Interpretation, confidence and application of the standardised terms: Identified, Probable, Possible, Exclude and...

Forensic odontology identification scales are used to express certainty of identifications of deceased persons. These standardized scales are assumed to convey unambiguous expert opinions and facilitate communication between forensic odontologists and end users. However, to date no studies have investigated how the experts interpret and use these scales. Forensic odontology identification scales are used to express certainty of identifications of deceased persons. These standardized scales are assumed to convey unambiguous expert opinions and facilitate communication between forensic odontologists and end users. However, to date no studies have investigated how the experts interpret and use these scales. This paper aims to examine the interpretation of the DVISYS forensic identification scale and choices of the levels in the scale subsequent to, and derived from, comparison of pairs of dental radiographs by extending the analysis of the data collected in the study by Page and Lain et. al. 2017. The studied variables: self-reported confidence, forced binary decision of match and non-match, choice of level in the DVISYS scale (Identified, Probable, Possible, Insufficient and Exclude) were further analysed in this study using mixed models for relationships between the choices of level in the identification scale and the fundamental beliefs of likelihood of identification. The results of this further analysis showed that the reported confidence of the decisions was correlated to the difficulty of cases, and as confidence decreased the use of less definitive terms ('Probable', 'Possible' and 'Insufficient') increased. 'Probable' and 'Possible' were used mainly in underlying beliefs below that of 'Identified' whereas 'Insufficient' was used mainly to convey a sublevel of 'Exclude'. The use of 'Insufficient' in this study was not consistent with the prescribed definition of the term. The participants of the original study were not aware of the difficulty grading of the cases nor were required to grade them, however the reported confidence was systematically correlated to difficulty. Furthermore, indicated confidence level was correlated with choice of level on the scale in general, but the interpretation of the definition and application of the terms varied. The findings reported here contribute to the foundational knowledge of factors governing the interpretation and application of the DVISYS forensic odontology identification scale and suggest that this scale may need to be modified.