期刊名称：Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
印刷版ISSN：0027-8424
电子版ISSN：1091-6490
出版年度：2022
卷号：119
期号：32
DOI：10.1073/pnas.2119944119
语种：English
出版社：The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
摘要：Significance
Forensic handwriting examinations are a critical part of the criminal justice system, seeking to determine whether handwritten documents can be attributed to specific writers by comparison to known exemplars. This paper summarizes a 5-y research study designed to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic handwriting comparison decisions, which is important in assessing scientific validity for admissibility in court. Here we report the results of the largest-scale study yet conducted to measure the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of conclusions made by practicing forensic document examiners when comparing samples selected to span a range of quality, quantity, and attributes found in casework.
Forensic handwriting examination involves the comparison of writing samples by forensic document examiners (FDEs) to determine whether or not they were written by the same person. Here we report the results of a large-scale study conducted to assess the accuracy and reliability of handwriting comparison conclusions. Eighty-six practicing FDEs each conducted up to 100 handwriting comparisons, resulting in 7,196 conclusions on 180 distinct comparison sets, using a five-level conclusion scale. Erroneous “written by” conclusions (false positives) were reached in 3.1% of the nonmated comparisons, while 1.1% of the mated comparisons yielded erroneous “not written by” conclusions (false negatives). False positive rates were markedly higher for nonmated samples written by twins (8.7%) compared to nontwins (2.5%). Notable associations between training and performance were observed: FDEs with less than 2 y of formal training generally had higher error rates, but they also had higher true positive and true negative rates because they tended to provide more definitive conclusions; FDEs with at least 2 y of formal training were less likely to make definitive conclusions, but those definitive conclusions they made were more likely to be correct (higher positive predictive and negative predictive values). We did not observe any association between writing style (cursive vs. printing) and rates of errors or incorrect conclusions. This report also provides details on the repeatability and reproducibility of conclusions, and reports how conclusions are affected by the quantity of writing and the similarity of content.
