I FAILED THE IAI RE-CERTIFICATION TEST

[Ducky]

The cert and re-cert test should prove competency, not proficient ability which is part of the original certification testing.

The question is on re-cert, can you apply principles to reach valid conclusions based upon accepted decision making models?

Varying degrees of ability and speed of comparison is a subjective standard that should not to be measured. Where to find the mate area of a comparison is a timely endeavor to reach conclusion of absolute ID or exclusion. There is the unknown conclusion of I cannot find it in the real world of inconclusive.

I am happy to have let my certification lapse due to retirement so I do not have to go from the ridiculous EASY re-cert to the ridiculous current re-cert process. The IAI is building a sunset obsolescence into this program.

[Ernie Hamm]

Retirement is WONDERFUL!!!

[Dr. Borracho]

The IAI Latent Print Certification program was created to fill a need in identifying competent latent print examiners so that the customers of latent print services would have an indication on whom they could rely for reliable latent print examinations. When the IAI created the latent print certification program, there was no such thing as laboratory accreditation. It would be a full decade before ASCLD-LAB began certifying crime laboratories.

Now, latent print services are commonly provided by accredited laboratories. These crime labs have their own quality control and assurance policies to ensure that their examinations are accurate and reliable.

If the certification program is no longer living up to its original vision, one could hardly blame accredited laboratories for assuming control of quality latent print examination services without reference to individual latent print examiner certification. With all of the quality control policies in effect in most labs, certification is redundant anyway when it comes to establishing the expertise of the latent print examiners.

One has to ask whether certification is of any benefit in an accredited laboratory.

[Bill Schade]

When you step back and look at the big picture, that is a good point.

"But we have always done it that way" is not justification for continuing a practice.

Perhaps accredited labs will move in that direction if certification of practitioners becomes problematic. Or if they see no real benefit to the ultimate quality of the work.

[ER]

This is absolute insanity. I have personally seen dozens of agencies make progress out of the antiquated system where:
a) examiners were forced to choose ID, Exclusion, or Need Better Knowns;
b) one erroneous exclusion removed you from casework; and
c) every comparison has one and exactly ONE right answer.

It is extremely discouraging to see the IAI forcing its members back into this system, especially when more and more of the examiners taking the test are operating in labs with protocols at odds with the re-certification test.

Here are my thoughts on how to fix this problem (for what they're worth).

- The IAI Certification test, Re-Certification test, the CTS test, and all other certification, proficiency, or competency tests need to include identification, exclusion, and inconclusive results. They have long been established as acceptable and appropriate decisions/opinions in the field, and this type of testing must reflect the results from actual casework.
- Any inconclusive result on these tests must be accompanied by an in-depth explanation that details the analysis, orientation, anatomical location, target group selection, etc, AND then also details why there was insufficient similarities for an identification AND why there were insufficient differences for an exclusion. The board must then evaluate whether the inconclusive result with the accompanying explanation is a valid and acceptable response for the test.
- The certification board must recognize that there are occasionally comparisons where examiners might have a difference in opinion on sufficiency to reach either the identification or the exclusion decision. Therefore, there are some comparisons where either identification or inconclusive are both acceptable and appropriate conclusions, and there are some comparisons where either exclusion or inconclusive are both acceptable and appropriate conclusions.

With these changes in place it may still be appropriate for an examiner to fail when reaching an erroneous exclusion. However, with these changes examiners will now have a fair chance to avoid an error by using the inconclusive result (which is why it's there) and by operating under the same protocols that they use every day. To be clear, it will be difficult to decide which comparisons can have more than one valid conclusion and how to proceed when someone overuses the inconclusive result, but it is unfair, unrealistic, and inappropriate to ban that result from the test and to fail examiners that would use it to avoid an error.

The Latent Certification Board can also discuss with other certification boards (e.g. Footwear) for advice on how to implement inconclusive results into a certification test. Other disciplines have already dealt with this type of issue before.

[ekuadam]

A few years ago I got an erroneous exclusion on a CTS test and my employer at the time didn't know what to do. THey took me off of casework and put me through a series of 10 competency tests. If i were to have not passed one I would have been fired. It was nervewracking. I do wish the CTS test and the re-cert test allowed for inconclusive.

I also never understood if with both the CTS and re-cert test, we are to work them like we would normal casework. CTS tests are verified by an examiner not taking the test at our lab but the re-cert test isnt? Odd.

[Steve Everist]

A few years ago I got an erroneous exclusion on a CTS test and my employer at the time didn't know what to do. THey took me off of casework and put me through a series of 10 competency tests. If i were to have not passed one I would have been fired. It was nervewracking. I do wish the CTS test and the re-cert test allowed for inconclusive.

This is something I was trying to point out, regarding the financial cost of failing tests such as these. Agencies have their requirements (or in my case a bargained benefit) to being certified for specific positions or employment in general. But do they have a plan for the process if there is a failure? Since most government agencies are staffed with members of organized labor (unions or guilds), doing this on the fly could be complicated. It may require bargaining. And what happens with the employee during that time? And, if they pass, will they be able to recover the salary lost if there was a loss in pay? Will they come back at the previously held pay level and seniority level? Also, an erroneous exclusion (one) is a 6 month waiting period. Multiple or miss-ID's is a one year waiting period.

There's a lot to parse out on failing a certification test.

[Dr. Borracho]

" . . . . . like normal case work . . . . . "

Several people have mentioned this. Consider the erroneous exclusion in light of a compounding factor, such as a pending divorce or a bad case of the flu, or anything else than can cause a person to be functioning at less than 100% normal efficiency.

In normal case work, verification and technical review would catch those errors. Your supervisor would probably be understanding enough to take into consideration the extenuating circumstances when doing a "root cause analysis."

In the absence of verification or technical review, and in the absence of an understanding review of the cause of an erroneous exclusion, well, suspension of certification is the price you pay.

Do not take the recertification test unless you are humming along at 100% efficiency, free of any personal issues in your life, after a good night's sleep, with no distractions on your mind.

Otherwise, you might find yourself hearing the infamous words, "YOU'RE FIRED!!!"

[NRivera]

If the certification program is no longer living up to its original vision, one could hardly blame accredited laboratories for assuming control of quality latent print examination services without reference to individual latent print examiner certification. With all of the quality control policies in effect in most labs, certification is redundant anyway when it comes to establishing the expertise of the latent print examiners.

One has to ask whether certification is of any benefit in an accredited laboratory.

As of yesterday, we no longer require certification for initial hiring as an analyst.

[Carl Speckels]

The IAI Latent Print Certification program was created to fill a need in identifying competent latent print examiners so that the customers of latent print services would have an indication on whom they could rely for reliable latent print examinations. When the IAI created the latent print certification program, there was no such thing as laboratory accreditation. It would be a full decade before ASCLD-LAB began certifying crime laboratories.

Now, latent print services are commonly provided by accredited laboratories. These crime labs have their own quality control and assurance policies to ensure that their examinations are accurate and reliable.

If the certification program is no longer living up to its original vision, one could hardly blame accredited laboratories for assuming control of quality latent print examination services without reference to individual latent print examiner certification. With all of the quality control policies in effect in most labs, certification is redundant anyway when it comes to establishing the expertise of the latent print examiners.

One has to ask whether certification is of any benefit in an accredited laboratory.

When I failed the RE-cert test I immediately starting asking questions of the LPCB about the elements of the test. The appeal that I've posted on this post is the direct result of what I felt were unsatisfactory answers by the LPCB (my correspondance was with LPCB member Anne Steinmetz). I also had the benefit of reading an appeal, and the associated LPCB response to that appeal, that a respected colleague had filed after their RE-cert failure. The LPCB response was lengthy, defensive, and flat out wrong in some places. With that, and the input from others, I was faced with the realization that the LPCB likely has no plans to change anything. After all, they've had the data right in front of them for two years and despite what the data is showing them, they continue to revoke certifications AND defend their actions by pointing to the 91% pass rate! (Keep in mind that assuming that there are two tests, one of those tests is responsible for the bulk of the failures so 91% is a red herring - you'd better hope that you get the "good" recert test) So, faced with this frustrating reality, I turned my attention to asking the very question that Dr. Borracho posed; "whether certification is of any benefit in an accredited laboratory".

In my research, I found that not many professional/scientific professions actually certify AND have certification maintenance requirements – at least not those that have an inherent expectation of higher educational credentials. The exception was medicine but I believe that those (re)certifications are typically centered around medical specialties. Regardless, the common theme that I began to recognize is that it’s typically blue collar or non-degreed occupations that require certifications; barber, police officer, HVAC, electrician, mechanic, any type of technician (pharmacy, dental, etc), etc. Essentially, it was skilled occupations that don’t typically require a college degree. By the way, the word "certification" is used differently by some fields. For example, attorneys take the Bar, engineers take the NCEES, doctors, teachers, etc. all take a type of "certification" test but that is essentially their "competency test". Their "certification" is analogous to what we know in our profession as "competency", a test that must be passed before they are allowed to practice their craft, not something they take during their profession. So, again, why is certification necessary, as a credential, when the examiner already possesses a college degree, typically in a physical science, has already completed a training program (a residency of sorts), has had to pass a competency test to demonstrate that they are capable of reliably performing scientific analysis, AND have had to repeat that performance demonstration every year in the form of a proficiency test? Almost all other forensic disciplines, i.e. DNA, toxicology, drugs, trace, etc. (disciplines that have always carried the expectation of a physical science degree) rely on the examiners' formal education and their demonstration tests (competency/proficiency) to qualify them fit for duty. There are no certification requirements.

As most of us know, Latent Print Examiners, back in the day, were often/usually even, hired without college degrees and were almost always referred to as Fingerprint TECHNICIANS. Thus, the certification became what Dr Borracho referred to earlier as reliance measure for LP examinations. Our profession has changed over the last couple decades; degrees, extensive training programs, accreditation, robust quality systems, performance tests, are all now the norm, at least in accredited labs. I’m beginning to wonder if certification is an antiquated appendage that we keep unnecessarily holding onto.

[Carl Speckels]

One has to ask whether certification is of any benefit in an accredited laboratory.

As of yesterday, we no longer require certification for initial hiring as an analyst.

You are not alone. As of this initial posting, I've been contacted by others saying that their agency will be removing certification as a condition of employment, pay, rank, promotion, etc. Our agency is also in the process of considering the removal of certification requirements.

[Boyd Baumgartner]

I think that's one of the core issues here, surety. To ensure and insure. There's been mention of barbers, doctors and other credentialed professions. The things these professions have is surety, both from an enforcement and liability perspective. Contractors are licensed and bonded. The license ensures a standard of competence and the bonding insures against acts of incompetence. A doctor's license ensures a level of competence and the malpractice insurance insures against incompetence.

The problem with the certification from my perspective is that the IAI lacks both the ability to ensure competence and the ability to insure against incompetence (both enforcement and compensation). Certification can be obtained by non practitioners, revocation of the certificate does not mean someone cannot perform comparisons and errors committed by certified examiners are based on self reporting, so there's a lack of enforcement/authority and transparency. This is a job usually reserved for the state anyway, not a professional organization.

[Atticus]

In light of all of this information, our lab will be removing the certification requirement from our job description. The 9% failure rate is alarming. The career and position implications of a failed test, given the glaring issues surrounding the test, are not worth the perceived credential of certification. I work at an accredited lab and our examiners are trained, tested, and retested annually by validated tests from 3rd party vendors, to ensure their performance qualification for the work they perform. It’s unfortunate that the LPCB doesn’t recognize the flaws of the “revised” re-certification exam. Hopefully, this chat board and other continued discussions, hopefully by the LPCB themselves, will warrant a change in a positive direction.

[ER]

Woah, woah, woah. Let's all take a step back, and slow the roll a bit.

Certification is a worthwhile endeavor and should continue to be encouraged. Just because you don't believe that the IAI Latent Print Certification program isn't perfect or could be improved doesn't mean that everyone should turn in their card, cease requiring it for employment, cease encouraging or rewarding people for certification, or any other knee-jerk or reactionary response. The IAI's latent print certification program is not fundamentally broken. It has been improved over time from having no re-certification test, to having a super-easy re-certification test, to having the current test. I do believe that each step has been an improvement, but that further improvement is necessary, AND that further improvement will occur. Why bail on the program when improvement is virtually certain? We know the people on the board. They're dedicated members of the IAI and dedicated to the latent print field. Of course we can have the necessary conversations to find ways to improve.

- First, I am convinced that the exclusion decision should included in the certification and re-cert tests. Most of our conclusions fall into this category and it is important for us all to improve exclusion accuracy. I, like many others, wish we could return to the easier days of ID/Non-ID. Our jobs would be easier. However, distinguishing exclusions from inconclusive decisions is the right thing to do. The defense deserves to know about exclusions under Brady. The jury deserves to know when a latent is excluded, even if it's not proof of absence because they are seeing all of the evidence when we're only seeing the latent print part. And just because they might not understand the weight of an exclusion doesn't mean that we should withhold that.

- I am also convinced that the inconclusive decision should be included in the IAI certification and re-cert tests. Specifically, I believe that the tests should be made more difficult by adding a) same source comparisons with limited amounts of detail, and b) different source comparisons with uncertain orientation and location. For a) examiners could be judged as reaching a "valid" conclusion if they ID or if they are inconclusive but provide documentation describing the limited agreement. For b) examiners could be judged as reaching a "valid" conclusion if they exclude or if they are inconclusive but provide documentation describing the extent of the search with insufficient differences to exclude.

- That said, there are still comparisons with only one valid answer. Examiners making an erroneous ID or multiple erroneous exclusions would fail. With the extent and inevitability of erroneous exclusions I believe that a fair solution would be to allow examiners who commit a single erroneous exclusion to retake the re-cert test in 3-6 months without losing their certification and without having an official FAIL from the test. Kind of like a walk in baseball. It doesn't count as a hit, but it doesn't count as an out or an at-bat either.

- The structure of the test would have to change a bit to account for this allowance. I believe that an increased number of comparisons (about 20) is still doable in the 30-day time frame. Also, I believe that an even split of 10 same source and 10 different source comparisons is more realistic to casework and more appropriate for this kind of test.

- This will require the board to spend more time evaluating the inconclusives. While difficult and time-consuming and open to bias and appeals, I think that it's worthwhile and important. How does the Footwear Board handle this situation? What about AFTE? ABFDE?

So, can we please all work together to improve the certification program before jumping ship?

TL/DR
Start with a test that accepts ALL three decisions and allow a redo for a single erroneous exclusion. From that starting point, let's figure out how to make the test possible and not give up on certification. That's just crazy talk.

[NRivera]

That is why I urged people to get involved with the business of the board and the association. I've been to a couple of those meetings. The turnout can be laughable. I've fallen guilty to skipping some in favor of another presentation or some other extracurricular activity. It's really easy to do, but if we don't voice our concerns and exert pressure on the board nothing will change. (kind of like in a representative democracy I think ) We were removing the cert requirement for initial hires regardless of the testing situation simply because we have a hard time filling our vacancies in our area with a degree AND a cert requirement. That being said, this is something the certification board also needs to tale into consideration. Accredited laboratories may just decide the risk of having an examiner lose their certification and negatively impact the reputation of the laboratory doesn't outweigh the reward or justify the time, effort and expense.