How do latent print examiners perceive proficiency testing? An analysis of examiner perceptions,performance, and print quality

Proficiency testing has the potential to serve several important purposes for crime laboratories and forensic science disciplines. Scholars and other stakeholders, however, have criticized standard proficiency testing procedures since their implementation in laboratories across the United States. Specifically, many experts label current proficiency tests as non-representative of actual casework, at least in part because they are not sufficiently challenging (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. In the current study, we surveyed latent print examiners (n = 322) after they completed a Collaborative Testing Services proficiency test about their perceptions of test items. We also evaluated respondents’ test performance and used a quality metric algorithm (LQMetrics) to obtain objective indicators of print quality on the test. Results were generally consistent with experts’ concerns about proficiency testing. The low observed error rate, examiner perceptions of relative ease, and high objective print quality metrics together suggest that latent print proficiency testing is not especially challenging. Further, examiners indicated that the test items that most closely resembled real-world casework were also the most difficult and contained prints of the lowest quality. Study findings suggest that including prints of lower quality may increase both the difficulty and representativeness of proficiency testing in latent print examination.     

Computer based testing – Bolls v. W. Scott Street,Sec'y of Va. Bd. of Bar Exmnrs., August 11, 2009, case no. 090915

The most significant change to law licensing in the United States is the recent¹ reliance on computer-based testing for the bar exam in all of the fifty states. The following comment piece is meant to inform the computer and technology law community how the use of testing software must necessarily be accompanied by additional procedural protections and corrective processes that may not have existed previously. Chief among these is the availability of discovery of the item in question, namely in this case the essays in a computer-based bar exam, which constitutes evidence that is essential to vindicating one's rights when a software failure occurs.     

Polygraph testing for deception in Australia: effective aid to crime investigation and adjudication?

Polygraph testing--or the monitoring and analysing of selected physiological measures of an individual who is being interviewed, for the purpose of detecting deception--is controversial in Australia. Considerable mythology surrounds this method of detecting deception. Embedded in popular perceptions of crime fighting and utilised in high-profile criminal cases in Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland, polygraph testing is also explicitly prohibited from being used in crime investigation in New South Wales. Unlike in the United States, polygraph testing has not hitherto routinely been used by government departments and authorities as a preemployment screening tool, but is increasingly being offered in the private sector in Australia. This article examines the current scope of polygraph testing in Australia, describes different approaches to testing, briefly reviews recent information relating to validity and evaluates State legislation prohibiting the use of polygraph testing for specified purposes in New South Wales. Consequent to the continuing controversy regarding the accuracy of polygraph testing in detecting deception (and, conversely, truth-telling), it is argued that the emerging use of polygraph testing is problematic and common law principles rendering the results of such testing inadmissible in court do not constitute sufficient safeguard against inappropriate and intrusive testing. Future research should identify specific polygraph testing techniques and consider the most socially beneficial way of regulating this emerging area of practice.     

Sexual offender’s experiences of polygraph testing: a thematic study in three probation trusts*

Post-conviction polygraph testing of sexual offenders is controversial and the use of the polygraph as a means of supporting supervision of sexual offenders has only recently been explored. This study quantitatively examined qualitatively offender managers’ and sexual offenders’ views on the mandatory use of the polygraph in a community-based supervision. Fifteen polygraphed offenders and their 10 offender managers (polygraph group), and 10 non-polygraphed offenders and their ten offender managers (comparison group) were asked about their experiences and perceptions of a mandatory polygraph use. Using thematic analysis, the results provided four main themes: (1) truth detection, (2) perceptions of behaviour change, (3) perceptions of polygraph as part of supervision, and (4) national implementation of polygraph testing. Results suggest several benefits to mandatory polygraph testing as a support for supervision, including offenders making more high-risk disclosures, motivating offender honesty, and aiding offenders’ compliance with licence conditions.