Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

11.1K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
11.1K
Fundamental Attribution Error01:14

Fundamental Attribution Error

13.8K
According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is...
13.8K
Random Error01:04

Random Error

9.8K
Random or indeterminate errors originate from various uncontrollable variables, such as variations in environmental conditions, instrument imperfections, or the inherent variability of the phenomena being measured. Usually, these errors cannot be predicted, estimated, or characterized because their direction and magnitude often vary in magnitude and direction even during consecutive measurements. As a result, they are difficult to eliminate. However, the aggregate effect of these errors can be...
9.8K
Margin of Error01:27

Margin of Error

7.7K
The margin of error is also called the maximum error of an estimate. The margin of error is the maximum possible or expected difference between the observed sample parameter value and the actual population parameter value. For proportion, it is the maximum difference between the value of sample proportion obtained from the data and the true value of population proportion. As the true value of the population parameter is not known, the margin of error is calculated using the sample statistic.
7.7K
Standard Error of the Mean01:13

Standard Error of the Mean

12.5K
The sampling variability of a statistic is defined as how much the statistic varies from one sample to another. The sampling variability of a statistic is typically measured by measuring its standard error.
The standard error of the mean is an example of a standard error. It is a unique standard deviation known as the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of the mean. The standard error of the mean is a statistic that calculates how correctly a sample distribution represents a...
12.5K
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

385
Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
385

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Computed tomography as a solution to skeletal collection limitations: exploring cranial variation in the South African population.

International journal of legal medicine·2026
Same author

Transition analysis 3: New skeletal age indicators.

Forensic science international·2026
Same author

Transition analysis 3: Skeletal age estimation program.

Forensic science international·2026
Same author

Using a pet cemetery as a control study to optimise clandestine burial search in the Nordic region with insights into seasonal variation in vegetation, topography and temperature.

Forensic science international·2026
Same author

The Future of Forensic Anthropology Practice and Education: Competencies, Certification, and Licensure.

American journal of biological anthropology·2025
Same author

Sex estimation from humeral and femoral head diameters using CT-scans of living Finns.

Legal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 11, 2026

Scanning Skeletal Remains for Bone Mineral Density in Forensic Contexts
07:56

Scanning Skeletal Remains for Bone Mineral Density in Forensic Contexts

Published on: January 29, 2018

18.3K

Error quantification of osteometric data in forensic anthropology.

Natalie R Langley1, Lee Meadows Jantz2, Shauna McNulty3

  • 1Department of Anatomy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine Arizona Campus, 13400 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.

Forensic Science International
|April 27, 2018
PubMed
Summary

This study assessed osteometric measurement reliability for forensic analysis. Maximum lengths and midshaft diameters showed the lowest error, leading to updated measurement protocols in DCP 2.0.

Keywords:
Analysis of varianceCalipersForensic anthropologyForensic scienceObserver variationOsteometric

More Related Videos

Enhanced Genetic Analysis of Single Human Bioparticles Recovered by Simplified Micromanipulation from Forensic ‘Touch DNA’ Evidence
11:49

Enhanced Genetic Analysis of Single Human Bioparticles Recovered by Simplified Micromanipulation from Forensic ‘Touch DNA’ Evidence

Published on: March 9, 2015

16.7K
Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody
09:09

Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody

Published on: September 27, 2024

893

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 11, 2026

Scanning Skeletal Remains for Bone Mineral Density in Forensic Contexts
07:56

Scanning Skeletal Remains for Bone Mineral Density in Forensic Contexts

Published on: January 29, 2018

18.3K
Enhanced Genetic Analysis of Single Human Bioparticles Recovered by Simplified Micromanipulation from Forensic ‘Touch DNA’ Evidence
11:49

Enhanced Genetic Analysis of Single Human Bioparticles Recovered by Simplified Micromanipulation from Forensic ‘Touch DNA’ Evidence

Published on: March 9, 2015

16.7K
Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody
09:09

Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody

Published on: September 27, 2024

893

Area of Science:

  • Forensic Anthropology
  • Skeletal Biology
  • Bioanthropology

Background:

  • Osteometric data are crucial for forensic anthropological analyses.
  • Reliability of these measurements is essential for accurate case outcomes.
  • Previous measurement protocols may contain ambiguities or inconsistencies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of osteometric measurements used in forensic analyses.
  • To identify specific measurements with high variability and determine the sources of error.
  • To refine measurement definitions and procedures for improved accuracy and consistency in forensic skeletal analysis.

Main Methods:

  • Four observers performed 99 measurements on 50 skeletons, with each measurement taken 200 times per observer.
  • Statistical analyses included two-way mixed ANOVAs and repeated measures ANOVAs.
  • Relative technical error of measurement (TEM) was calculated to quantify interobserver and intraobserver variability.

Main Results:

  • Maximum lengths and breadths exhibited the lowest measurement error (TEM < 0.5).
  • Maximum and minimum diameters at midshaft were more reliable than positionally-dependent measurements.
  • Twenty-two measurements showed excessive variability, prompting revisions in the Data Collection Procedures 2.0 (DCP 2.0).

Conclusions:

  • The updated DCP 2.0 manual incorporates clarified definitions and omits unreliable measurements.
  • Maximum lengths and midshaft diameters are recommended for improved reliability in forensic skeletal analysis.
  • Standardized measurement protocols are vital for consistent and accurate forensic anthropological casework.