• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic Resources

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Featured Articles / Results from a Black-Box Study for Digital Forensic Examiners

Results from a Black-Box Study for Digital Forensic Examiners

March 15, 2022 //  by Sarah Olson//  Leave a Comment

In Feb. 2022, NIST published the results of a study that looked at outcomes of mock mobile and hard-drive examinations by digital forensic examiners. 394 individuals registered for the mobile test, and 77 participants completed the mobile case study. 450 individuals registered for the hard-drive test and 102 participants completed the hard drive case study. Participation in the study was voluntary.

From my perspective, there was a lot of variation in the number of correct answers provided by participants. For the mobile case study, Figure 1 from the report shows the distribution of correct answers by number of participants. There were 24 questions total.

For the hard-drive case study, Figure 13 from the report shows the distribution of correct answers in the 24-question study.

The study attempted to look at the factors that would contribute to the results. Data was collected on participants’ workplace environment (including lab size, lab accreditation, and primary type of work), education, and work experience (including whether the participant works full time as a digital examiner, whether the participant has testified, how the participant was trained, whether the participant was proficiency tested, and whether the participant completed a digital forensic certification program). The study found that only attribute that correlated with improved score performance was the completion of a certification program.

So what should defenders do with this information? I think an important takeaway is that there is a lot of variation in the qualifications of examiners and the accuracy of the examinations that they perform. It makes sense for defenders to consider that complete information about the accuracy of examinations in this field is not known. The lack of error rates in this field is relevant for attorneys considering a 702/Daubert challenge to the foundational validity of this field.

Category: Featured ArticlesForensic Discipline: Digital Evidence

Previous Post: « “You’re Wrong About” Podcast on Junk Science
Next Post: Legal Aid Society of NY’s DNA Unit Presents Foundation of DNA Defense »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2023 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2023 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme