Unpacking workplace stress and forensic expert decision-making: From theory to practice

Workplace stress can affect forensic experts' job satisfaction and performance, which holds financial and other implications for forensic service providers. Therefore, it is important to understand and manage workplace stress, but that is not simple or straightforward. This paper explores stress as a human factor that influences forensic expert decision-making. First, we identify and highlight three factors that mitigate decisions under stress conditions: nature of decision, individual differences, and context of decision. Second, we situate workplace stress in forensic science within the Challenge-Hindrance Stressor Framework. We argue that stressors in forensic science workplaces can have a positive or a negative impact, depending on the type, level, and context of stress. Developing an understanding of the stressors, their sources, and their possible impact can help forensic service providers and researchers to implement context-specific interventions to manage stress at work and optimize expert performance.

Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners

Previously published methods for reducing the impact of cognitive bias in forensic decision making have focused primarily on actions at the laboratory or organizational levels. This paper presents generalized and specific actions that forensic science practitioners can take to reduce the impact of cognitive bias in their work. Practical examples illustrating ways that practitioners can implement many of the specific actions are also provided, along with some suggestions for handling court testimony about cognitive bias. The actions presented in this paper provide a means through which individual practitioners can take ownership for minimizing cognitive bias in their work. Such actions can provide supporting evidence to stakeholders that forensic practitioners acknowledge the existence of cognitive bias and its potential influence on their work, and they can also stimulate implementation of methods that focus on solutions at the laboratory and organizational levels.

Work-related stress amongst legal medical doctors: the need for systematic psychological support. An Italian perspective

Legal medical doctors (LMDs) expertise encompasses a wide range of responsibilities. Work-related stress amongst LMDs is an extremely relevant factor, which affects the quality of LMDs life and work. Whilst it is a better-known problem abroad, this issue is poorly debated in Italy, as demonstrated by this literature analysis. The aim of this paper is to better understand the main sources of stress in the practice of legal medicine in Italy, highlighting the need for systematic psychological support. The risks of work-related stress for the social and health professions are well known in literature. In Italy, however, due to a series of complex circumstances and cultural and research delays, forensic practitioners often seem to be excluded from these kinds of complex issues. The authors, after a series of considerations drawn from a review of the literature and from experience in the forensic and medical field, point out how work in this area entails risks for workers, on par with all others belonging to the helping and social-health professions. They conclude their contribution with a series of proposals for appropriate protocols to cope with such problems for workers in the forensic and medical field.

Key points

Work-related risks for the social and health professionals are widely recognized in the literature.Although legal medical doctors are often thought to be safe from these types of issues, significant risks exist for this category as well.It is important to create appropriate protocols to address outcomes for legal medical doctors.

Interpol review of forensic management, 2019-2022

This paper reviews and summarizes the forensic management literature from late 2019 to late 2022, covering laboratory strategic, tactical and operational decision-making, benchmarking, quality assurance, and managerial impacts from technological developments.

How to influence positive change? Managers' involvement as emotional architects in the solution for relieving forensic examiners’ workplace stress

This article responds to emerging research findings; forensic examiners are stressed in the workplace by their leaders who push them to improve performance to meet deadlines. Pushing employees causing them moderate stress was an acceptable practice to enhance performance while maintaining motivation. This is not true today! The same factors contributing to the stress of forensic examiners can decrease their stress, and this can be championed by managing employees' emotions. The skill and ability are critical for leaders to have, and these would assist leaders with effectively moving employees along the work continuum. In this opinion piece, I add to a lack of research regarding identification and to the understanding of the skills and abilities used during interpersonal regulation. I introduce the Emotion Regulation Skills-Abilities model (ERSA) developed, empirically grounded, and supported by current theoretical models. I demonstrate how focusing on developing supervisors' skills and abilities improve the workplace with practicing these skills. Leaders are the emotional architects who could positively assure a less stressful environment based on these efforts of being effective managers of other people's emotion.

The biasing impact of irrelevant contextual information on forensic odontology radiograph matching decisions

The potential biasing effect of irrelevant context information on the forensic odontology method of radiograph-based identification has never been empirically investigated despite being a recognized problem in other forensic science disciplines. This study examines the effect of irrelevant context information on the probability judgment of match (JOM) of practicing forensic odontologist and dentist participants who were asked to match pairs of dental radiographs supplemented with irrelevant case information. The irrelevant case information contained domain task-irrelevant context information which varied in strength (strong or weak). It suggested either supportive or contradictory bias relative to the actual match status of the radiograph pairs. The dental radiographs consisted of verified match and non-match radiographs pairs sampled and de-identified from actual forensic cases. Changes in accuracy and JOM between supportive and contradictory contexts conditions revealed a contextual bias. Mixed model analysis showed that strong supportive context increased the odds ratio of correct decisions by a factor of 2.4 [1.23, 4.46]; p = 0.0097. Consistent with the biasing effect, the JOM score differences between strong supportive and contradictory irrelevant context information were 1.03 and 0.43 respectively for the non-match and match decisions. The direction of context suggestion (p = 0.0067), the radiograph match status (p = 0.014), and their interactions (p = 0.0061), were all found to impact the participants' decision. The weak context information was not strong enough to have a significant effect on accuracy or JOM scores. This study demonstrates that radiograph match judgment is affected and can be biased by strong irrelevant contextual information.

Contemporary issues in forensic science-Worldwide survey results

Forensic science continues to be openly challenged and criticized. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of forensic workplaces and the perceived current and potential future issues from forensic scientists via a detailed survey. An online survey was designed and disseminated to forensic practitioners and researchers worldwide. 544 participants from more than 20 countries took part in the survey. Participants personally rated ten forensic disciplines with subjective methodologies, responded on a five-point Likert scale to 22 statements that addressed subjectivity and objectivity, validation and proficiency testing and error and bias and answered demographic questions relating to their workplace type, level of experience and qualifications. Participants also commented freely on forensic issues specifically important to them. The purpose of this paper is to provide the survey results and consensuses captured on several key issues. Overall participants believed forensic science must be valid and reliable and supported development of objective methodologies, validation and further investigation into the application statistics, use of error rates and implications of cognitive bias. Participants raised consensus concerns with the provision of expert evidence and other broader issues. This information and understanding from the forensic front line are essential for forensic science moving forward to best address current challenges and criticisms not only of forensic evidence for the court but for applications of forensic science beyond the courtroom.

Procedural Factors Influencing Forest Certification Audits: An Empirical Study in Romania

In the recent decades, forest certification based on third-party external audits has gained momentum. This type of certification has been developed as a monitoring tool aimed at improving governance in corporate environmental management and differentiating products in the increasing environmentally sensitive markets. Although the scholarly literature has extensively analyzed the adoption and dissemination of forest certification, the findings of the external audits and certification practices remain under researched. On the basis of the analysis of 105 audit reports issued by accredited third-party certification bodies in Romania, this article sheds light on procedural factors that have significant influence on the characteristics of non-conformities (NCs) identified by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) third party audits. Our research offers empirical evidence that certain procedural factors such as the type of assessment, auditing days, number of auditors, or the presence of foreign members in an audit team have a significant influence on the auditing process outcomes: number and grade of non-conformities, standard references, or methods of NC detection. The study opens interesting new lines of research—the influence of procedural or other types of contextual factors on certification outcomes—and provides indications on the effectiveness of the certification procedures and guidelines in certification process quality assurance.

Organizational and Human Factors Affecting Forensic Decision-Making: Workplace Stress and Feedback

Although forensic examiners operate in a stressful environment, there is a lack of understanding about workplace stress and feedback. These organizational and human factors can potentially impact forensic science judgments. In this study, 150 practicing forensic examiners from one laboratory were surveyed about their experiences of workplace stress, and the explicit and implicit feedback they receive. Forensic examiners reported that their high stress levels originated more from workplace-related factors (management and/or supervision, backlogs, and the pressure to do many cases) than from personal related factors (family, medical, and/or financial). The findings showed that a few (8%) of the forensic examiners sometimes felt strong implicit feedback about what conclusions were expected from them and that some (14%) also strongly felt that they were more appreciated when they helped to solve a case (e.g., by reaching a "match" as opposed to an "inconclusive" conclusion). Differences were found when comparing workplace stress and feedback levels across three core forensic science fields (forensic biology, chemistry, and latent prints) and across career stages (early, mid, and late). Gaining insights into the stress factors within a workplace and explicit and implicit feedback has implications for developing policies to improve the well-being, motivation, and performance of forensic examiners.

The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology

The impact of cognitive bias on decisions in forensic science has been demonstrated in numerous disciplines such as DNA and fingerprints, but has not been empirically investigated in the more objective domains, such as forensic toxicology. In the first experiment, participants (n = 58) were affected by irrelevant case information when analysing data from an immunoassay test for opiate-type drugs. In the second experiment, participants (n = 53) were biased in their choice of tests, for example, the age of the deceased impacted testing strategy: for older people, medicinal drugs were commonly chosen, whereas for younger people drugs of abuse were selected. Based on the results that examiners analyzing case data may have biases if they are given access to case context, we propose that examiners analysing presumptive test data are blind to irrelevant contextual information. Furthermore, that forensic toxicology laboratories use a consistent protocol for selecting tests, and that any deviations are documented and justified.

Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias

Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to "bad apples", experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.

The Error in "Error Rate": Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive

Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether improvement is needed, measuring whether interventions are effective, as well as for providing transparency. However, the flurry of activities in establishing error rates for the forensic sciences has largely overlooked some fundamental issues that make error rates a problematic construct and limit the ability to obtain a meaningful error rate. These include knowing the ground truth, establishing appropriate databases, determining what counts as an error, characterizing what is an acceptable error rate, ecological validity, and transparency within the adversarial legal system. Without addressing these practical and theoretical challenges, the very notion of a meaningful error rate is limited.