Michele Triplett
PNW Examiner, Summer 2023
Many agencies use proficiency tests to establish continued competence of forensic practitioners.
However, the current discipline definition of proficiency may be measuring a different attribute than
competency.
By reviewing ISO definitions (see below),
proficiency measures the results of an individual or a laboratory in performing a task against
others who participated, regardless of the method used. Results are highly dependent on
procedures and equipment utilized.
competency measures the ability of an individual to apply knowledge and skills.
ISO Definitions
proficiency testing (ISO 17043 (2023) 3.7)
evaluation of participant (3.6) performance against pre-established criteria by means of
interlaboratory comparisons
participant (ISO 17043 (2023) 3.6)
person or organization that undertakes activities related to proficiency testing (3.7) and submits their
results for performance evaluation by the proficiency testing provider
competence (ISO 9001 (2015) 7.2 and ISO 17024 (2012) 3.6)
ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results
What knowledge is being applied? Does “ability to apply knowledge” mean that fingerprint practitioners
have knowledge of anatomy, embryonic development, variability of features and sufficiency to establish
an association between two impressions? Or does “ability to apply knowledge” mean that practitioners
have knowledge of what features can be used and the amount of features required to draft a well supported
conclusion? The latter has a direct correlation to the result whereas the former lacks a
connection with the resulting conclusion. The knowledge needed to arrive at a conclusion needs to be
well articulated to ensure appropriate testing. A valid exam will measure what is intended to be
measured.
When an agency uses proficiency tests to measure continued competency, the results are measured, not
the basis for the results. It may seem reasonable to extrapolate that if the answer is correct, then the
application of the method is correct; however, this is a false assumption. Answers may be correct
without appropriate application of a method. For instance, suppose someone is tested on their ability to
correctly perform CPR. Whether the patient survives or not (i.e., the result) is irrelevant to whether the
test taker appropriately used current procedures (e.g., post-2005, 30 compressions and 2 breaths).
Unauthorized procedures, such as using 15 compressions and 2 breaths, may produce the same result,
showing that competency cannot be judged by looking at results alone.
Conclusion:
Although it is common to confirm competency by using proficiency tests, it is an inappropriate
measurement. Competency should be measured by reviewing the basis for the conclusion. Proficiency
testing is then simply comparing the results reached with the results of others.
Does it matter? YES! It matters because competency is being inappropriately evaluated. For those who
have failed a test, this illustrates that failures do not indicate incompetence. The reason for failures is
unknown without performing a thorough root cause analysis, which is impossible without reviewing the
basis behind the conclusion. Perhaps the quality of one test was inferior to other tests. Perhaps the
method lacked specifics to apply it correctly. Perhaps the method was not clearly articulated to
practitioners. Perhaps the basis for the conclusion was correct but transferred to the answer sheet
incorrectly. Conversely, passing an exam may not indicate competence if an examination is so easy that
those without knowledge can score above 90% (Max, et al., JFI 2019, vol. 69 (3), pgs. 281-298).
In order to fix a problem, we have to recognize a problem exists.
Michele Triplett, BS, CLPE
[email protected]
Michele Triplett is the Forensic Operation Manager/Quality Manager for the King County Regional AFIS
Program in Seattle, WA. She is a Certified Latent Print Examiner and holds a BS in Mathematics and
Statistical Analysis. She has been employed in the friction ridge identification discipline since 1991 and is
actively involved with several organizations, committees, and educational events. She currently serves
as the Director of the IAI Certification Programs and as the secretary for the Academy Standards Board
Friction Ridge Consensus Body. Ms. Triplett teaches classes on scientific principles, has developed a
method for measuring the complexity of pattern evidence comparisons, and has authored the
‘Fingerprint Dictionary’.
