Accuracy and reproducibility of forensic tire examination decisions.

Tire impression evidence can be a valuable tool during a crime scene investigation-it can link vehicles to scenes or secondary locations, and reveal information about the series of events surrounding a crime. The interpretation of tire impression evidence relies on the expertise of forensic tire examiners. To date, there have not been any studies published that empirically evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of decisions made by tire impression examiners. This paper presents the results of a study in which 17 tire impression examiners and trainees conducted 238 comparisons on 77 distinct questioned impression-known tire comparison sets (QKsets). This study was conducted digitally and addressed examinations based solely upon the characteristics of the tire impression images provided. The quality and characteristics of the impressions were selected to be broadly representative of those encountered in casework. Participants reported their decisions using a multi-level conclusion scale: 68% of responses were class associations (Association of Class Characteristics or Limited Association of Class), 21% were definitive decisions (ID or Exclusion), 8% were probable decisions (High Degree of Association or Indications of Non-Association), and 3% were neutral responses (Not Suitable or Inconclusive). Although class associations were the most reported response type, when definitive decisions were reported, they were often correct: 96% of IDs and 89% of Exclusions were consistent with ground truth regarding the source of the known tire in the QKset. Overall, we observed 4 erroneous definitive decisions (3 Exclusions on mated QKsets; 1 ID on a nonmated QKset) and 1 incorrect probable decision (Indications of Non-Association on a mated QKset). Decision rates were notably associated with both quality (lower quality questioned impressions were more likely to result in class associations) and dimensionality (2D questioned impressions were more likely to result in definitive decisions), which were correlated factors. Although the study size limits the precision of the measured rates, the results of this study remain valuable to the forensic science and legal communities and provide empirical data regarding examiner performance for a discipline that previously did not have any such estimates.

Accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of forensic footwear examiner decisions.

The interpretation of footwear evidence relies on the expertise of forensic footwear examiners. Here we report on the largest study to date of the accuracy, reproducibility (inter-examiner variation), and repeatability (intra-examiner variation) of footwear examiners' decisions. In this study, 84 practicing footwear examiners each conducted up to 100 comparisons between questioned footwear impressions (provided as photographs and digital images) and known footwear (provided as photographs, transparent test impressions, and digital images), resulting in a total of 6610 comparisons. The quality and characteristics of the impressions were selected to be broadly representative of those encountered in casework. A multilevel conclusion scale was used: 40% of responses were definitive conclusions (identification or exclusion), 14% probable conclusions (high degree of association or indications of non-association), 40% class associations (association of class characteristics or limited association of class characteristics), and 6% neutral conclusions (inconclusive or not suitable). On nonmated comparisons, 0.2% of conclusions were erroneous identifications (false positives), and 1.4% were incorrect responses of "high degree of association." The majority of erroneous identifications were made by a single participant. On mated comparisons, 6.0% of conclusions were erroneous exclusions (false negatives), and 1.8% were incorrect responses of "indications of non-association." Erroneous conclusions were sometimes reproduced by different examiners, but rarely repeated by the same examiner-1.1% of erroneous identifications were reproduced (none were repeated) and 19.9% of erroneous exclusions were reproduced (just one was repeated). Examiners' assessments of whether a questioned impression was suitable for comparison were notably inconsistent and may benefit from standardization. Rates of correct definitive conclusions are directly associated with the quality of the questioned impression and the extent of class similarities/differences between the questioned impression and known footwear.