Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	Research	Needs Assessment Form

Title	of	research	need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date	Approved:

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

Background	information:

1.	 Description	of	research	need:

2.	 Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

3a.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	capabilities?

Reliability	and	validity	studies	need	to	be	conducted	on	current	methodologies	used	to	determine	

origin	and	cause.		New	methodologies	could	also	be	proposed	and	tested.		Existing	guidance	in	

NFPA	921	does	not	fully	address	uncertainty,	repeatability,	and	limitations	associated	with	current	

methodologies	used	to	determine	origin	and	cause.		There	is	a	need	for	comprehensive	statistically	

sound	assessments	of	current	methodologies.		

- NFPA	(2002)	Recommendations	of	the	Research	Advisory	Council	on	Post-fire Analysis	– A	White	Paper.	Fire	

Protection	Research	Foundation,	Quincy,	MA.	

-NAS	(2009).	Strengthening	Forensic	Science	in	the	United	States:	A	Path	Forward.		National	Research	Council:	

Washington,	D.C.

-NFPA	921	(2014).	Guide	for	Fire	and	Explosion	Investigations.	NFPA:	Quincy,	MA.	

-NFPA	1033 (2014).	Standard	for	Professional	Qualifications	for	Fire	Investigator.	NFPA:	Quincy,	MA.	

-Cox,	A	(2013).	Origin	Matrix	Analysis:	A	systematic	methodology	for	the	assessment	and	interpretation	of	

compartment	fire	damage.		Fire	and	Arson	Investigator,	64(1)	37-47.

-Gorbett	G,	Morris	S,	Meacham	B,	Wood	C	(2015).	A	New	Method	for	the	Characterization	of	the	Degree	of	Fire	Damage	

to	Gypsum	Wallboard	for	Use	in	Fire	Investigations.	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences	(60),	S193-S196,	doi: 10.1111/1556-

4029.12616 

-Mealy	C,	Gottuk	D	(2011).	Full-Scale	Validation	Tests	of	a	Forensic	Methodology	to	Determine	Smoke	Alarm	Response.		

Fire	Technology	(47)	275-289,	doi:	10.1007/s10694-010-0154-0

-Gorbett	G,	Meacham	B,	Wood	C,	Dembsey	N	(2015).	Structure	and	Evaluation	of	the	Process	for	Origin	Determination	

in	Compartment	Fires.	DOI	10.1007/s10694-015-0553-3.

The	research	would	quantify uncertainty,	repeatability,	and	limitations	associated	with	current	

methodologies	used to	determine	origin	and	cause.		The	research	could	lead	to	more	consistent	and	

accurate	methodologies.		

Validation	of	origin	and	cause	determination	protocols	

Validity,	reliability,	origin,	cause

Fire/explosion	investigation 1/28/16
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science Standards	Board	(FSSB)

3b.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

4.		Status assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	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.

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

The	research	would	provide	the	scientific	underpinnings	to	the	subcommittee	to	allow	a	credible	

proposal	to	be	submitted	to	the	NFPA	921	and	NFPA	1033 technical	committees to	enhance	future	

editions	of	those	documents.		

Previous	examples	in	fire	investigations	have	led	to	erroneous	conclusions	and	convictions	owing	

to	poor	methodologies	(Texas	v.	Willingham;	New	York	v.	Villabos,	et	al.).		There	is	a	lack	of	research	

on	the	validity	of	current	methodologies.		The	research	results	will	improve	the	reliability	and	

scientific	credibility of	incendiary	fire	determinations.

I
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science Standards	Board	(FSSB)

// Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.		Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need?				Yes				x 							No							⃝		

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment?				Yes					x 							No							⃝	

If	no,	what	is	the	status assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)

Subcommittee 1/28/16

SAC

5/6/2016