Search for: All records

Abstract Understanding practitioner preferences in method selection and reporting for skeletal sex estimation is a necessary step toward the standardization of biological profile estimation within forensic anthropological practice in the United States. To better understand the current state of skeletal sex estimation, an electronic survey was sent via omnichannel distribution methods, targeted to individuals practicing skeletal sex estimation in forensic anthropology. One hundred eighteen individuals responded, answering questions about their educational and training background, case experience, practices, and preferences for skeletal sex estimation, and preferences for future method development. Most respondents use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to estimate skeletal sex (99.0%) and employ multiple methods for casework. The pelvis was preferred for morphological approaches, and the Fordisc program [2005, FORDISC 3: Personal computer forensic discriminate functions] was preferred for metric approaches to skeletal sex estimation. Respondents placed emphasis on the validity and reliability of specific methods, their experience and comfort level with applying specific methods, and utilizing methods that did not require expensive equipment. There was considerable variation in how the final sex estimate was determined and reported, with most either giving preference to the pelvis (36.1%) or reporting all methods but basing the final estimation on experience (39.2%). These results were largely similar to the results from a similar survey conducted in 2012, including a preference for using the pelvis for morphological sex estimation; however, the introduction and adoption of new sex estimation methods since 2012 have changed the landscape of practitioner preferences. 

Abstract Sex estimation is a critical component of the biological profile, and forensic anthropologists may use a variety of sex estimation methods depending upon the degree of completeness and state of preservation of the skeletal remains being analyzed. The innominate is widely accepted to be the most sexually dimorphic skeletal element. TheDiagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste(DSP) method, which uses 10 measurements of the innominate, was introduced in 2005 and updated as DSP2 in 2017. While DSP2 has been reported to have high classification accuracy rates in studies of South American and European populations, the method has not been widely tested in US samples, and few US practitioners incorporate this method into their casework. The goal of this study was to test the reliability and accuracy of DSP2 using a large, modern sample from the US (n = 174). Two observers, blinded from demographic information associated with each specimen, collected the DSP2 metrics. Intra‐ and interobserver error analyses showed acceptable levels of agreement for all measurements, except for IIMT. Classification accuracies exceeded 95%, with minimal sex bias, for both observers and using various measurement combinations; however, an inclusivity sex bias occurred with more males reaching the 0.95 posterior probability threshold required by DSP2 to provide a sex classification estimate. Based on its high accuracy, forensic anthropologists in the US may consider incorporating DSP2 into their casework, although we recommend excluding IIMT and using SPU with caution. Additional methods will continue to be needed when the posterior probability threshold is not reached. 

Abstract The 1993 US Supreme Court decisionDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence,Daubertis frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in theJournal of Forensic Sciencesto assess why authors continue to citeDaubertand express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within theDaubertframework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles presentDaubertas a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However,Daubertwas intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of theDaubertdecision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial. 

As a core component of casework, methods for estimating the biological profile must meet current legal standards to be admissible as part of a forensic anthropologist’s expert witness testimony. Since the 1993 US Supreme Court Daubert decision, forensic anthropologists have voiced concern that methods relying on subjective or qualitative data might now be at risk of judicial exclusion. This research used a bibliometric approach to assess whether current forensic anthropology research has shifted toward the use of more objective and/or quantitative data. Forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 1972 and 2020 were reviewed (n = 1,142), with data collected on each article’s topic, use of different data types, and inclusion of observer error studies. A subset of articles focusing on methods for estimating the four main parameters of the biological profile (age, sex, ancestry/population affinity, stature) was analyzed using chi-square tests for trend in proportions. Age and sex estimation articles showed a significant shift toward more quantitative data (p < 0.001), although no biological profile subtopic showed a significant shift toward more objective data. While this may seem to be a surprising result, a deeper review of current legal standards and standards of practice suggests that Daubert does not require significant changes to how forensic anthropologists approach research design and method development. So long as the principles of good science are followed, the continued reliance on qualitative data should not be a concern from the standpoint of evidentiary admissibility.