RESUMEN
The data accessible here represents the training tool used with novice students prior to an assessment of their performance in a fingerprint matching task (Stevenage and Pitfield, 2016; Stevenage and Bennett, in preparation) [1,2]. The training tool was compiled following semi-structured interviews with practicing fingerprint experts within the UK (Stevenage and Pitfield, 2016) [1], and has been verified as being a useful summary document by a subset of these experts. Also provided are the performance data of trained student participants on a fingerprint matching task. This was undertaken under biased and unbiased contextual conditions, and under control conditions in which no contextual information was provided. These resources are provided here to enable the interested reader to extend analysis in this area through studying the performance of non-naïve participants, and to complete a meta-analysis across relevant studies.
RESUMEN
The data described here provide standard performance measures following administration of a fingerprint matching task to expert analysts, trained students and novice control participants. Measures include accuracy on 'same' and 'different' trials, and the associated measures of sensitivity of discrimination (d') and response bias (C). In addition, speed of correct response is provided. The provision of these data will enable the interested reader to conduct meta-analyses relating to questions of fingerprint expertise and fingerprint training (see "Fact or friction: examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis" (Stevenage and Pitfield, in press) [1]).
RESUMEN
Three studies are presented which provide a mixed methods exploration of fingerprint analysis. Using a qualitative approach (Expt 1), expert analysts used a 'think aloud' task to describe their process of analysis. Thematic analysis indicated consistency of practice, and experts' comments underpinned the development of a training tool for subsequent use. Following this, a quantitative approach (Expt 2) assessed expert reliability on a fingerprint matching task. The results suggested that performance was high and often at ceiling, regardless of the length of experience held by the expert. As a final test, the experts' fingerprint analysis method was taught to a set of naïve students, and their performance on the fingerprint matching task was compared both to the expert group and to an untrained novice group (Expt 3). Results confirmed that the trained students performed significantly better than the untrained students. However, performance remained substantially below that of the experts. Several explanations are explored to account for the performance gap between experts and trained novices, and their implications are discussed in terms of the future of fingerprint evidence in court.