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?

Some	studies	have	concluded	that	contextual	information	will	change	comparison	outcomes.		It	is	

of	interest	to	see	if	similar	results	are	observed	in	the	discipline	of	firearm	and	toolmark	

identification.		

-Kersthol J	et	al.	“Does	Suggestive	Information	Cause	A	Confirmation	Bias	in	Bullet	Comparisons”	

Forensic	Sci	Int,	2010	(1-3)	pp.	138-42.		

-Dror,	I.	Et	al	“Contextual	Information	Renders	Experts	Vulnerable to	Making	Erroneous	

Identifications”	Forensic	Sci	Int,	2006	(156)	pp	74-78.		

Research	indicates	that	contextual	information	may	influence	forensic	science	decisions	and	

conclusions.		The	majority	of	this	research	has	been	done	in	the	realm	of	fingerprint	comparison.		It	

would	be	interesting	to	know	if	other	disciplines	are	prone	to the	same	influence,	or	if	their	

analysis	schemes	and/or	nature	of	the	evidence	makes	the	more	or	less	prone	to	outside	influence.		

There	is	a	debate	about	how	much	information	examiners	should	be	given	access	to	during	their	

examinations,	and	what	information	is	actually	relevant	to	the	task	at	hand.		Having	more	research	

in	this	area	will	help	laboratory	management	make	intelligent	decisions	for	their	laboratory	

operations.		

Cognitive	Bias:	To	What	Extent	Does	it	Affect	Firearm	and	Toolmark	Comparison	Outcomes

bias,	firearms,	toolmarks,	task	relevant	information,	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

If	different	disciplines	are	more	or	less	prone	to	influence	from	outside	information,	the	

forensic	community	could	write	standards	that	were	better	targeted	for	their	disciplines.		Right	

now	there	is	a	“one	size	fits	all”	approach,	that	may	not	be	sufficiently	nuanced.

Additional	data	regarding	bias	and	what	types	of	information	does	and	does	not	influence	toolmark	

examinations	will	allow	for	more	robust	and	objective	examinations.		

III
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