Priority Action Report

Biology Data Interpretation and 

Reporting Subcommittee

Biology/DNA

Robyn Ragsdale, Ph.D.

February 13, 2017
Subcommittee Leadership

Position Name Organization Term Email

Chair Robyn Ragsdale, 

Ph.D.

FDLE 4 robynragsdale@fdle.state.fl.us

Vice Chair Mechthild Prinz, Ph.D. John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice 

3 mprinz@jj.cuny.edu

Executive 

Secretary

Catherine Grgicak, 

Ph.D.

Boston University 

School of 

Medicine

3 cgrgicak@bu.edu

2
Subcommittee Members

# Name Organization Ter

m

Email

1 Todd Bille ATF 3 todd.bille@atf.gov

2 Lisa Marie Brewer Glendale Police Department 3 lbrewer@glendaleca.gov

3 Michael Coble, Ph.D. NIST 4 mcoble@nist.gov

4 Kathleen Corrado, Ph.D. Onondaga County Center for Forensic 

Sciences

3 kcorrado@ongov.net

5 Julie French NetBio 4 Jlfren6@ande.com

6 Brian Higgins DFSC-USACIL 3 brian.p.higgins1.civ@mail.mil

7 Marla Kaplan Portland Metro Crime Laboratory 3 marla.kaplan@state.or.us

8 Rebekah J. Kay Utah Bureau of Forensic Services 4 rkay@utah.gov

9 Susannah C. Kehl FBI 3 susannah.kehl@ic.fbi.gov

10 Shawn Montpetit San Diego Police Department 3 smontpetit@pd.sandiego.gov

11 Steven Myers California Department of Justice Jan 

Bashinski DNA Laboratory

3 Steven.Myers@doj.ca.gov

12 Jeff Nye Michigan State Police 3 nyej1@michigan.gov

13 Beth Ordeman Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office 3 bordeman@co.pinellas.fl.us

14 Carl Sobieralski Indiana State Police Laboratory

Department

4 csobieralski@isp.in.gov

15 Christian G. Westring, Ph.D. NMS Labs 3 christian.westring@NMSlabs.com

16 Charlotte J. Word, Ph.D. Self Employed as a Private Consultant 3 cjword@comcast.net

17 Sandy Zabell, Ph.D. Northwestern University, Department of 

Mathematics

4 zabell@math.northwestern.edu

3
Affiliate Members

# Name Organization Email

1 Andrew P. McWhorter Texas Department of Public Safety andrew.mcwhorter@dps.texas.gov

2 Lynne Burley Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory lburley@crimelab.sccgov.org

3 James Curran University of Auckland j.curran@auckland.ac.nz

4 Sarah Lewis Colorado Bureau of Investigation sarah.lewis@state.co.us

5 Jerrilyn Conway FBI

6 Jennifer Honkanen Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory honkanenje@doj.state.wi.us

7 Jason Bundy Florida Department of Law Enforcement jasonbundy@fdle,state.fl.us

8 Susan Berdine Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory susan.berdine@denvergov.org

9 John Buckleton ESR john.buckleton@esr.cri.nz

10 Garett S. Sugimoto Kern Regional Crime Laboratory gsugimoto@co.kern.ca.us

11 Darren Wright Idaho State Police Forensic Services Darren.Wright@isp.idaho.gov

12 Kyra Groeblinghoff Saint Louis County Police Crime Laboratory kgroeblinghoff@stlouisco.com

13 Craig O'Connor NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner coconnor@ocme.nyc.gov

14 Melisa W. Staples New Hampshire State Police Forensic Laboratory mstaples@safety.state.nh.us

15 Jessica Charak Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department j14785c@lvmpd.com

16 Jody Koehler Texas Department of Public Safety Jody.Koehler@dps.texas.gov

17 Heather E. McKiernan The Center for Forensic Science Research & Education Heather.McKiernan@frfoundation.org

18 Debra Epstein Bright-Line Forensic Sciences debra.epstein@brightlineforensic.com

19

Joel Sutton

Defense Forensic Science Center - US Army Criminal 

Investigation Laboratory

joel.d.sutton2.civ@mail.mil

20

Kristen Fripp

Georgia Bureau of Investigation - Division of Forensic 

Sciences

Kristen.fripp@gbi.ga.gov

20 Erin Forry Boston Police Department Crime Laboratory Erin.forry@pd.boston.gov

22 Lisa Dziegielewski NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner ldziegielewski@ocme.nyc.gov

4
Biological Data Interpretation

and Reporting Subcommittee

This Subcommittee (formerly called DNA Analysis 

2) focuses on standards and guidelines related to 

forensic DNA laboratory interpretation. 

The Biological Data Interpretation and 

Reporting Subcommittee focuses on 

establishing best practices, guidelines, and 

standards for inclusion in the OSAC Registry. 

The goal is to foster quality and consistency 

within the forensic community through the 

standardization of scientifically valid methods 

of interpretation, statistical analysis and 

reporting of biological results. 

5
Additional Items of Interest

The following documents have been submitted to the Academy 

Standards Board:

• Standards for Validation Studies of DNA Mixtures and 

Development and Verification of a Laboratory Mixture 

Interpretation Protocol

• Validation Standards for Probabilistic Genotyping Systems

The following document has been submitted to the Biology/DNA 

SAC for final review:

• Best Practice Recommendations for Validation of Forensic DNA

Software 

6
Summary of Priority Projects

Priority OSAC 

Process Working Title of Document

1 SDO Standards for Forensic DNA Interpretation and Comparison 

Protocols

2 SDO Interpretation Protocol Self-Evaluation

3 SDO Formulating Propositions for Likelihood Ratios

4 SDO Standards for Reporting DNA Conclusions

7
Summary of Priority Projects

Priority OSAC 

Process Working Title of Document

5 SDO100 Standards for Reporting DNA Results Containing a Contaminant 

or Associated with a Failed Control

6 SDO100 Training Standards for DNA Data Interpretation (autosomal and 

Y; includes testimony and CODIS training)

7 SDO100 Statistical Interpretation

8 SDO100 Standards for Determining Analytical and Stochastic Thresholds

8
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 1 Document

Document Title: Standards for Forensic DNA Interpretation and Comparison 

Protocols

Scope: This document describes requirements for a laboratory’s DNA interpretation 

protocol. These standards were designed to provide direction to laboratories for the 

development of DNA mixture interpretation protocols. The goal is for the laboratory to 

consistently produce reliable and reproducible interpretations and conclusions that are 

supported by internal validation data.

Objective/rationale: Detailed and comprehensive DNA interpretation protocols are 

needed to ensure reliable and consistent interpretation and comparison of DNA profiles 

from single source and mixed DNA samples regardless of the possible variables 

affecting the profile. 

Issues/Concerns: Additional standards are needed for the development and use of 

laboratory protocols specifically for the interpretation and the comparison of DNA data 

for all areas of forensic DNA testing. 

.

Task Group Name: Mixture Interpretation 

Task Group Chair Name: Rebekah Kay

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

cjword@comcast.net or rkay@utah.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: December 2016

9
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 1 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

Specific requirements for a laboratory’s protocol for the 

interpretation and comparison of DNA profiles are provided. These 

requirements include defining assumptions that may be used, 

limitations of the interpretation methods and when profiles are 

unsuitable for interpretation based on the laboratory’s validation 

studies. Requirements for establishing a workflow to ensure data 

from evidence samples are interpreted prior to comparison to 

known reference data along with relevant documentation are also 

provided. 

10
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Complete adjudication of

comments received

SDO 200 Task Group February 15, 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format and Technical 

Merit Worksheet to SAC for 

final vote

SDO 300 Rebekah Kay March 15, 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale April 15, 2017

Priority 1: Standards for Forensic DNA Interpretation and Comparison Protocols

11
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 2 Document

Document Title: Interpretation Protocol Self-Evaluation 

Scope: These guidelines will focus on the requirement to periodically (annually or after a significant change in the protocols) evaluate the 

effectiveness of interpretation protocols. This includes monitoring of proper 

utilization of the lab's DNA interpretation protocol as well as consistency in 

data interpretation between analysts and/or between laboratories (multi- system labs). 

Objective/rationale: This will allow a laboratory to identify the effectiveness of its SOP, assess analyst drift as well as fill the gap in what the current 

proficiency tests do not provide relative to data interpretation.

Issues/Concerns: Current assessment processes such as proficiency tests do not address the effectiveness of an lab’s interpretation SOP and may not 

detect issues with inconsistent application or analyst drift.

Task Group Name: Interpretation Protocol Self-Evaluation 

Task Group Chair Name: Carl Sobieralski 

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

csobieralski@isp.in.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January 13,2017

12
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 2 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• Monitoring lab for consistency with lab protocols and between analysts

• - To fill the gap for what the proficiency tests doesn’t cover

• - Identifies effectiveness of procedures

• - Detects protocol drift

• - Monitor consistency between analysts

• - Would be from a data set (not from a sample starting from 

extraction)

13
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Finalize draft document SDO 200 Task Group June 2017

Provide draft document to all 

relevant parties

SDO 200 Carl Sobieralski July 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group September 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format to SAC for final 

vote

SDO 300 Carl Sobieralski November 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale December 2017

Priority 2: Interpretation Protocol Self-Evaluation 

14
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 3 Document

Document Title: Formulating Propositions for Likelihood Ratios

Scope: This standard will focus on establishing techniques for formulating the competing propositions required for the assignment of 

likelihood ratios for the evaluation of DNA typing results. It will include 

requirements and considerations that need to be addressed as part of the 

proposition selection process as well as address possible pitfalls for 

contextual bias. 

Objective/rationale: This standard will give guidance to laboratories on the proper formulation of likelihood propositions

Issues/Concerns: With the current trend to probabilistic genotyping, laboratories are switching to utilizing LRs and there is a need for 

guidance/education

Task Group Name: Formulating Propositions for Likelihood 

Ratios

Task Group Chair Name: Steven Myers

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

steven.myers@doj.ca.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January 13,2017

15
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 3 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• The assumption of contributors (use of knowns)

• Protocol for running more than one hypothesis 

• Establish criteria for when to reassess data

• Policy for additional calculations requests

• Policy on which calculations to report

• Hypothesis for multiple defendants

• Safeguard against bias

• Hypothesis needs to be based on the data

Currently the TG is comparing work practices and the theoretical basis for 

those approaches, and identifying possible standards including those in the 

literature as well as de novo suggestions. 

16
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Finalize draft document SDO 200 Task Group April 2017

Provide draft document to all 

relevant parties

SDO 200 Steven Myers June 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group August 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format to SAC for final 

vote

SDO 300 Steven Myers October 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale November 2017

Priority 3: Formulating Propositions for Likelihood Ratios

17
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 4 Document

Document Title: Standards for Reporting DNA Conclusions 

Scope: This standard or guidance document will focus on the proper terminology to be utilized in the report when addressing single source and 

mixture samples. The document will also address the need to report 

assumptions as well as the methods and detail required when reporting these 

assumptions. Commentary will also include the proper reporting of samples 

evaluated utilizing probabilistic genotyping.

Objective/rationale: To provide standards for reporting DNA conclusions in an attempt to unify the information provided by laboratories reporting DNA 

conclusions

Issues/Concerns: There exists a wide variety in terminology and content for how laboratories report DNA conclusions. This document seeks to provide a 

common framework for laboratories to report DNA conclusions.

Task Group Name: Reporting DNA Conclusions

Task Group Chair Name: Shawn Monpetit

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

smontpetit@pd.sandiego.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January 27, 2017

18
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 4 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

Utilizing the foundation documents listed below, this standard or guidance 

document should help in standardizing reporting formats.

FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards for DNA Testing Laboratories, 

ENSFI Reporting Guidelines, SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines 

2011/2017, and the Report Wording Suggestions document (available on 

STRBase) created by members of SWGDAM’s autosomal interpretations 

guidelines subcommittee.

.

19
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Review foundation 

documents 

SDO 100 Task Group January 27, 2017

Complete draft document SDO 100 Task Group June 2017

Provide draft document to all 

relevant parties

SDO 200 Shawn Monpetit July 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group September 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format to SAC for final 

vote

SDO 300 Shawn Monpetit November 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale December 2017

Priority 4: Standards for Reporting DNA Conclusions 

20
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 5 Document

Document Title: Standards for Reporting DNA Results Containing a 

Contaminant or Associated with a Failed Control

Scope: These standards are to be used by laboratories when the need arises to report a result from a sample that contains a contaminant or is associated 

with a failed control.

Objective/rationale: If a laboratory is required to report a sample with an issue, there needs to be a consistent way to address such samples. Currently 

there is no guidance on how to report samples if an issue of contamination or 

failed controls arises.

Issues/Concerns:. A DNA profile associated with a contaminant or a failed control may be reliable and exclude an individual, but this information is not 

being conveyed to the investigator or court. This raises concerns about 

proper Brady disclosure.

Task Group Name: Reporting DNA Results with Issues

Task Group Chair Name: Todd Bille

Task Group Chair Contact Information: todd.bille@atf.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January 2017

21
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 5 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

In many laboratories, if an evidence sample is associated with a failed 

control, the DNA profile and any comparisons to the profile are not 

made/reported. In addition, if the evidence profile is associated with 

contamination, the profile and any comparison to the profile may not be 

made/reported. For example, an analyst has obtained a two person 

mixture from a swab of a knife handle. After a search of the staff 

elimination database, the evidence technician that collected the knife 

cannot be eliminated as the minor contributor to the mixture. Based on 

laboratory policy, the analyst then reports that the staff hit and no further 

comparisons can be conducted. However, a reliable profile may have 

been developed from the evidence, but was not used for comparison 

purposes or reported. This standard will give guidance so that the 

unknown profile may be reported and comparisons made following the 

laboratory’s normal procedure, but with a caveat explaining the issue and 

that the evidence should be interpreted with caution. 

22
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Work on draft document SDO 100 Task Group March 2017

Provide draft document to all 

relevant parties

SDO 200 Todd Bille April 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group June 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format to SAC for final 

vote

SDO 300 Todd Bille August 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale September 2017

Priority 5: Standards for Reporting DNA Results Containing a Contaminant or 

Associated with a Failed Control

23
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 6 Document

Document Title: Training Standards for DNA Data 

Interpretation (Autosomal and Y)

Scope: To provide requirements in the form of several documents 

that ensure proper and consistent training in DNA Interpretation 

used within the forensic DNA community.

Objective/rationale: The purpose of these documents is to provide 

consistent training guidelines within the forensic DNA community

Task Group Name: STR Interpretation Training

Task Group Chair Name: Beth Ordeman

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

bordeman@co.pinellas.fl.us

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: December 16, 2016

24
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 6 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

This standard will consist of individual documents covering training in the 

following areas –

• Autosomal STR Interpretation 

• Autosomal Statistics

• Y-STR Interpretation and Statistics

• Report Writing

• Courtroom testimony

• CODIS

The documents will not address how to specifically perform the training 

but rather the minimal topics that need to be addressed within each of the 

above areas as well as provide a comprehensive list of resources to 

utilize in the training process.

25
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Work on initial drafts of all 

documents

SDO 100 Task Group Members 

Individually

February 1, 2017

Evaluate all draft documents SDO 200 Task group March 17, 2017

Provide draft documents to 

all relevant parties

SDO 200 Beth Ordeman April 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group June 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format and Technical 

Merit Worksheet to SAC for 

final vote

SDO 300 Beth Ordeman August-October

2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale SeptemberNovember 2017

Priority 6: Training Standards for DNA Data Interpretation (Autosomal and Y)

26
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 7 Document

Document Title: Statistical Interpretation

Scope: Description of existing methods and delineating appropriate 

areas of application 

Objective/rationale: State generally accepted methods and limitations 

for statistical analysis of single source and mixed DNA profiles

Issues/Concerns: Statistical calculations in the case of mixtures. 

Concerns have raised about the correction application of different 

statistical approaches for mixtures. Forensic science community is in 

transition regarding which approach to adopt and how to properly use it.

Task Group Name: Statistical Interpretation 

Task Group Chair Name: Sandy Zabell

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

zabell@math.northwestern.edu

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January 2016

27
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 7 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

Description of existing methods, and guidance on appropriate 

areas of application 

Note: SWGDAM recently approved updated Interpretation 

Guidelines (January 2017). The task group has two documents in 

progress: Standards for Statistical Analysis and Standards for 

Statistical Formulae. 

28
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Work on initial drafts of all 

documents

SDO 100 Task Group Members April 2017

Provide draft documents to 

all relevant parties

SDO 200 Sandy Zabell May 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group Members July 2017

Provide final document in 

ABS format and Technical 

Merit Worksheet to SAC for 

final vote

SDO 300 Sandy Zabell September 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale October 2017

Priority 7: Statistical Interpretation

29
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 8 Document

Document Title: Standards for Determining Analytical and Stochastic 

Thresholds

Scope: To provide requirements for establishing appropriate methods for 

determining empirically derived analytical an stochastic thresholds in DNA 

interpretation. The standard will describe a variety of methods for determining 

thresholds, including guidelines for validation and performance testing 

threshold values.

Objective/rationale: The purpose of this document it to provide a robust 

foundation for DNA interpretation in the forensic DNA community.

Issues/Concerns: Currently, threshold vary greatly from one laboratory to the 

next for the same chemistries and instrumentation. This leads to differences 

in allele calling, and ultimately, in the profile detected.

Task Group Name: DNA Thresholds group

Task Group Chair Name: Christian G. Westring, Ph.D

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

christian.westring@NMSlabs.com

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January, 2017

30
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 8 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

This standard will cover a number of analytical methods by which laboratories 

can evaluate thresholds. These methods will consider the following aspects of 

determining thresholds:

• Definition of instrument noise (industry standard)

• Definition of artifact and classes of artifacts

• Approaches to validation (sample types, reagents, etc.)

• Statistical approaches to determining thresholds 

• Thresholds as binaries vs continuums 

• How to handle signal below threshold

• How to isolate the variable of interest (e.g. stochastic variability in PCR)

• Statistical tools for evaluating data distribution patterns and empirical data 

sets

• Range of applicability (number of contributors, allele stacking, etc.)

31
Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Develop initial draft(s) of 

standard document

SDO 100 Task Group Members 

Individually

March 1st, 2017

Evaluate all draft document(s) SDO 100 Task group April 1st, 2017

Provide draft document(s) to 

all relevant parties

SDO 200 Christian G. Westring April 15th, 2017

Adjudicate comments 

received from all relevant 

parties

SDO 200 Task Group June 15th, 2017

Provide final document in ABS 

format and Technical Merit 

Worksheet to SAC for final 

vote

SDO 300 Christian G. Westring August 1st, 2017

Forward final document to 

ABS SDO

SDO 300 Robyn Ragsdale September 1st, 2017

Priority 8: Standards for Determining Analytical and Stochastic Thresholds

32
Research & Development Needs Identified

• Assessment of Specific Classes of Evidence Types to 

Determine the Necessity to Quantify DNA Before 

Amplification of Human Autosomal STR Loci

• Characterizing, Designing and Constructing Integrated 

DNA Mixture Interpretation Solutions

• Proficiency Testing for Complex Data Interpretation and 

Biostatistical Evaluations

• Software Solutions for Y-STR Mixture Deconvolution

33
34