False-Positive Error

2020 ◽  
pp. 839-840
Author(s):  
J. Rick Turner
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Positive Error ◽  
False Positive Error

Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Martire ◽  
Agnes Bali ◽  
Kaye Ballantyne ◽  
Gary Edmond ◽  
Richard Kemp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Forensic Sciences ◽  
Positive Error ◽  
False Positive Error ◽  
Reliability Estimates ◽  
Positive Report ◽  
Science Evidence ◽  
Science Disciplines

We do not know how often false positive reports are made in a range of forensic science disciplines. In the absence of this information it is important to understand the naive beliefs held by potential jurors about forensic science evidence reliability. It is these beliefs that will shape evaluations at trial. This descriptive study adds to our knowledge about naive beliefs by: 1) measuring jury-eligible (lay) perceptions of reliability for the largest range of forensic science disciplines to date, over three waves of data collection between 2011 and 2016 (n = 674); 2) calibrating reliability ratings with false positive report estimates; and 3) comparing lay reliability estimates with those of an opportunity sample of forensic practitioners (n = 53). Overall the data suggest that both jury-eligible participants and practitioners consider forensic evidence highly reliable. When compared to best or plausible estimates of reliability and error in the forensic sciences these views appear to overestimate reliability and underestimate the frequency of false positive errors. This result highlights the importance of collecting and disseminating empirically derived estimates of false positive error rates to ensure that practitioners and potential jurors have a realistic impression of the value of forensic science evidence.

Error Rates in Competency Testing When Test Retaking Is Permitted

1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huynh Huynh
Keyword(s):  
Conditional Probability ◽  
False Positive ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Rasch Models ◽  
Positive Error ◽  
False Positive Error ◽  
Competency Testing ◽  
Negative Error ◽  
False Negative Error

False positive and false negative error rates are studied for competency testing where examinees are permitted to retake the test if they fail to pass. Formulae are provided for the beta-binomial and Rasch models, and estimates based on these two models are compared for several typical situations. Although Rasch estimates are expected to be more accurate than beta-binomial estimates, differences among them are found not to be substantial in a number of practical situations. Under relatively general conditions and when test retaking is permitted, the probability of making a false negative error is zero. Under the same situation, and given that an examinee is a true nonmaster, the conditional probability of making a false positive error for this examinee is one.

Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability

2019 ◽  
Vol 302 ◽  
pp. 109877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy A. Martire ◽  
Kaye N. Ballantyne ◽  
Agnes Bali ◽  
Gary Edmond ◽  
Richard I. Kemp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Positive Error ◽  
False Positive Error ◽  
Science Evidence
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document