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?

(1)	Conduct	further	studies	to	measure	and	understand	the	influence	of	types	of	bias	during	the	

application	of	ACE-V	(Analysis,	Comparison,	Evaluation,	Verification).	(2)	Research	should	

demonstrate a	tangible	benefit	to	blind	verification	over	traditional	non-blind	verification.		There	

has	also	not	been	research	to	identify	which	types	of	comparisons	would	benefit	from	blind	

verification.		Research	should	compare	the	effectiveness	against	the	operational	cost. (3)	Research	

the impact	of	verifying only	identification decisions.	(4)	Research	is	needed that studies	whether

sequential	unmasking	reduces the	negative	effects	of bias	during	latent	print	examination.

Please	see	Appendix	“A”	for	a	normative	bibliography	related	to	this	research	topic.

For	a	comprehensive	and	informative bibliography	related	to	friction	ridge	examination	please	see	

Appendix	“B”:			The	2011	SWGFAST	response	to	the	Research,	Development,	Testing	&	Evaluation	

Inter-Agency	Working	Group	of	the	National	Science	and	Technology	Council,	Committee	on	

Science,	Subcommittee	on	Forensic	Science.		

There	is	a	general	belief	that	bias	adversely	affects	fingerprint	examination	decisions.		A	better	

understanding	of	how	bias	affects	the	examiner’s	daily	work will	ultimately	improve	both	quality	

and	efficiency	with	regard	to	maintaining	objectivity.		In	addition,	blind	verification	has	been	

suggested	as	a	means	of	reducing	errors;	however,	there	is	not	sufficient	research	to	show	how	

effective	this	technique	is.		There	is	an expectation	that	implementing	blind	verification	will

significantly increase	operational	cost.

ACE-V	Bias

ACE-V,	Bias,	Blind	Verification,	Standard	Operating	Procedures,	Examiner	Cognition

Friction	Ridge
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

Because	it is	unclear	what	types	of	examinations	are	affected	and	what	types	of	bias	have	the	

greatest	or	least	effect,	the	Friction	Ridge	Subcommittee	will	have	a	difficult	task	defining	

standards in	this	area.		It	is	important	for	these	committees	to	balance	the	utility	of	a	standard	

versus	the	cost	of	the	implementation.

Understanding	the	effects	of	bias	will	assist	the	criminal	justice	system	by	providing	a	foundation	

for	standard	operating	procedures.		Research	will	improve	efficiency	by	determining	when	blind	

verification	is	necessary.		It will	also	improve	confidence	in the	courts	and	public	regarding

fingerprint	examination	techniques.

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 01/29/2016

SA

C

17-Mar-2016
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

APPENDIX	“A”

Busey,		T.,		Yu,		C.,		Wyatte,		D.,		Vanderkolk,		J.,		Parada,		F.,		and	Akavipat,		R.,		"Consistency		and		

Variability		among		Latent	Print		Examiners		as		Revealed		by		Eye		Tracking	Methodologies",		Journal		of		

Forensic		Identification,		vol.		61	(1),	pp.	60-90,	2011.	

Busey,		T.		A.		and		Dror,		I.		E.,		"Chapter		15:		Special		Abilities		and	Vulnerabilities		in		Forensic		Expertise",		

in		The		Fingerprint	Sourcebook,		International		Association		for		Identification,		Ed.	

Washington		DC:		National		Institute		of		Justice,		2011,	http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225335.pdf.	

Busey,		T.		A.		and		Parada,		F.		J.,		"The		Nature		of		Expertise		in	Fingerprint	Examiners",	Psychonomic	

Bulletin	&	Review,	vol.	17	(2),	pp.	155-160,	2010.

Dror,	I.	E.,	Champod,	C.,	Langenburg, G.,	Charlton,	D.,	Hunt,	H.,	and	Rosenthal,		R.,		"Cognitive		Issues		in		

Fingerprint		Analysis:	Inter-		and		Intra-Expert		Consistency		and		the		Effect		of		a	

`Target'		Comparison",		Forensic		Science		International,		vol.	208	(1-3),	pp.	10-17,	2011.	

Dror,		I.		E.		and		Cole,		S.		A.,		"The		Vision		in		“Blind”		Justice:		Expert	Perception,		Judgment,		and		Visual		

Cognition		in		Forensic	Pattern		Recognition",		Psychonomic		Bulletin		&		Review,		vol.	17	(2),	pp.	161-167,	

2010.	

Dror,		I.		E.		and		Mnookin,		J.		L.,		"The		Use		of		Technology		in		Human	Expert	Domains:	Challenges	and	

Risks	Arising	from	the	Use	of		Automated		Fingerprint		Identification		Systems		in		Forensic	Science",		Law		

Probability		and		Risk,		vol.		9		(1),		pp.		47-67,	2010.

Dror,	I.	E.,	“The	ambition	to	be	scientific:	Human	expert	performance	and	objectivity”,	Science	&	Justice,	

vol.	53	(2),	pp.	81-82,	2013.

Dror,	I,	E.,	“Practical	Solutions	to	Cognitive	and	Human	Factor	Challenges	in	Forensic”,		Forensic	Science	

Policy	&	Management:	An	International	Journal,	vol.	4	(3-4),	pp.	1-9,	2013.

Dror,	I.	E.,	Kassin,	S.,	Kukucka,	J.,	“New	application	of	psychology	to	law:	Improving	forensic	evidence	and	

expert	witness	contributions”,	Journal	of	Applied	Research	in	Memory	and	Cognition,	vol.	2	(1),	pp.	78-81,	

2013.

Expert	Working	Group	on	Human	Factors	in	Latent	Analysis,	“Latent	Print	Examination	and	Human	

Factors:	Improving	the	Practice	through	a	Systems	Approach”,	U.S.		Department		of	

Commerce,	National	Institute	of	Standards	and	Technology,	Washington		DC,	2012.

Edmond,	G.,	Tangen,	J.,	Searston,	R.,	Dror,	I.,	“Contextual	bias	and	cross-contamination	in	the	forensic	

sciences:	the	corrosive	implications	for	investigations,	plea	bargains,	trials	and	appeals”,	Law,	Probability	

&	Risk,	vol.	14	(1),	pp.	1-25,	2015.
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

Fraser-Mackenzie,	P.,	Dror,	I.,	Wertheim,	K.,	“Cognitive	and	contextual	influences	in	determination	of	

latent	fingerprint	suitability	for	identification	judgments”,	Science	&	Justice,	vol.	53	(3),	pp.	144-153,	

2013.

Hall,	L.,	Player,	E.,	“Will	the	introduction	of	an	emotional	context	affect	fingerprint	analysis	and	decisionmaking?”,	Forensics	Science	International,	vol.	181	(1-3),	pp.	36-39,	2008.

Kassin,	S.,	Dror,	I.,	Kukucka,	J.,	“The	forensic	confirmation	bias:	Problems,	perspectives,	and	proposed	

solutions”,	Journal	of	Applied	Research	in	Memory	and	Cognition,	vol.	2	(1),	pp.	42-52,	2013.

Langenburg,		G.,		"A		Method		Performance		Pilot		Study:			Testing		the	Accuracy,		Precision,		Repeatability,		

Reproducibility,		and	Biasability		of		the		ACE-V		Process",		Journal		of		Forensic	

Identification,	vol.	59	(2),	pp.	219-257,	2009.

Langenburg,		G.,		Champod,		C.,		and		Wertheim,		P.,		"Testing		for	Potential		Contextual		Bias		Effects		

During		the		Verification	Stage		of		the		ACE-V		Methodology		When		Conducting	

Fingerprint	Comparisons",	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences,	vol.	54	(3),	pp.	571-582,	2009.

Pacheco,	I.,	Cerchiai,	B.,	Stoiloff,	S.,	“Miami-Dade	Research	Study	for	the	Reliability	of

the	ACE-V	Process:	Accuracy	&	Precision	in	Latent	Fingerprint	Examinations”,	National	Institute	of	

Justice,	Washington,	D.C.,		2014.

Swofford,	H.,	Steffan,	S.,	Warner,	G.,	Bridge,	C.,	Salyards,	J.,	“Inter- and	Intra-Examiner	Variation	in	the	

Detiction	of	Friction	Ridge	Skin	Minutiae”,	Journal	of	Forensic	Identification,	vol.	63	(5),	pp.	553-570,	

2013.

Ulery,		B.		T.,		Hicklin,		R.		A.,		Buscaglia,		J.,		and		Roberts,		M.		A.,		"A	Study		of		the		Accuracy		and		Reliability		

of		Forensic		Latent	Fingerprint		Decisions",		Proceedings		of		the		National	

Academy		of		Sciences		USA,		2011,	http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1018707108.

Ulery,	B.T.,	Hicklin,	R.A.,	Roberts,	M.A.,	Buscaglia,	J.,	Measuring	What	Latent	Fingerprint	Examiners	

Consider	Sufficient	Information	for	Individualization	Determinations.	PLoS	ONE	9(11):	e110179.	

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110179,	2014.

Whitman,	G.,	Koppl,	R.,	“Rational	bias	in	forensic	science”,	Law,	Probability	&	Risk,	vol.	9	(1),	pp.	69-90,	

2010.