A Hierarchy of Expert Performance

Expert performance can be quantified by examining reliability and biasability between and within experts, and teasing apart their observations from their conclusions. I utilize these parameters to develop a Hierarchy of Expert Performance (HEP) that includes eight distinct levels. Using this hierarchy I evaluate and quantify the performance of forensic experts, a highly specialized domain that plays a critical role in the criminal justice system. Evaluating expert performance within HEP enables the identification of weaknesses in expert performance, and enables the comparison of experts across domains. HEP also provides theoretical and applied insights into expertise.

[2]  I. Dror,et al.  The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. , 2013 .

[3]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners , 2012, PloS one.

[4]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them? , 2013, Psychological science.

[5]  Robert R. Hoffman,et al.  How Can Expertise be Defined? Implications of Research From Cognitive Psychology , 1998 .

[6]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[7]  V. Diwakar,et al.  Handover and note-keeping: the SBAR approach , 2010 .

[8]  C. Thomas,et al.  The SBAR Communication Technique: Teaching Nursing Students Professional Communication Skills , 2009, Nurse educator.

[9]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[10]  Laura Spinney,et al.  Science in court: The fine print , 2010, Nature.

[11]  L. Butt.  The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions—Commentary by a forensic examiner. , 2013 .

[12]  Law. Policy.  Executive Summary of the National Academies of Science Reports, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2009 .

[13]  I. Dror,et al.  Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[14]  I. Dror,et al.  The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  I. Dror,et al.  Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[16]  Dan Krane,et al.  Letter to the Editor— Context Management Toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  Itiel E Dror,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta‐analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[19]  B. Found.  Deciphering the human condition: the rise of cognitive forensics , 2015 .

[20]  William C. Thompson,et al.  Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation , 2009 .

[21]  Adam J. L. Harris,et al.  Fingermark submission decision-making within a UK fingerprint laboratory: Do experts get the marks that they need? , 2015, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[22]  David F. Feldon,et al.  The Implications of Research on Expertise for Curriculum and Pedagogy , 2007 .

[23]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Changes in latent fingerprint examiners' markup between analysis and comparison. , 2015, Forensic science international.