FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, January 13, 2020 1

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Technical Review and Verification

Describe

the need:

The friction ridge community will benefit from research to determine the efficacy of both 

the technical review and verification processes. A major aspect of this research would 

compare blind and non-blind verification and their respective costs and benefits in terms of 

error reduction, time spent, and operational cost.

Keyword(s): technical review; verification; blind verification; non-blind verification; open verification

Submitting subcommittee(s): Friction Ridge Date Approved: June 27, 2022

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)

It may address issues in the current proposed Best Practice Recommendations for both technical review and 

verification, but no awareness of any current or planned standards dedicated to these topics.

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)?

N. Grilli, R. Heinrich, J. Black (2021). “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Blind and Non-Blind Verification in Latent 

Print Examination”, ongoing.

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)

OSAC - Best Practice Recommendations for the Verification Component in Friction Ridge Examination; 

AAAS, Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis- Latent Fingerprint Examination, (Report 

prepared by William Thompson, John Black, Anil Jain, and Joseph Kadane), September 2017. DOI: 

10.1126/srhrl.aag2874

T.A. Busey, I.E. Dror, Special Abilities and Vulnerabilities in Forensic Expertise, in: Scientific Working Group on 

Friction Ridge Analysis Study and Technology (SWGFAST) et al. (Ed.) The Fingerprint Sourcebook, National 

Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 15-11--15-23.

S.M. Kassin, I.E. Dror, J. Kukucka, The Forensic Confirmation Bias: Problems, Perspectives, and Proposed 

Solutions, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2 (2013) 42-52.
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, January 13, 2020 2

Black, J.P. “Is There a Need for 100% Verification (Review) of Latent Print Examination Conclusions?” Journal of 

Forensic Identification, 2012, 62 (1), 80 – 100.

Black, J.P. “Friction Ridge Examination (Fingerprints): Evaluating the Extent and Scope of “Verification” in 

Analysis Comparison Evaluation and Verification (ACE-V).” December 2010. In: WILEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF 

FORENSIC SCIENCE. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa1017

Glenn Langenburg, Christophe Champod and Pat Wertheim,3 B.A.“Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects 

During the Verification Stage of the ACE-V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons.” J Forensic 

Sci, May 2009, Vol. 54, No. 3 doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x

Glenn Langerburg. “A Performance Study of the ACE-V Process: A Pilot Study to Measure the Accuracy, 

Precision, Reproducibility, Repeatability, and Biasability of Conclusions Resulting from the ACE-V Process.” 

Journal of Forensic Identification; 59 (2), 2009 \ 219

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?

Determination of accuracy and reliability of forensic analyses and conclusions, including potential sources of 

error; Evaluation of the effectiveness of varied types of review and/or verification of casework, testimony, and 

investigative leads

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

A comparison of blind and non-blind verification will provide some meaningful data regarding the peer review 

process. Anticipated benefits and costs will provide guidance for friction ridge units to make informed decisions 

regarding the best verification approach for a given comparison or case. 

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

subcommittee(s)?

Peer review (e.g., verification) is an essential part of the scientific method that allows a subsequent competent 

practitioner to question and challenge the initial practitioner’s work product. It is anticipated that future studies 

will solidify the need for appropriate review of the friction ridge examination process to ensure that only 

conclusions that are properly supported by the available evidence are reported to the many and varied 

stakeholders. 

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

Data-driven benefits and costs will provide guidance for friction ridge units to make informed decisions 

regarding the best verification approach for a given comparison or case, which should lead to improved 

efficiency and quality.
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, January 13, 2020 3

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

I 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.