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	laboratory	capabilities?

A large scale study using a black box approach similar to the approach used in the cited reference. 

- Ulery BT, et al. “Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Print Decisions” 2011 108(19) pp. 7733-7738.

-Baldwin, D.P., Bajic, S.J., Morris, M., and Zamrow, D., "A Study of False-Positive and False-Negative Error 

Rates in Cartridge Case Comparisons", Ames Laboratory, USDOE Technical Report #IS-5207, April 7, 20014.

-The	“black	box	study”	of	latent	print	comparison	has	provided	the	general	scientific	community	a	

good	measure	of	the	overall	reliability	of	latent	print	comparison.		Additionally,	the	forensic	

science	discipline	of	latent	print	comparison	appears	to	have	learned	a	great	deal	of	what	type(s)	of	

errors	occur.		This	data	is	useful	for	the	design	of	analysis	protocols,	casework	documentation,	and	

validation.		While	validation	studies	of	firearms	and	toolmark	analysis	schemes	have	been	

conducted,	most	have	been	relatively	small	data	sets.		If	a	large	study	were	well	designed	and	has	

sufficient	participation,	it	is	our	anticipation	that	similar	lessons	could	be	learned	for	the	firearms	

and	toolmark	discipline.		

-In	conjunction	with	this	study,	it	is	our	hope	the	researchers	could	assess	examiner	experience,	

and	education	to	see	if	it	correlates	with	error	rates.		It	would	also	be	of	interest	to	include	a	

population	of	study	participants	with	zero	experience	as	a	comparison.		

Study to Assess The Accuracy and Reliability of Firearm and Toolmark 

Identification Examinations

black box, toolmarks, validation, firearms, forensic science

Firearms	&	Toolmarks 29Jan16
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

This	research	could	assist	the	subcommittee	understand	the	rate	of	errors	and	what	type	of	errors	

occur.		Additionally,	if	it	were	learned	that	additional	examination	or	validation	provided	

protection	against	these	errors,	the	subcommittee	would	have	better	information	for	writing	

analytical,	documentation	and	case	review	standards.

This	research	would	provide	additional	data	to	help	the	justice	system	asses	the	overall	error	rate	

of	the	firearm	and	toolmark	discipline	and	fulfill one	the	Daubert	criteria (error	rate).		

II
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

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status assessment?				Yes ⃝

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 2/9/16	via	Kavi	Ballot

SA

C

17-Mar-2016