Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

1 of 10

Document #4

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process for the 

Individualization in Friction Ridge Examination

(Latent/Tenprint)

REVISED DRAFT FOR COMMENT

1. Preamble

1.1. This document offers directions for articulating the decisions leading to individualization conclusions, 

which result from the examination of friction ridge evidence. This document takes into consideration the 

current status of professional practices, legal decisions, and scientific research. 

1.2. The intention is to bridge long-standing historical explanations, current criticisms of these practices, 

and a growing body of scientific and institutional support for constructive alternatives. 

1.3. This document presents a series of statements, in sequence, linked to one another. Together these 

provide an explanation and articulation of the foundation for current friction ridge individualization 

practice. An expanded section giving further explanation follows each statement. They are intended to 

be sequential and to build upon one another to present a coherent explanation of the examination 

process. They are not meant to stand-alone. Supporting references are provided and competent 

examiners should be aware of this material. The references cited are meant to be representative, not 

all-inclusive.

1.4. The level of presentation of the statements and explanations is one that can be made by any 

competent friction ridge examiner to non-practitioners (e.g., attorneys, jurors, or judges).

2. Overview of Statements and Explanations

2.1. Friction ridge skin is a complex, unique, and persistent morphological structure.

2.2. An impression of the features of friction ridge skin may result when a surface is touched. 

2.3. During analysis of a friction ridge impression, an examiner can detect features that would be expected 

to be present in another impression from the same area of friction ridge skin. 

2.4. The features detected during the analysis phase are then compared between two impressions. An 

examiner judges whether correspondence exists between these features.

2.5. As an examiner finds more features in agreement between two impressions, it becomes less likely that 

the set of features being used for comparison would be present in an impression from another source.
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

2 of 10

2.6. As more features are found in agreement during a particular comparison, an examiner’s confidence 

increases towards a level where a conclusion of individualization is possible. Prior to forming this 

conclusion, an examiner considers both the accumulation of corresponding features and the likelihood 

of observing these features in an impression from another source.

2.7. The examiner makes a decision to reach a conclusion of individualization.

2.8. The examiner must communicate the individualization conclusion in writing. This conclusion may be 

communicated later through oral testimony. The target audiences for these communications may vary 

by agency or situation.

3. Scientific Context for Current Practices in Friction Ridge Examination

3.1. Traditionally (for over 100 years) conclusions of individualizations were expressed differently, as an 

absolute identification: that this person did, in fact, make this impression, to the exclusion of all others 

in the world. As the practices of forensic science and of friction ridge examination have evolved, it is 

now recognized that our conclusions are more appropriately expressed as a decision, rather than 

proof. This decision is based on the support our findings provide to alternative possibilities (competing 

hypotheses). 

3.2. Methods that measure the quality and quantity of details in friction ridge impressions are a continuing 

focus of scientific research. 

4. Unique and Persistent Morphological Structures on Friction Ridge Skin

4.1. Statement

Friction ridge skin is a complex, unique, and persistent morphological structure.

4.2. Further explanation

Research, long-standing practice, and extensive practical application support the premise that the 

details present in the structure of friction ridge skin are unique to each individual. These also have 

shown that barring injury or disease, the essential features of this detail remain unchanged (except for 

growth) over the life of any individual. These aspects of friction ridge skin (uniqueness and persistence) 

are generally acknowledged and are part of what make impressions from friction ridge skin such a 

useful means to identify people. These premises are not points of contention.

4.3. Support for statement and explanation

4.3.1. Studies of individuality, persistence, and morphology: Babler (1979), Cummins and Midlo 

(1943), Hale (1952), Holt (1968), Lin, Liu et al. (1982), Maceo (2011), Montagna and Parakkal 

(1974), Okajima (1967), Okajima (1970), Okajima (1975), Srihari, Srinivasan et al. (2008), 

Wilder and Wentworth (1932), Wertheim (2011), Wertheim and Maceo (2002), Wilder and 

Wilder (1904).

4.3.2. Historical use for personal identification: Barnes (2011), Henry (1900), and Komarinski (2005).

4.3.3. Scientific studies of friction ridge specificity: Champod and Margot (1997), Chang and Srihari 

(2008), Egli (2009), Egli, Champod et al. (2007), Langenburg (2011), Langenburg (2012), 

Neumann, Champod et al. (2006), Neumann, Champod et al. (2007), Neumann, Evett et al. 

(2011), Neumann, Evett et al. (2012), Pankanti, Prabhakar et al. (2002), Stoney and Thornton 

(1986), and Stoney and Thornton (1987).

4.3.4. How a rule or law is generated in science: Langenburg (2011), Peirce (1877), and Peirce, 

Houser et al. (1992).

4.3.5. These premises are not points of contention: Cole (2009).
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

3 of 10

5. Transfer of Friction Ridge Features to Impressions

5.1. Statement

An impression of the features of friction ridge skin may result when a surface is touched. 

5.2. Further explanation

Contact with a surface may result in an impression of the friction ridge skin. The resulting impression is 

not a perfect recording of the skin itself, as it is subject to distortions and environmental effects. Each 

impression from the same area of friction skin will reproduce a subset of the skin’s discriminating 

features that will vary in appearance from other impressions from the same source skin.

5.3. Support for statement and explanation

Ashbaugh (1999), Maceo (2009), Vanderkolk (2009), and Vanderkolk (2011)

6. Features Expected in Other Impressions from the Same Source

6.1. Statement

During analysis of a friction ridge impression, an examiner can detect features that would be expected 

to be present in another impression from the same area of friction ridge skin.

6.2. Further explanation

Examiners trained to competency have demonstrated an ability to accurately detect reliable 

discriminating features such as ridge events, creases, and scars in friction skin impressions. Their 

ability has been demonstrated to surpass that of those who are untrained (i.e., novices). Even in highly 

distorted impressions, examiners are capable of accurately detecting these features. The focus is not 

only on the quantity of features available, but also on the clarity of the features. Examiner confidence in 

the reliability of the features increases with clarity. 

6.3. Support for statement and explanation

6.3.1. Busey and Parada (2010), Langenburg (2004), Langenburg (2012), Vanderkolk (2009), 

Vanderkolk (2011)

6.3.2. SWGFAST Document #10 (2013), Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and 

Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint), Ver. 2.0.

7. Features are Compared and Judgments on Correspondence are Made

7.1. Statement

The features detected during the analysis phase are then compared between two impressions. An 

examiner judges whether correspondence exists between these features.

7.2. Further explanation

A side-by-side comparison between two impressions determines whether the features are in 

correspondence or not. Correspondence is judged with respect to the features themselves and their 

relationship to one another among the ridge paths. The correspondence is not exact, but is determined 

taking into account tolerances that are influenced by distortions and other environmental effects.

7.3. Support for statement and explanation

7.3.1. Ashbaugh (1999), NIST (2012), and Vanderkolk (2011)

7.3.2. SWGFAST Document #10 (2013), Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and 

Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint), Ver. 2.0.
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

4 of 10

8. Increasing Agreement is Less Likely to Occur in Impressions from Other Sources

8.1. Statement

As an examiner finds more features in agreement between two impressions, it becomes less likely that 

the set of features being used for comparison would be present in an impression from another source.

8.2. Further explanation

8.2.1. As the number of features in agreement increases, an examiner’s confidence also increases 

that this set of features will not occur in friction ridge skin impressions from another source. 

8.2.2. The reason that the examiner’s confidence increases is that, as more features are found in 

agreement, the likelihood of finding these features (by random chance or coincidence) in a 

friction ridge skin impression from another source becomes more remote. 

8.2.3. The quantity of features is important; however, so is their clarity and specificity. Not all features 

carry the same weight. There are differences in both clarity and specificity. Features that are 

clearer carry more confidence that they are accurate representations of the actual friction ridge 

skin. Specificity of features (weighted value and rarity) differs due to their shape, type, spatial 

relationship, and location within the general pattern. Currently, specificity is assessed based on 

the examiner’s training and experience. Research continues to gather data supporting these 

assessments.

8.3. Support for statement and explanation

8.3.1. Ashbaugh (1999), Champod (1995), Champod (1996), Champod and Margot (1997), Dass, 

Zhu et al. (2005), Egli, Champod et al. (2007), Gutièrrez, Galera et al. (2007), Jain, Prabhakar 

et al. (2002), Chen and Jain (2009), Kryszczuk, Drygajlo et al. (2004), Lin, Liu et al. (1982), 

Neumann, Champod et al. (2006), Neumann, Champod et al. (2007), Neumann, Evett et al. 

(2012), Osterburg, Parthasarathy et al. (1977), Pankanti, Prabhakar et al. (2002), Roddy and 

Stosz (1999), Sclove (1979), Sclove (1980), Seweryn (2005), Stoney and Thornton (1986), 

Stoney and Thornton (1987), and Stosz and Alyea (1994).

8.3.2. SWGFAST Document #10 (2013), Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and 

Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint), Ver. 2.0.

9. Two Competing Hypotheses are Considered and an Examiner’s Level of Confidence is Approached

9.1. Statement

As more features are found in agreement during a particular comparison, an examiner’s confidence 

increases towards a level where a conclusion of individualization is possible. Prior to forming this 

conclusion, an examiner considers both the accumulation of corresponding features and the likelihood 

of observing these features in an impression from another source.

9.2. Further explanation

9.2.1. This part of the comparison is a balance between (1) the degree of correspondence between 

features shared by the two impressions and (2) the likelihood that those features would be 

observed in an impression from another source. To approach individualization, the magnitude 

of the balance needs to be such that the degree of correspondence is high and the likelihood 

that these features would be observed in another source is low. That is, taking into account any 

dissimilarities, the features in agreement must be both sufficiently clear, within tolerance, and 

sufficiently discriminating. 

9.2.2. When the two conditions above are satisfied, the examiner begins to approach the decision 

threshold beyond which individualization can be concluded. 
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

5 of 10

9.2.3. More formally, these two conditions are represented by two competing hypotheses. One

hypothesis is: The observed features in the unknown impression came from the same source 

as the impression being compared; the other hypothesis is: The unknown impression came 

from some other source. The degree of the correspondence of features (including both 

similarities and dissimilarities) allows the examiner to evaluate his/her findings under the first 

hypothesis. The specificity of the features allows the examiner to evaluate his/her findings 

under the second hypothesis. The framework of Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (ACE)

offers a mechanism for performing these evaluations. The weight of the evidence will to some 

degree support one hypothesis or the other. For an individualization conclusion, the support for 

the hypothesis of a common source would be overwhelming. 

9.3. Support for statement and explanation

Champod (2009), Evett (1987), Evett and Buckleton (1989), Fienberg and Finkelstein, (1996), 

Finkelstein and Fairley (1970), Lindley (1977), Wertheim (2000).

10. The Examiner Makes a Decision

10.1. Statement

The examiner makes a decision to reach a conclusion of individualization.

10.2. Further explanation

10.2.1. To make a decision of individualization, corresponding features must be in tolerance (with 

respect to their clarity and distortions) and there must be sufficient quantity and quality of 

features such that the expectation is that they would not occur in an impression from another 

source. 

10.2.2. Individualization is the decision by an examiner that there are sufficient features in agreement 

to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions originated from the same source. 

Individualization of an impression to one source is the decision that the likelihood the 

impression was made by another (different) source is so remote that it is considered as a 

practical impossibility. The decision is supported by demonstrable data and the application of 

Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) per the standards (SWGFAST

Document #10, 2013).

10.3. Support for statement and explanation

10.3.1. Risk is low: Gutowski (2006), Langenburg (2009), Langenburg, Champod et al. (2010), Ulery, 

Hicklin et al. (2011), and Tangen, Thompson et al. (2011)

10.3.2. Decision-making in forensic identification: Biedermann, Bozza et al. (2008)

10.3.3. SWGFAST Document #10 (2013), Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and 

Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint), Ver. 2.0.

11. The Examiner Reports the Decision

11.1. Statement

The examiner must communicate the individualization conclusion in writing. This conclusion may be 

communicated later through oral testimony. The target audiences for these communications may vary 

by agency or situation.

11.2. Further explanation

11.2.1. The use of SWGFAST terminology is recommended when reporting a conclusion. The 

SWGFAST document provides the community with standard definitions for currently accepted 

conclusions. 
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

6 of 10

11.2.2. The SWGFAST Individualization/Identification Position Statement (Document #103) states that: 

“The ability of a latent print examiner to individualize a single latent impression, with the 

implication that they have definitely excluded all other humans in the world, is not supported by 

research and was removed from SWGFAST’s definition of individualization.”

11.2.3. Specific words and phrases conveying absolute certainty are inappropriate or misleading and 

should not be used to express conclusions. Specific problematic phrases include:

11.2.3.1. Exclusion of all others

11.2.3.2. 100% certainty (as an absolute fact)

11.2.3.3. Zero error rate / infallible method

11.2.4. These concepts should rather be expressed as the conclusion of the examiner, based upon 

data observed and interpreted through the examiner’s training and experience. The examiner 

has a level of personal confidence associated with the accuracy and reliability of this 

conclusion; however, the accuracy and precision of this personal level of confidence cannot 

currently be measured and reported. For this reason, certainty should not be reported 

numerically or in absolute terms.

11.2.5. SWGFAST recognizes that reporting and testimony protocols differ among agencies; however, 

minimum reporting requirements as outlined in SWGFAST documents must be included.

11.3. Support for statement and explanation

11.3.1. SWGFAST Document #10 (2013), Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and 

Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint), Ver. 2.0.

11.3.2. SWGFAST Document #5 (2012), Standard for Reporting Friction Ridge Examinations

(Latent/Tenprint), Ver. 2.0.

11.3.3. Garrett (2009), National Research Council (2009), NIST (2012), The Fingerprint Inquiry (2011)

12. References

Ashbaugh, D. R. (1999). Qualitative-Quantitative Friction Ridge Analysis – An Introduction to Basic and Advanced 

Ridgeology. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Babler, W. J. (1979). Quantitative Differences in Morphogenesis of Human Epidermal Ridges. Dermatoglyphics –

Fifty Years Later. W. Wertelecki, C. C. Plato and N. W. Paul. New York, Alan R. Liss Inc. XV (N°6): 199-208.

Barnes, J. G. (2011). History. The fingerprint sourcebook. E. H. Holder, L. O. Robinson and J. H. Laub. 

Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Biedermann, A., S. Bozza, et al. (2008). "Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: Underlying logic 

and argumentative implications." Forensic Science International 177(2-3): 120-132.

Busey, T. A. and F. J. Parada (2010). "The Nature of Expertise in Fingerprint Examiners." Psychonomic Bulletin & 

Review 17(2): 155-160.

Champod, C. (1995). "Edmond Locard-Numerical Standards and "Probable" Identifications." Journal of Forensic 

Identification 45(2): 136-163.

Champod, C. (1996). Reconnaissance automatique et analyse statistique des minuties sur les empreintes 

digitales. Ph.D. PhD Thesis, Université de Lausanne.

Champod, C. (2009). Friction Ridge Examination (Fingerprints): Interpretation of. Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic 

Sciences. A. Moenssens and A. Jamieson. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons. 3: 1277-1282.
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

7 of 10

Champod, C. and P. Margot (1997). Analysis of Minutiæ Occurrences in Fingerprints – The Search for NonCombined Minutiæ. Current topics in Forensic Science – Proceedings of the 14th Meeting of the International 

Association of Forensic Sciences. T. Takatori and A. Takasu, Shunderson Communications, Ottawa. 1: 55-58.

Chang, S. and S. N. Srihari (2008). Generative models for fingerprint individuality using ridge models. Pattern 

Recognition, 2008. ICPR 2008. 19th International Conference on.

Chen, Y. and A. K. Jain (2009). Beyond Minutiae: A Fingerprint Individuality Model with Pattern, Ridge and Pore 

Features. 3rd IAPR/IEEE International Conference on Advances in Biometrics, Alghero, Italy, Springer-Verlag 

Berlin.

Cole, S. A. (2009). "Forensics Without Uniqueness, Conclusions Without Individualization: the New Epistemology 

of Forensic Identification." Law Probability and Risk 8(3): 233-255.

Cummins, H. H. and C. Midlo (1943). Finger Prints, Palms and Soles. Philadelphia, Blakiston.

Dass, S. C., Y. Zhu, et al. (2005). "Statistical models for assessing the individuality of fingerprints." Automatic 

Identification Advanced Technologies, 2005. Fourth IEEE Workshop on: 3-9.

Egli, N. M. (2009). Interpretation of partial fingermarks using an automated fingerprint identification system. PhD 

thesis in Forensic Science, University of Lausanne.

Egli, N. M., C. Champod, et al. (2007). "Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint 

identification systems--Modelling within finger variability." Forensic Science International 167(2-3): 189-195.

Evett, I. W. (1987). "Bayesian Inference and Forensic Science: Problems and Perspectives." The Statistician

36(2): 99-105.

Evett, I. W. and J. S. Buckleton (1989). "Some Aspects of the Bayesian Approach to Evidence Evaluation." 

Journal of the Forensic Science Society 29(5): 317-324.

Fienberg, S. E. and M. O. Finkelstein (1996). Bayesian Statistics and the Law. Bayesian Statistics. J. M. 

Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid and A. F. M. Smith. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 5: 129-146.

Finkelstein, M. O. and W. B. Fairley (1970). "A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence." Harvard Law 

Review 83(3): 489-517.

Garrett, R. J. (2009). Memo to IAI members. Metuchen, NJ, The International Association for Identification.

Gutièrrez, E., V. Galera, et al. (2007). "Biological variability of the minutiae in the fingerprints of a sample of the 

Spanish population." Forensic Science International 172(2-3): 98-105.

Gutowski, S. (2006). "Error rates in fingerprint examination: The view in 2006." The Forensic Bulletin(Autumn 

2006): 18-19.

Hale, A. (1952). "Morphogenesis of Volar Skin in the Human Fetus." American Journal of Anatomy 91(1): 3-43.

Henry, E. R. (1900). Classification and Uses of Finger Prints. London, Georges Routledge.

Holt, S. B. (1968). The Genetics of Dermal Ridges. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas.

Jain, A. K., S. Prabhakar, et al. (2002). "On the Similarity of Identical Twin Fingerprints." Pattern Recognition

35(11): 2653-2663.

Komarinski, P. (2005). Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS). New York, Elsevier Academic Press.

Kryszczuk, K. M., A. Drygajlo, et al. (2004). Study of the Distinctiveness of Level 2 and Level 3 Features in 

Fragmentary Fingerprint Comparison. Biometric Authentication. Berlin / Heidelberg, Springer. LNCS 3087: 124-

133.

Langenburg, G. (2004). "Pilot Study: A Statistical Analysis of the ACE-V Methodology - Analysis Stage." Journal 

of Forensic Identification 54(1): 64-79.
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

8 of 10

Langenburg, G. (2009). "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): 219-257.

Langenburg, G. (2011). Scientific research supporting the foundations of friction ridge examinations. The 

fingerprint sourcebook. E. H. Holder, L. O. Robinson and J. H. Laub. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Langenburg, G. (2012). A Critical Analysis and Review of the ACE-V Process. Doctoral Dissertation, University of 

Lausanne, Switzerland.

Langenburg, G., C. Champod, et al. (2010). Informing the Judgments of Fingerprint Analysts Using Quality Metric 

and Statistical Assessment Tools. S. R. Report, Midwest Forensic Resource Center. November 2010.

Lin, C. H., J. H. Liu, et al. (1982). "Fingerprint Comparison I: Similarity of Fingerprints." Journal of Forensic 

Sciences 27(2): 290-304.

Lindley, D. V. (1977). "A Problem in Forensic Science." Biometrika 64(2): 207-213.

Maceo, A. V. (2009). "Qualitative Assessment of Skin Deformation: A Pilot Study." Journal of Forensic 

Identification 59(4): 390-440.

Maceo, A. V. (2011). Anatomy and phyiology of adult friction ridge skin. The fingerprint sourcebook. E. H. Holder, 

L. O. Robinson and J. H. Laub. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice.

Montagna, W. and P. F. Parakkal (1974). The Structure and Function of Skin. London, Academic Press.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent 

Print Analysis (2012). Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems 

Approach. M. Taylor and S. Ballou. Gaithersburg, MD.

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

Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press.

Neumann, C., C. Champod, et al. (2007). "Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for 

Configurations of Any Number of Minutiae." Journal of Forensic Sciences 52(1): 54-64.

Neumann, C., C. Champod, et al. (2006). "Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for 

Configurations of Three Minutiae." Journal of Forensic Sciences 51(6): 1255-1266.

Neumann, C., I. Evett, et al. (2011). "Quantitative assessment of evidential weight for a fingerprint comparison. I. 

Generalisation to the comparison of a mark with set of ten prints from a suspect." Forensic Science International

207(1-3): 101-105.

Neumann, C., I. W. Evett, et al. (2012). "Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint 

comparison: a new paradigm." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A(175, Part 2): 371-415.

Okajima, M. (1967). "Frequency of Epidermal-Ridge Minutiae in the Calcar Area of Japanese Twins." American 

Journal of Human Genetics 19(5): 660-673.

Okajima, M. (1970). "Frequency of Forks in Epidermal-ridge Minutiae on the Finger Print." American Journal of 

Physical Anthropology 32(1): 41-48.

Okajima, M. (1975). "Development of Dermal Ridges in the Fetus." Journal of Medical Genetics 12(3): 243-250.

Osterburg, J. W., T. Parthasarathy, et al. (1977). "Development of a Mathematical Formula for the Calculation of 

Fingerprint Probabilities Based on Individual Characteristics." Journal of the American Statistical Association 72: 

772-778.

Pankanti, S., S. Prabhakar, et al. (2002). "On the Individuality of Fingerprints." IEEE Transactions on Pattern 

Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) 24(8): 1010-1025.
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

9 of 10

Peirce, C. S. (1877). "The fixation of belief." Popular Science Monthly 12: 1-15.

Peirce, C. S., N. Houser, et al. (1992). The essential Peirce : selected philosophical writings. Bloomington, 

Indiana University Press.

Roddy, A. R. and J. D. Stosz (1999). "Fingerprint Features – Statistical Analysis and System Performance 

Estimates." Proceedings of the IEEE 85(9): 1389-1421.

SWGFAST Document #10 (2013), Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting 

Conclusions, Ver. 2.0.

Sclove, S. L. (1979). "The Occurrence of Fingerprint Characteristics as a Two Dimensional Process." Journal of 

the American Statistical Association 74: 588-595.

Sclove, S. L. (1980). "The Occurrence of Fingerprint Characteristics as a Two Dimensional Poisson Process." 

Communications in Statistics – Theoretical Methods A7: 675-695.

Seweryn, P. (2005). "Frequency of Minutiae on Left and Right Hand Index Fingers [in Polish]." Problemy 

Kryminalistyki(247): 40-46.

Srihari, S. N., H. Srinivasan, et al. (2008). "Discriminability of Fingerprints of Twins." Journal of Forensic 

Identification 58(1): 109-127.

Stoney, D. A. and J. I. Thornton (1986). "A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Fingerprint Individuality Models." 

Journal of Forensic Sciences 31(4): 1187-1216.

Stoney, D. A. and J. I. Thornton (1987). "A Systematic Study of Epidermal Ridge Minutiæ." Journal of Forensic 

Sciences 32(5): 1182-1203.

Stosz, J. D. and L. A. Alyea (1994). "Automatic System for Fingerprint Authentication Using Pores and Ridge 

Structures." Automatic Systems for the Identification and Inspections of Humans 2277: 210-223.

Tangen, J. M., M. B. Thompson, et al. (2011). "Identifying Fingerprint Expertise." Psychological Science 22(8): 

995-997.

The Fingerprint Inquiry (2011). The Fingerprint Inquiry Report, APS Scotland.

Ulery, B. T., R. A. Hicklin, et al. (2011). "Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions." 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(19): 7733-7738.

Vanderkolk, J. (2009). Forensic Comparative Science: Qualitative Quantitative Source Determination of Unique 

Impressions, Images, and Objects. Burlington, MA, Elsevier Academic Press.

Vanderkolk, J. R. (2011). Examination process. The fingerprint sourcebook. E. H. Holder, L. O. Robinson and J. 

H. Laub. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Wertheim, K. (2011). Embryology and morphology of friction ridge skin. The fingerprint sourcebook. E. H. Holder, 

L. O. Robinson and J. H. Laub. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice.

Wertheim, K. and A. Maceo (2002). "The Critical Stage of Friction Ridge and Pattern Formation." Journal of 

Forensic Identification 52(1): 35-85.

Wertheim, P. A. (2000). "Scientific Comparison and Identification of Fingerprint Evidence." Fingerprint Whorld 

26(101): 95-106.

Wilder, H. H. and B. Wentworth (1932). Personal Identification – Methods for the Identification of Individuals 

Living or Dead. Chicago, The Fingerprint Publishing Association.

Wilder, I. W. and H. H. Wilder (1904). "The ventral surface of the mammalian chiridium : with special reference to 

the conditions found in man." Zeitschrift fü̈r morphologie und anthropologie 7: 261-368.
Document #4 Guideline for the Articulation of the DecisionMaking Process for the Individualization in friction Ridge 

Examination (Latent/Tenprint) REVISED DRAFT FOR 

COMMENT Ver. 1.0

Date of First Issue 03/13/13 Current Issue Date 03/13/13

Web Posting Date 04/27/13

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review N/A Appendix present/Letter No

10 of 10

13. Revision Table

Version Effective Start Effective End Posted Archived Change

1.0 03/13/13 N/A 4/27/13 N/A Original Issue – Revised Draft 

for Comment