Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025

Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 1: Examiner error rates
David P Baldwin1, Stanley J Bajic1, Max D Morris2
1Ames Laboratory US Department of Energy, 2416 Pammel Drive Ames, IA 50011-2416 USA.
Abstract:
This report describes a study undertaken to estimate examiner (not laboratory) error rates for false Identifications and false Eliminations when comparing an unknown to a collection of three known cartridge cases. Volunteer active examiners with Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) membership or working in laboratories that participate in the Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. In addition to determining whether the known and questioned cartridge cases were fired with the same handgun, examiners were also asked to assess how many of the three knowns in each set were suitable for comparison, providing an estimated rate of how often each firearm used in the study produces useable, quality marks. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false Eliminations was estimated as 0.367% from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as Eliminations. The overall rate of false Identifications was estimated as 1.01% from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as Identifications. The rates are not uniform across the sample population with a few examiners providing most of the false Identification responses. Rates of poor-quality mark production varied across the 25 sample handguns; those rates were 2.3% ( ± 1.4%). Both false Elimination and false Identification rates are comparable to or lower than the rate of production of poor-quality marks by the firearms used in this study.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling 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...
Contaminants and Errors
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
Statistical Analysis: Overview
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...

