

Task Evaluation Questionnaire 

1. Was the level of intrusiveness you experienced during the fingerprint image 

recording more or less than you expected?

 Much more than expected 

 A little more than expected 

 About the same as expected 

 A little less than expected 

 A lot less than expected 

 Don’t know 

2. How did the time it took to have your fingerprint image recorded compare with what 

you expected? 

 Much more than expected 

 A little more than expected 

 About the same as expected 

 A little less than expected 

 A lot less than expected 

 Don’t know 

3. How would you rate the difficulty in positioning yourself so that your fingerprint 

image could be recorded? 

 Much more than expected 

 A little more than expected 

 About the same as expected 

 A little less than expected 

 A lot less than expected 

 Don’t know 

4. Overall how did you feel about the experience of having your fingerprints taken? 

 Much better than expected 

 A little better than expected 
NISTIR 7403 Page 41 03/05/2007 

 About the same as expected 

 A little worse than expected 

 A lot worse than expected 

 Don’t know 

5. If fingerprint images were adopted as a means of establishing identity for passport 

purposes would you be in favor or opposed to providing an image of your fingerprints? 

 Strongly in favor 

 In favor 

 Neither in favor nor opposed 

 Opposed 

 Strongly opposed 

 Don’t know 

6. Rate the following questions on a 5 point scale with 1 being least favored and 5 most.

Question ☺

5 4 



3 2 



1

The information provided was effective in 

helping me complete the fingerprint process.

    

 

The information provided clearly described 

the fingerprint process. 

    

 

The information provided was confusing.     

 

It was clear which hand was to be scanned 

first. 

    

 

The order of fingerprint capture was clear.     

 

It was clear how to position your hand on the 

sensor. 

    

 

It was clear when to remove your hand.     

If you answered worse, can you please elaborate? 
NISTIR 7403 Page 42 03/05/2007 

7. What was the most confusing part of the process? 

9. Would information in another form be more helpful (rank order) 

(write in 1-5) 

 Pamphlet

 Poster

 Video

 Live demo

 Other (specify)

10. What additional information would you recommend to improve the fingerprint capture 

process? 

NOTE: This survey contains collection of information requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
NISTIR 7403 Page 43 03/05/2007 

required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, 

a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 

estimated response time for this survey is 15 minutes. The response time includes the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information." 

OMB no 0693-0043, expiration 07/31/09
NISTIR 7403 Page 44 03/05/2007 

APPENDIX C: INSTRUCTIONAL POSTERS 
NISTIR 7403 Page 45 03/05/2007 

Figure 21: Instructional Poster (Right Hand Start) 
NISTIR 7403 Page 46 03/05/2007 

Figure 22: Instructional Poster (Left Hand Start) 
NISTIR 7403 Page 47 03/05/2007 

APPENDIX D: VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS 
NISTIR 7403 Page 48 03/05/2007 

The following test script was verbally presented to each participant in our study by the test 

system operator. Portions of this script that have been enclosed in brackets (“[“ and “]”) and 

are meant as special instructions for the operator. These special instructions guide the 

operator to tailor instructions for the specific participant or to have the operator perform 

certain actions. 

[Welcome the participant] 

“Thank you for taking the time to participate in our study today. 

My name is [name] and we’re interested in researching how long it takes for all ten 

fingerprints to be given, using an electronic digital fingerprint scanner. We are also 

interested in the process of taking Iris and Face images” 

“Today’s session will last approximately 30 minutes. If you want to stop at any time just 

say so.” 

DESCRIBE EQUIPMENT 

“In our study, we’ll be using a digital fingerprint scanner connected to a computer that 

detects and analyzes fingerprint images from the scanner. 

You will be asked to use this scanner to give all ten of your fingerprints.” 

“There will be people observing the fingerprinting process so we can keep track of how 

long the different parts of the process take.” 

“Also, parts of the process will be video taped so that we can analyze it in more detail. 

However, we are not recording anything of you that can be use for personal identification 

purposes. 

Consent Form: 

Demographic Form: 

EXPLANATION OF TASKS 

“You will be presented with the instructions on how to use the scanner to give your 

fingerprints. After you feel that you understand the instructions, proceed to the operator 

with your papers.” 

“Do you have any questions before we begin?” 
NISTIR 7403 Page 49 03/05/2007 

If yes: (answer questions or explain again. No mention of the three instructional 

techniques should be made to the participant or anything specific about the 

scanning process).

If no: take participant into instructional area 

(Participant’s actions are recorded via Noldus) 
NISTIR 7403 Page 50 03/05/2007 

Right Hand first instructions: 

Instructions to Participant: 

Leaving a 10-print image is simple and consists of three steps. 

Step #1: When the right most light starts flashing green; place your right four fingers 

(demonstrate what four fingers) on the scanner and press down. Hold your fingers in 

place until the green light stops flashing 

Step #2: When the left most light starts flashing green; place your left four fingers 

(demonstrate what four fingers) on the scanner and press down. Hold your fingers in 

place until the green light stops flashing 

 

Task #3: When the center light starts flashing green; place your 2 thumbs (demonstrate 

thumbs side by side) on the scanner and press down. Hold your fingers in place until the 

green light stops flashing. 

 

Would you like me to repeat the instructions? 
NISTIR 7403 Page 51 03/05/2007 

Left Hand first instructions: 

Leaving a 10-print image is simple and consists of three steps. 

Step #1: When the left most light starts flashing green; place your left four fingers 

(demonstrate what four fingers) on the scanner and press down. Hold your fingers in 

place until the green light stops flashing. 

Step #2: When the right most light starts flashing green; place your right four fingers 

(demonstrate what four fingers) on the scanner and press down. Hold your fingers in 

place until the green light stops flashing. 

Task #3: When the center light starts flashing green; place your 2 thumbs (demonstrate 

thumbs side by side) on the scanner and press down. Hold your fingers in place until the 

green light stops flashing. 

Would you like me to repeat the instructions? 
NISTIR 7403 Page 52 03/05/2007 

PRESENT 1 OF THREE INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES 

When the participant understands the instructions they go into scanning area. 

OPERATOR: 

1. Retrieves papers from participant. 

2. Presses MBARK Start Capture (MBARK should be set up for the participant 

previous to this point) 

3. Tells Participant “you may begin” 

Capture process occurs ...

Questions that may occur: 

1. During the instructional period, participant may ask “Can I begin now?” respond 

with “If you are ready, please continue”. 

2. Generally, if the participant asks any question about the directions for giving the 

prints (e.g., “how long should I leave my hand?”), respond with “You should 

perform as the instructions have indicated”. 

3. “What does the (...) light mean?” Don’t explain “I’d be happy to explain at the 

end of the test. 

4. “Is the scanner clean?” “Yes, we clean it between each participant” 

5. “May I see the instructions again?” “You may see the instructions after the last 

scan” 

6. “(Why is the scanner)/(Should the scanner be) warm?” “This is normal system 

behavior.” 

Actions that may occur:

The general rule is to only prompt and make corrections during the session if the 

participant communicates that a mistake was made. 

Participant attempts wrong task, but does not notice 

If the participant uses the incorrect hand, but does not notice, then make the 

appropriate corrections after the participant is finished presenting their fingerprints, 

but before the “End Session” button is clicked. 

Participant notices they have attempted the wrong task 

If the participant uses the incorrect hand and does notice, then the operator should 

take the appropriate action (such as canceling a capture if one was already in process) 

and ask the participant to “Please wait while I make a correction.” 
NISTIR 7403 Page 53 03/05/2007 

Participant thinks they have used the incorrect hand, but hasn’t 

Tell the participant to continue with the rest of the tasks and that they can try again 

after completion of the first set of tasks. Operator starts a new session after completion. 

Participant leaves their hand on too long 

If the participant leaves their hand on the scanner for too long (and the red LED is 

flashing) the operator should say “You may remove your hand now.” 

Participant lifts their hand too soon and goes on to next task without waiting for 

indication. 

If the participant lifts their hand(s) too soon, the operator should make no verbal 

correction. If the participant attempts to start the next task, before the system detects 

that they have lifted their hand(s) too soon, then 

Allow participant to continue. 

Participant lifts their hand too soon then replaces the same hand. 

If the participant lifts their hand(s) too soon, then replaces hand before the critical period. 

Mark it as a Noldus error but the operator does not reject the capture. 

Participant assumes they are done 

If the participant assumes that they are (prematurely) finished with the session then 

the operator should stop the capture and ask the participant if they would like to try 

again (it is important that the participant does not feel they did something wrong, just 

we would like to collect another set of prints). Operator starts new session. 

Participant asks if they are done 

If the participant asks if they are finished with the session, and they are not, then 

“If you believe that you have successfully given the prints, then you are done.” 

If the participant assumes that they are (prematurely) finished with the session then 

the operator should stop the capture and ask the participant if they would like to try 

again (it is important that the participant does not feel they did something wrong, just 

we would like to collect another set of prints). Operator stars new session. 

Timeouts 

Every capture has an associated timeout—the time during which a successful capture 

must take place, or the system will consider the attempt as failed. However, because a 

successful capture requires a span of time, then there is some critical time during 

which if the participant starts, a failure is inevitable. For example, if the system is 

configured to capture fingerprints for five seconds, and timeout in 30 sections, a 

subject that starts the task 28 seconds into the process cannot give a successful 

capture without timing out. 
NISTIR 7403 Page 54 03/05/2007 

If a capture process times out because the participant does not attempt the task during 

the allotted time, or if the system can not detect that a hand was placed on the 

scanner, then the operator should make no verbal correction and allow the system to 

continue to operate along its workflow. If the operator observes that the subject 

places their hand on the sensor during the critical time then the operator should 

prompt the participant to “Please try again.” 

 4. Ends MBARK session (Noldus tracking stops) 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

“Thank you for your participation. That concludes the test.” 

“We have a brief questionnaire that we would like you to complete.” 

Iris and Face Scan 

 TBD 

CONCLUSION 

“Thanks again for taking the time to participate in our study.” 

“Do you have any comments or questions about today’s test session?” 
NISTIR 7403 Page 55 03/05/2007 

 

APPENDIX E: NOLDUS EVENTS 
NISTIR 7403 Page 56 03/05/2007 

Short Code Code Description Long Code & Button Title in Noldus UI 

ENT Subject enters room RmEntr 

REA Subject crosses ready line RdyLine 

DOC Subject hands paperwork to operator DocsGivn 

ORE Operator asks if subject is ready OpAskReady 

SRE Subject indicates he/she is ready SubjRdy 

HLO Left hand placed on scanner Left On 

HOF Subject removes hand(s) from scanner Hnds Off 

HRO Right hand placed on scanner Right On 

THU Subject places both thumbs on scanner Thmbs On 

END All three prints captured End Task 

ER1 Wrong hand placed on scanner E-WrongHand 

ER2 Hand lifted too soon E-EarlyLift 

ER3 General error E-General 

QUE Subject asks operator question Question 

REV Review tape at/around this time index ReviewTape 

RLO Red Light On ---------M-ROn 

GLO Green Light On ---------M-GOn 

ALO All Lights Off ---------M-LOf 

CSL Capture Start-Left Slap ---------M-CapSL 

CSR Capture Start-Right Slap ---------M-CapSR 

CST Capture Start-Thumbs ---------M-CapST 

CFR Capture Frame ---------M-CapF 

CEN Capture End ---------M-CapE 

CSS Capture Start Session ---------M-CapSS 

CES Capture End Session ---------M-CapES 

CHO Capture Hand(s) Off ---------M-CapHO 

CCA Capture Cancel ---------M-CapC 

CPR Premature Lift ---------M-CapP 

TCO Task correction ---------M-TskC 

INI Initialization ---------M-Int 

CTO Capture Time-out ---------M-CapT 

OST Operator skips task ---------M-CapSK 

MGE Generic MBARK event ---------M-Gen 

Table 14: Noldus Event Codes