Human Factors Resource Committee

William Thompson, Chair
HFC ‘Mission’

To serve as a resource to 

OSAC Members on issues 

related to human factors.
Most important instrument in Forensic Science

• The human mind!
The Rise of 

“Cognitive 

Forensics”

...cognitive research is ... making 

important contributions to 

[forensic science] The challenge 

for our profession is to 

encourage cognitive scientists to 

assist us...

--Bryan Found, Australian J. Forensic Sciences

(2014)

4
Human 

Factors 

Committee 

Members

William C. Thompson, Ph.D., J.D., Professor emeritus of 

Criminology, Psychological Science, and Law, University of 

California Irvine, Committee Chair

Thomas David Albright, Ph.D., Professor, The Salk Institute 

for Biological Studies

Hal R. Arkes, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, emeritus, Ohio 

State University

Deborah Davis, Ph.D., Professor, University of Nevada, Reno

John F. Holloway, Associate Dean and Exec. Dir., Quattrone

Center for the Fair Administration of Justice, University of 

Pennsylvania

5
Human 

Factors 

Committee 

Members

Richard Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., Distinguished University 

Professor of Law, and Sociology, emeritus, University of 

Michigan

Erin Morris, Ph.D., Behavioral Sciences Research Analyst, Los 

Angeles County Public Defender

D. Michael Risinger, J.D., Professor of Law, emeritus, Seton 

Hall University School of Law

Dan Simon, J.D. Professor of Law and Psychology, University 

of Southern California, Gould School of Law, and Department 

of Psychology

6

Affiliates
HFC Activities

• Review and comment on proposed standards

• Work with Subcommittees on standards 

development

• Provide background; briefing on issues

--Presentations; discussions

--Bibliographies

--Academic Publications

--Possible OSAC Technical Publication

7
Special 

Concerns

--Reducing the potential for 

bias

--Assessing and improving 

examiner performance

--Improving communication 

with lay audiences

8
Bias

• Identifying risks

• Analyzing “task-relevance”

• Proposing mitigation 

procedures

• Sharing examples of good 

practices

• Engaging with labs on 

research
Publications by HFC Members and 

Affiliates on Management of Bias

• Thompson, W.C. & Scurich, N. How cross-examination on subjectivity and 

bias affects jurors’ evaluations of forensic science evidence. Journal of 

Forensic Sciences, 2019.

• Simon, Dan (2019) "Minimizing Error and Bias in Death 

Investigations," Seton Hall Law Review: Vol. 49 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. 

• Gardner, Kelley, Murrie & Blaisdell, Do evidence submission forms expose 

latent print examiners to task-irrelevant information? Forensic Science 

International (April 2019).

• Dror, I.E., Thompson, W.C., et al. (2015). Context management toolbox: A 

linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in 

forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4): 1111-1112.

10
Assessing Examiner Performance

•Why do it?

•Validation, quality assurance, 

training

•HFC Activities

•Standards development; 

background briefings

•Engaging with labs on research

11

Rairden, Garrentt, Kelley, Murrie & 

Castillo, Resolving latent conflict: What 

happens when latent print examiners 

enter the cage. Forensic Science 

International, August 2018. 
Proposed Technical Publication:

Validation and Performance 

Testing in Forensic Science

• Don’t Panic (NOT A STANDARD!!!!!)

• Merely tips and suggestions 

• Design, methods, analysis and reporting of research;

• Data gathering within labs

• Why do it? 

• Validation; quality assurance; training

• Engagement: OSAC-wide

• What if we don’t want to do it? 
Developing Standards for Reporting:

HFC Activities

• Sharing Information

• Promoting Research & Publication

• Interactions with CSAFE, labs, research 

community 

• Academic publications

• Developing Principles for 

Reporting

• Justifiability

• Transparency

• Understandability

Thompson, W.C. (2018). How 

should forensic scientists present 

source conclusions? Seton Hall Law 

Review, 48(3): 774-813. 

Thompson, W.C., Grady, R.H., Lai, E. 

& Stern, H. (2018). Perceived 

strength of forensic scientists’ 

reporting statements about source 

conclusions. Law, Probability & 

Risk, 17(2): 133-155.
Other Issues for HFC?

• Vicarious trauma

• Negative evidence

• Informed consent

• Personnel selection

• Stress, fatigue and performance

• Forensic ergonomics

• You tell us...

HFC, Annotated Bibliography on 

Secondary Trauma (HFC OSAC 

Website)

Thompson, W.C. & Scurich, N. 

(2018). When does absence of 

evidence constitute evidence of 

absence? Forensic Science 

International, 291 e18-e19.
We’re here to help...
Thank you

https://www.nist.gov/topics/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science