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:

The	study	of	human	factors	includes	focusing	on	how	humans	make	decisions.	Specific	to	Forensic	

Toxicology,	human	factors	relate to whether	cognitive	and	contextual	biases	play	a	role	in	how	a	

case	is	analyzed	and	conclusions	made.	Forensic	toxicologists	should	make	decisions	on	how	to	

analyze	a	case	and	draw	conclusions	from	task-relevant	information	(e.g.	empty	prescription	bottle	

found	next	to	a	decedent;	pre-determined criteria for	reporting	a	substance),	and	not	from	other	

task-irrelevant evidence	in	the	case	(e.g.	prior	convictions).	

Human	factors	areas	potentially	affecting	the	discipline	of	forensic	toxicology	include:	

• Case	information	(e.g.	what	information	is	relevant	and	what	is	not)

• Base	rate	bias	(e.g.	when	expectation,	not	the	data,	drive/mediate	the	decisions)

• Motivational	issues

• Fitness	for	duty	(e.g.	fatigue,	visual	acuity)

• Scientific	culture	and	group	dynamics

• Error management

Research	is	needed	to	determine	which,	if	any,	cognitive	and/or	contextual	biases	exist	in	order	to	

provide	guidance	to	laboratories	so	analyses	performed	are	not	subject	to	any	real	or	perceived	bias.	

Human	factors	should	be	considered	prior	to	any	document/procedure	approval	and	

implementation	by	a laboratory.

Research	is	also	needed	into	which facts	forensic	toxicologist	should	consider	(i.e.	task-relevant	

information)	and	which facts	they	should	not	consider	(i.e.	task-irrelevant	information)	when	

determining	how	to	proceed	with	testing	and/or	drawing	conclusions.	Further,	research	should	

focus	on	variability	of	potential	biases	based	on	the	case	type	(e.g.	suspected	impaired	driving	cases	

versus	a	death	investigation.)

Finally,	research	is	needed	into	effective	ways	to	address	cognitive	and	contextual	biases	so	as	to	

avoid	exposing	forensic	toxicologists	to	task-irrelevant	information;	e.g.	consider	how	case	

management,	sequential	un-masking,	or	other	context	management	procedures	might	be

implemented.		

Human	Factors	Toxicology

Cognitive	and	contextual	bias;	task-relevant	and	task-irrelevant	information

Toxicology pending
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

2.	 Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

3a.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

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?

Dror,	I.	E.,	&	Charlton,	D.	(2006).	Why	experts	make	errors.	Journal	of	Forensic	Identification,	56,	600–616.

Dror,	I.	E.,	Charlton,	D.,	& Peron,	A.	(2006).	Contextual	information	renders	experts	vulnerable	to	making	

erroneous	identifications.	Forensic	Science	International,	156,	174–178.	

Dror,	I.E.,	&	Rosenthal,	R.	(2008).	Meta-analytically	Quantifying	the	Reliability	and	Biasability	of	Forensic	

Experts.	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences,	53(4),	900-903.

Kassin,	S.M.,	Dror,	I.E.,	&	Kukcka,	J.	(2013).	The	forensic	confirmation	bias:	Problems,	perspectives,	and	

proposed	solutions.	Journal	of	Applied	Research	in	Memory	and	Cognition,	2:	42-52.

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

Risinger	DM,	Saks	MJ,	Thompson	WC,	Rosenthal	R.	(2006).		The	Daubert	⁄	Kumho	implications	of	observer	

effects	in	forensic	science:	hidden	problems	of	expectation	and	suggestion.	California	Law	Review,	

90:	1–55.

Stoel,	R.D.,	Berger,	C.E.,	Kerkhoff,W.,	Mattijssen,	E.,	and	Dror,	I.	(2015).	Minimizing	contextual	bias	in	forensic	

casework.	In.	Strom	K.	and	Hickman,	M.J.	(eds)	Forensic	Science	and	the	Administration	of	Justice.	

New	York:	Sage.

Thompson	W.C.	(2011).	What	role	should	investigative	facts	play	in	the	evaluation	of	scientific	evidence?		

Australian	Journal	of	Forensic	Science,	43(2-3):	123-34.

Results	from	Human	Factors	research	would	allow	laboratories	to	become	aware	of,	and	implement	

procedures	to	avoid,	discipline	specific	cognitive	and	contextual	biases.	Research	results	could	additionally

help	protect	laboratories	from	the	occurrence	of	cognitive	and	contextual	bias	(real	or	perceived).

Research	would	also	assist laboratory	management in	determining	which	context	management	

procedure(s) works	best	in	their	laboratory	environment.

It	is	the	charge	of	the	OSAC	Toxicology	Subcommittee	to	prioritize	and	draft	standards	and	guidelines for	

the	field	of	Forensic	Toxicology.	Research	into	Human	Factors	will	allow	the	Subcommittee	to	consider	how	

cognitive	and	context	management	procedures	might	be	implemented	in	their	standards	and	guidance	

documents	so	forensic	toxicologists	can	be	less	influenced	by,	or	take	steps	to	avoid	exposure	to, taskirrelevant	information.		

Research	into	Human	Factors	would	reduce	both	real	and perceived	biases	(e.g.	responding	to concerns	

raised	in	the	2009	NRC Report)	and	allow	for	an	increase	in	objective,	science	based	decision	making	in	

toxicology	casework.	Error	management	could	also	be	reduced	by	addressing	cognitive	biases	such	as	

analyst	and	reviewer	fatigue.
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

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

// Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.		Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need?				Yes					 							No							⃝		

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment?				Yes															No							⃝	

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.)

I

pending Subcommittee

SAC