FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 1

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Evaluation of examiner conclusions utilizing a five-point scale

Keyword(s): source conclusions; inconclusive; error rate; AFTE Range of Conclusions, firearms and 

toolmarks

Submitting subcommittee(s): Firearms & Toolmarks Date Approved: March 5, 2021

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background Information:

1. Does this research need address a gap(s) in a current or planned standard? (ex.: Field identification system 

for on scene opioid detection and confirmation)

The AFTE Range of Conclusions defines five source conclusions which includes three descriptions of inconclusive; 

however, it is unclear how examiners practically apply the scale of inconclusive when comparing evidence. Past 

research has primarily focused on false positive and false negative error rates to determine the accuracy of 

examiners’ source conclusions. Research with an emphasis on all source conclusions, especially the range of 

inconclusive options, would assist in developing a better understanding of how examiners currently utilize and 

interpret the AFTE Range of Conclusions.

2. Are you aware of any ongoing research that may address this research need that has not yet been published 

(e.g., research presented in conference proceedings, studies that you or a colleague have participated in but 

have yet to be published)?

Unknown

3. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need: (ex.: Toll, L., Standifer, K. M., Massotte, D., eds. 

(2019). Current Topics in Opioid Research. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/978-2-88963-180-3)

• Bruce Moran, A Report on the AFTE Theory of Identification and Range of Conclusions for Tool Mark Identification 

and Resulting Approaches to Casework, AFTE Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2002. 

• David Baldwin, Stanley Bajic, Max Morris and Daniel Zamzow, A Study of False-Positive and False-Negative Error 

Rates in Cartridge Case Comparisons, Ames Laboratory USDOE Technical Report # IS-5207, April 2014. 

• Theory of Identification as it Relates to Toolmarks (including Range of Conclusions), AFTE Journal, Vol. 30, No 1, 

1998.

4. Review the annual operational/research needs published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/forensic-science-research-and-development-technology-working-groupoperational#latest? Is your research need identified by NIJ?

Yes, “Evaluation of qualified language of association along the continuum from investigative leads to definitive 

conclusions”
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 2

5. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

It is anticipated that this research would allow for universal application in laboratory procedures when reporting 

conclusions of comparative examinations.

6. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

Current laboratory practice varies in how inconclusive comparisons are reported. The AFTE Range of Conclusions 

classifies inconclusive as (A) some individual characteristics but insufficient for identification;

(B) insufficient agreement or disagreement of individual characteristics to make any determination; (C) some 

disagreement of individual characteristics, but insufficient for an elimination. It’s anticipated this research would 

provide insight into examiner decision making as it specifically applies to the inconclusive observations during a 

comparison. The Firearms and Toolmark subcommittee is drafting standards on firearm and toolmarks source 

conclusions and considering options (i.e. five-point scale vs. three point scale; inconclusive ranges, etc). This research 

would help guide the subcommittee with our standard development. This research could also help identify training 

that might be required to the firearms community as to the scale reporting or non-scale reporting of inconclusive 

comparisons.

7. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

The criminal justice system would benefit from a better understanding and a more universally applied standard of 

examiner conclusions and the articulation of those conclusions which would assist the trier of fact.

8. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): II

Major gap in 

current 

knowledge

Minor gap in 

current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research is 

being conducted I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted II IV

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.