Career Centers of Texas Forensic Science Extinction Research Paper Using the UMUC Library databases, you should identify a recent research article about fo

Career Centers of Texas Forensic Science Extinction Research Paper Using the UMUC Library databases, you should identify a recent research article about forensic anthropology, published within the last 6 months. You should research the topics discussed in the article thoroughly and then write a 3-4 page double-spaced paper. For this assignment, you need to: 1) summarizes the topics covered in the article, 2) summarizes the basic scientific principles underlying these topics, and 3) discusses the potential contribution of this study for forensic anthropology. Make sure to refer to the relevant concepts from the course learning.

Your paper should be around 3-4 pages (approx. 1,200 word minimum).
It should be double-spaced, with one-inch margins.
Please use in-text citations APA style.
List all documents cited in a Reference List at the end of your paper. APA style guides.
On your paper, type in your name, date, and the assignment topic.
Please number your pages.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Career Centers of Texas Forensic Science Extinction Research Paper Using the UMUC Library databases, you should identify a recent research article about fo
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

I’ve attached for research topics on this question. Please choose one of the articles.

Also I have attached the all of the articles citation info. Forensic Science International 297 (2019) 35–46
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forensic Science International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
Review Article
Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review
Glinda S. Cooper* , Vanessa Meterko
Innocence Project, 40 Worth St, Suite 701, New York, NY, 10013, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 2 August 2018
Received in revised form 20 December 2018
Accepted 8 January 2019
Available online 22 January 2019
The extent to which cognitive biases may in?uence decision-making in forensic science is an important
question with implications for training and practice. We conducted a systematic review of the literature
on cognitive biases in forensic science disciplines. The initial literature search including electronic
searching of three databases (two social science, one science) and manual review of reference lists in
identi?ed articles. An initial screening of title and abstract by two independent reviewers followed by full
text review resulted in the identi?cation of 29 primary source (research) studies. A critical
methodological de?ciency, serious enough to make the study too problematic to provide useful
evidence, was identi?ed in two of the studies. Most (n = 22) conducted analyses limited to practitioners
(n = 17), forensic science trainees (n = 2), or both forensic science practitioners and students (n = 3); other
analyses were based on university student or general population participants. Latent ?ngerprint analysis
was examined in 11 studies, with 1–3 other studies found in 13 other disciplines or domains. This set of
studies provides a robust database, with evidence of the in?uence of con?rmation bias on analysts
conclusions, speci?cally among the studies with practitioners or trainees presented with case-speci?c
information about the “suspect” or crime scenario (in 9 of 11 studies examining this question),
procedures regarding use of exemplar(s) (in 4 of 4 studies), or knowledge of a previous decision (in 4 of 4
studies). The available research supports the idea of susceptibility of forensic science practitioners to
various types of con?rmation bias and of the potential value of procedures designed to reduce access to
unnecessary information and control the order of providing relevant information, use of multiple
comparison samples rather than a single suspect exemplar, and replication of results by analysts blinded
to previous results.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords:
Forensic science
Cognitive bias
Con?rmation bias
Contextual information
Training
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of studies . . . . . .
3.1.
Synthesis of studies . . . . . . .
3.2.
3.3.
Evaluation of study methods
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Declarations of interest . . . . . . . . . .
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
36
37
37
37
42
43
43
43
44
44
1. Introduction
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gcooper@innocenceproject.org (G.S. Cooper),
vmeterko@innocenceproject.org (V. Meterko).
Cognitive bias is a broad term that includes a variety of
processes that may lead to inaccurate judgments or interpretations; cognitive biases can affect memory, reasoning, and decisionmaking [1]. Although the term may be interpreted with a negative
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016
0379-0738/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
36
G.S. Cooper, V. Meterko / Forensic Science International 297 (2019) 35–46
connotation, it is important to understand that these processes are
a natural consequence of the need to attune to patterns and
develop heuristics to process a variety of complex stimuli [2].
Con?rmation bias, described in 1998 [3] as “seeking or interpreting
evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations,
or a hypothesis in hand,” is one type of cognitive bias with the
potential to undermine the objective evaluation of forensic
evidence. This could arise, for example, by an unconscious focusing
of attention on similarities and away from dissimilarities because
of information about other evidence in a case, attributes of the
comparison procedures used, or from previous conclusions drawn
by another analyst.
Interest in the extent to which cognitive biases may in?uence
decision-making in forensic science has grown in the past decade;
this was one of the research needs identi?ed in the 2009 National
Academy of Sciences report on forensic sciences [4]. The topic has
been the focus of considerable discussion, as exempli?ed by the
2013 review by Kassin et al. [5] and the accompanying responses
[2,6–14]. Restricting access to task-irrelevant information and
controlling the order and time in which information is provided
have been proposed as methods to reduce the potential for bias
[15]. A recent survey of 403 expert forensic science examiners,
however, found a general lack of acceptance of the need for
procedures designed to minimize cognitive biases, and a failure to
recognize susceptibility to biases [16].
We conducted a scoping review [17] of the literature on
cognitive biases in criminal investigations and prosecutions to map
the landscape of the existing research (e.g., topics, populations,
variables), by the point in the criminal justice process being
addressed. Forensic science was one of the areas with the most
research relating to cognitive biases, and thus we focused on this
set of research for a more in-depth analysis. In this second phase,
we conducted a systematic review of the scope, design, and results
of the forensic science-cognitive bias research using a set of criteria
de?ned a priori. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the
basis for conclusions regarding the potential in?uence of
contextual bias and other forms of bias on decision making in
different forensic science disciplines
2. Methods
We began our review using PsycINFO and Social Sciences Full
Text, two electronic databases of social science articles, chapters,
books, and dissertations. Speci?cally, we searched for work with
the words (criminal or justice or police or investigation* or
forensic* or jury or juries or judge* or conviction*) in any ?eld (e.g.,
text, title) and (“cognitive bias” or “implicit bias” or “cognitive
dissonance” or “tunnel vision” or “con?rmation bias” or “interpretive bias” or “belief perseverance” or “asymmetrical skepticism”) in
any ?eld, which produced 890 results. Based on title and abstract
review by two independent reviewers, we identi?ed 92 seemingly
relevant abstracts, 20 of which pertained to forensic science. We
also reviewed the reference lists within the identi?ed forensic
science publications to identify additional relevant references. As
additional checks on the completeness of our search strategy, we
repeated the search using the PubMed database, and our list of
references was reviewed by three external researchers working on
different questions relating to forensic science and con?rmation
bias. The last review of the reference list was in July, 2018. At the
suggestion of a journal reviewer, we expanded our search to
include studies of the interaction of humans with technology and
databases, using a combination of search terms relating to bias,
technology, and database systems. This search strategy identi?ed a
total of 41 primary source publications pertaining to 36 studies.
This review focuses on studies of the decisions or conclusions
made in an analysis. Speci?cally, we searched for studies, in any
language, addressing the following questions: (1) Does contextual
or case information in?uence the results of an analysis? And (2)
Does expectation bias (i.e., comparison to a single sample versus
comparison to a set of samples; knowledge of a previous
conclusion) in?uence the results of an analysis? These were issues
that were frequently discussed in the commentaries and review
articles found in the literature search. We limited our review to
disciplines considered within the Organization of Scienti?c Area
Committees for forensic science (OSAC) [see https://www.nist.gov/
topics/forensic-science/scienti?c-area-committees]. This criterion
was an easily reproducible, objective method to de?ne the scope of
our review, and was broad enough to include a wide variety of
disciplines. This inclusion criterion resulted in the exclusion of 5
studies focusing on adversarial allegiance in forensic psychology
[18–21] or medical expertise in the context of medical malpractice
[22]. We included published studies and unpublished reports, but
excluded one citation for which a full text report was not available
[23]. Although all of the studies identi?ed were in English,
language had not been designated as an exclusion criterion. To
avoid duplication of data, we did not include a meta-analysis based
on two previous studies [24], but we did include the two
underlying studies in our analysis. These exclusions resulted in
a ?nal set of 34 primary source publications pertaining to 29
studies for review (Table 1).
A systematic review would typically include an evaluation of
the methods used in the identi?ed studies to determine the “risk
Table 1
Summary of 27 studies of con?rmation bias in forensic sciences.
Discipline or domain
N studies
Fingerprints
Forensic Anthropology
Bitemark
Bloodstain
Dog handling
DNA
Hair
Handwriting
8
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
Shoeprint
Speech (auditory evidence)
Toolmarks (bullets)
Crime scene investigation
Forensic pathology
Technology-human interactions
1
1
1
1
1
2
Participants
N samples
Variable(s)
5–70
27–107
38–99
178
27; 30
18
17
12
12–28
1 >300
20–96
1
15
12–16
8
1
4
6–30
12
145
6
58, 36
192
23–30
8
17
6
1
31
160–210
Case information, previous conclusion, comparison
procedures, emotion, complexity
Case information
Complexity, emotion
Case information
Case information
Case information
Comparison procedures
Case information, previous conclusion, comparison
procedures
Case information, complexity
Case information, complexity
Case information
Case information
Case information
Previous (technology-based) conclusion
(Type, N)
Practitioner
University students
practitioners, students
Dental students, other students
Practitioners
Practitioners
Practitioners
Forensic science trainees
Forensic science trainees,
practitioners, general population
Practitioners
University students
Practitioners
Practitioners, students
Practitioners
Practitioners, students
G.S. Cooper, V. Meterko / Forensic Science International 297 (2019) 35–46
of bias,” or the potential that methodological limitations would
affect the interpretation of the results. Evaluation methods have
been developed and used for randomized clinical trials and
observational studies in medicine [25,26], policy initiatives in
education, development, and other social sciences (see www.
campbellcollaboration.org), and environmental health [27,28].
We drew from this previous work four domains relating to the
internal validity of the study (allocation process or comparability
of groups, blinding of participants, blinding of other outcome
assessors, and analysis and reporting of results) and one domain
relating to external validity or generalizability (participant
eligibility and selection). The purpose of this evaluation was to
(1) provide descriptive information pertaining to the extent each
of these domains is addressed in this area of forensic science —
cognitive bias research, and (2) as is recommended in systematic
reviews, to identify attributes of the design (including implementation and analysis) that would be considered a critical
de?ciency, making the study too problematic to provide useful
evidence. Exclusions for critical de?ciencies can occur in the
identi?cation phase, through the delineation of speci?c exclusion
criteria (e.g., excluding clinical trials that did not involve
randomized allocation) [25] or in the evaluation phase, through
the inclusion of a “critical risk of bias” category for the domains
under review [26]. We began with a description of what would be
considered an ideal or target study design, as discussed by Sterne
et al. [26] and Hernán et al. [29]. We next considered design
attributes within each domain that would be considered a critical
de?ciency, and then developed examples for intermediate levels
(i.e., between “ideal” and “critical de?ciency”) of decisions or
information that would strengthen the study (Appendix). In this
way we were able to assess the studies’ methods on a spectrum
from ideal to de?cient, focusing on suggestions that could help
authors, and reviewers, strengthen the utility of research reports.
Critical limitations are noted in the summary of the studies. To
summarize the studies, we ?rst strati?ed by type of research
question addressed and discipline, and then abstracted the results
for review. All studies, including those conducted with university
student or general population participants, are included in the
tabular summaries (Tables 2–5), but the synthesis focuses on
studies of forensic science practitioners or trainees. We also
provide a summary of the areas of improvement we noted in the
study evaluations.
3. Results
3.1. Description of studies
The 29 forensic science-con?rmation bias studies identi?ed
through this search included 11 studies of ?ngerprint (latent print)
analysis, with 1–3 studies in each of 13 other disciplines or
domains (Table 1). Most (n = 22) conducted analyses limited to
practitioners (n = 17), forensic science trainees (n = 2), or both
forensic science practitioners and students (n = 3); other analyses
were based on university student or general population participants. Sample size was highly variable, ranging from 5 to 145
participants and from 1 to >300 samples to be analyzed per
participant. The studies examined the in?uence of various types of
case information or procedural details on decision-making; several
studies also examined the interaction between complexity and
case information. The two studies in the technology-domain
examined the in?uence of software generated information (i.e.,
position in AFIS candidate list or classi?cation using facial
recognition software) on decision-making [30,31]. After the initial
two studies were published in the 1980’s [32,33], almost twenty
years passed before the additional studies were conducted, with
most published since 2010.
37
3.2. Synthesis of studies
Studies examining the in?uence of contextual (case) information on decision-making are summarized in Table 2. Examples of
the type of information include information on whether there had
been a confession, results from other analyses, and other details
regarding the crime. Eleven disciplines are represented, most with
only one study, but there were three studies in forensic
anthropology [34–36]. Six experimental studies among forensic
science practitioners demonstrated the in?uence of either the
presence or absence of case information on analysts’ conclusions.
This included studies of analysis of DNA mixtures [37], ?ngerprints
[38], bloodstain patterns [39–41], dog handling [42], crime scene
investigation [43,44], and forensic pathology [45–47]. This effect
was also seen in three studies using participants with variety of
experience levels in forensic anthropology [34–36]. Two other
studies, in shoeprint analysis [48] and bullet analysis [49] did not
observe this type of in?uence. One study was considered to have
critical de?ciencies, due to the lack of comparability between
groups [50]. The most relevant data in this study was the
comparison among the 51 crimes against people among the 845
cases from 2009 to 2010, divided into 13 cases de?ned as high level
of contextual information and high level of interaction with
investigators and 38 cases with low levels of contextual information and low level of interaction with investigators. Residual
confounding by type of crime within this broad category is likely,
and there may be other differences between these groups that
were not assessed or addressed in the analysis.
Four studies examined procedures relating to the type of
exemplar or comparison sample(s) used in the analysis (Table 3).
Two studies examined use of more than one comparison sample in
microscopic hair analysis [33] and handwriting analysis [32]; the
hair analysis study compared use of a “line-up” of 6 samples to use
of a single exemplar, and the handwriting study compared a single
suspect with three possible suspect scenarios. In both of these
studies, the number of incorrect “identi?cation” decisions was
higher when only a single comparison sample was used. Two other
studies examined assessment of minutia or suitability decisions in
?ngerprint analysis made with and without a target exemplar
[51,52]. These two studies demonstrated an impact of a target
exemplar on decision-making, with a higher number of minutia
assessed with the presence of a target exemplar [51] and with the
presence of an exemplar, particularly a non-matching exemplar,
decreasing the correlation between the examiner’s decision and
the predetermined expert decision regarding suitability [52].
Six studies examined another procedural feature, speci?cally
the in?uence of knowledge of a previous decision, on an analyst’s
conclusions (Table 4); one of these wa…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Homework On Time
Calculate the Price of your PAPER Now
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Choose Us

Top quality papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional academic writers

We have hired a team of professional writers experienced in academic and business writing. Most of them are native speakers and PhD holders able to take care of any assignment you need help with.

Free revisions

If you feel that we missed something, send the order for a free revision. You will have 10 days to send the order for revision after you receive the final paper. You can either do it on your own after signing in to your personal account or by contacting our support.

On-time delivery

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & confidential

We use several checkers to make sure that all papers you receive are plagiarism-free. Our editors carefully go through all in-text citations. We also promise full confidentiality in all our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

You are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper. Our academic experts will gladly help you with essays, case studies, research papers and other assignments.

Admissions

Admission help & business writing

You can be positive that we will be here 24/7 to help you get accepted to the Master’s program at the TOP-universities or help you get a well-paid position.

Reviews

Editing your paper

Our academic writers and editors will help you submit a well-structured and organized paper just on time. We will ensure that your final paper is of the highest quality and absolutely free of mistakes.

Reviews

Revising your paper

Our academic writers and editors will help you with unlimited number of revisions in case you need any customization of your academic papers