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

False Memories01:18

False Memories

143
False memories represent a cognitive distortion in which individuals recall events that did not happen, or remember them in an altered form. This phenomenon highlights the brain's constructive nature in processing and recalling memories, emphasizing that memory is not a perfect representation of past events but rather a dynamic reconstruction influenced by various factors.
One primary source of false memories is misattribution, where individuals incorrectly associate external information...
143
Bonferroni Test01:10

Bonferroni Test

2.8K
The Bonferroni test is a statistical test named after Carlo Emilio Bonferroni, an Italian mathematician best known for Bonferroni inequalities. This statistical test is a type of multiple comparison test to determine which means are different than the rest. Bonferroni test can minimize the Type 1 error by reducing the significance level alpha, which otherwise increases with sample pairs.
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
2.8K
Errors In Hypothesis Tests01:14

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

4.5K
When performing a hypothesis test, there are four possible outcomes depending on the actual truth (or falseness) of the null hypothesis and the decision to reject or not.
4.5K
Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

4.0K
Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
4.0K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

286
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
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%...
286
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

6.4K
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
6.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2024
Same author

An algorithm for forensic toolmark comparisons.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2024
Same author

Human and machine similarity judgments in forensic firearm comparisons.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2022
Same author

Erratum To: Implementation of a Blind Quality Control Program in Blood Alcohol Analysis.

Journal of analytical toxicology·2021
Same author

Implementing blind proficiency testing in forensic laboratories: Motivation, obstacles, and recommendations.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2020
Same author

Public beliefs about the accuracy and importance of forensic evidence in the United States.

Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society·2020
Same journal

European exonerations: Factors and frequencies of wrongful convictions in Europe.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2026
Same journal

Detection and characterization of explosives and explosives residues: a review 2022-2025.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2026
Same journal

Explainable deep learning in bloodstain pattern analysis: A pilot study using convolutional neural networks with saliency maps.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2026
Same journal

Sally Clark: Trial and error by Judge and Jury.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2026
Same journal

Investigating interdisciplinary learning outcomes in a forensic science programme.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2026
Same journal

Interpol review of forensic paint, tape, and glass evidence 2022-2025.

Forensic science international. Synergy·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 11, 2025

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples
04:57

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples

Published on: April 25, 2025

594

The problem with eliminations: Why forensic comparisons need false negative rates.

Maria Cuellar1

  • 1University of Pennsylvania, Department of Criminology and Department of Statistics and Data Science, United States of America.

Forensic Science International. Synergy
|August 12, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Forensic firearm comparisons often overlook false negative errors from eliminations. This study highlights the need for rigorous validation and transparent error reporting for eliminations to ensure accuracy and prevent wrongful exclusions.

Keywords:
Black box studiesCategorical conclusionsComparisonContextual biasForensic scienceValidity studies

More Related Videos

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory
07:26

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Published on: January 31, 2017

38.3K
An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
07:36

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Published on: May 3, 2016

8.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 11, 2025

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples
04:57

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples

Published on: April 25, 2025

594
The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory
07:26

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Published on: January 31, 2017

38.3K
An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
07:36

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Published on: May 3, 2016

8.6K

Area of Science:

  • Forensic Science
  • Firearm and Toolmark Examination
  • Evidence Analysis

Background:

  • Recent forensic science reforms have prioritized reducing false positive errors.
  • Eliminations in firearm comparisons, often based on class characteristics or subjective judgment, lack sufficient empirical scrutiny.
  • The potential for false negative errors in eliminations is significant, especially in closed-pool suspect scenarios where they can act as de facto exclusions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine the overlooked risk of false negative errors in forensic firearm comparisons.
  • To advocate for the empirical validation and transparent error rate reporting of elimination conclusions.
  • To propose policy recommendations for improving the scientific treatment and legal interpretation of firearm comparison eliminations.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing validity studies on forensic firearm comparison methods.
  • Analysis of professional guidelines and government reports concerning forensic science practices.
  • Critical examination of the scientific basis for 'common sense' eliminations and the impact of contextual bias.

Main Results:

  • Many validity studies predominantly report false positive rates, neglecting false negative rates, leading to an incomplete assessment of method accuracy.
  • Professional guidelines (e.g., AFTE) and major reports (e.g., NAS, PCAST) often reinforce this asymmetry in error reporting.
  • Eliminations, particularly those based on intuitive judgments without empirical support, pose a significant risk of unmeasured error.

Conclusions:

  • Eliminations in firearm comparisons require the same rigorous validation and transparent error reporting as identifications.
  • The use of subjective or 'common sense' eliminations should be discouraged in favor of empirically supported methods.
  • Policy reforms are necessary to ensure balanced reporting of error rates and prevent the misuse of eliminations in legal contexts.