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?

The	concept	of	“blind”	verification	is	not	new,	and	some	laboratories	have	undertaken	steps	to	implement	some	form	of	

verification	that	incorporates	the	concept	of	a	blind	verification.		However,	most	of	these	attempts	at	a	blind	verification	

are	not	truly	blind	since	doing	so	is	cost	and	time	prohibitive.		We	feel	it	would	be	of	interest	to	study	the	following	

concepts	around	the	overall	topic	of	Blind	Verifications:

-Is	there	a	difference	in	blind	verification	vs.	unblind	verification	(or	a	“second	read”)	results?

-Could	technology,	such	as	comparison	algorithms	and	virtual comparisons	be	used	in	a	blind	verification	analysis	

scheme?

-To	what	extent	does	a	verification	need	to	be	“blind”	and	if	so,	what	are	practical	methods	for	setting	this	up?

n/a

There	is	always	a	balance	to	be	found	between	casework	output	vs.	error	mitigation.		The	

subcommittee	recognizes	mistakes	can	and	do occur,	however	it	our	hope	this	research	will	help	

laboratories	as	well	as	the	subcommittee	make	well	informed	decisions	on	whether	blind	

verifications	are	required	for	the	firearms	and	toolmark	discipline.		

Blind	Verifications	Needs	Assessment

blind	verification,	firearms,	toolmarks,	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

In	better	understanding	to	what	extent blind	verifications	do	or	do	not	improve	the	overall	

reliability	of	firearm	and	toolmark	comparison	outcomes,	the	subcommittee	will	be	in	a	better	

position	for	recommending	and	writing	standards	with	regards	to	casework	documentation	

and	verification.

If	blind	verifications	are	shown	to	significantly	improve	the	outcomes	of	toolmark	comparisons,	

then	the	criminal	justice	system	will	be	improved	with	lower	error	rates	as	a	result	of	a	

requirement	for	blind	verifications.		If	blind	verifications	are	shown	to	have	no	significant	effect	on	

error	mitigation,	then	crime	laboratory case	output	will	be	higher	since	time	will	not	be	wasted	on	

an	unnecessary	quality	control	measure.

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					 ⃝	⃝		

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.)

2/9/16	via	Kavi	Ballot Subcommittee

SA

C

17-Mar-2016