An exploratory analysis of decision-making in population affinity estimation among forensic anthropology practitioners in the United States

Population affinity estimation in forensic anthropology often involves the integration of multiple pieces of information, including visual (nonmetric) and metric data. This study examines how practitioners interpret and synthesize visual and metric information and their decision-making processes. A Qualtrics survey was developed using two cases: Case 1 presented clear nonmetric signal but ambiguous metric signal, while Case 2 showed more ambiguous nonmetric signal but clear metric signal. Practitioners were asked to estimate population affinity based on visual assessment, Fordisc data, and provide a final, integrated assessment. A total of 22 valid survey responses were received, with the majority of survey respondents reporting more than 10 years of forensic anthropology experience and holding a PhD degree. Results showed that there is substantial variability in Fordisc use and interpretation. Across both cases, participants synthesized conflicting visual and metric information, converged toward the stronger signal, and came to more consistent final estimates relative to the more ambiguous input. These findings highlight variability in practitioner decision-making but suggest that integration of nonmetric and metric information in population affinity estimation can moderate decision-making uncertainty. The results have implications for forensic anthropology education, training, and proficiency testing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science & Justice
Published
2026-08-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2026.101500
Primary Topic
Forensic and Genetic Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An exploratory analysis of decision-making in population affinity estimation among forensic anthropology practitioners in the United States

An‐Di Yim, Matthew Farley
Science & Justice
Forensic and Genetic Research
article

An exploratory analysis of decision-making in population affinity estimation among forensic anthropology practitioners in the United States

An‐Di Yim, Matthew Farley
article en

Abstract

Population affinity estimation in forensic anthropology often involves the integration of multiple pieces of information, including visual (nonmetric) and metric data. This study examines how practitioners interpret and synthesize visual and metric information and their decision-making processes. A Qualtrics survey was developed using two cases: Case 1 presented clear nonmetric signal but ambiguous metric signal, while Case 2 showed more ambiguous nonmetric signal but clear metric signal. Practitioners were asked to estimate population affinity based on visual assessment, Fordisc data, and provide a final, integrated assessment. A total of 22 valid survey responses were received, with the majority of survey respondents reporting more than 10 years of forensic anthropology experience and holding a PhD degree. Results showed that there is substantial variability in Fordisc use and interpretation. Across both cases, participants synthesized conflicting visual and metric information, converged toward the stronger signal, and came to more consistent final estimates relative to the more ambiguous input. These findings highlight variability in practitioner decision-making but suggest that integration of nonmetric and metric information in population affinity estimation can moderate decision-making uncertainty. The results have implications for forensic anthropology education, training, and proficiency testing.

Science & JusticeVol. 66(5)
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US), George Mason University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Forensic and Genetic Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.