I "FIXED" THE IAI RE-CERTIFICATION TEST

[Steve Everist]

Alternative title: CLPE - A Path Forward

After the (ongoing) discussion regarding the IAI (Re)certification test, maybe we should try to turn a corner and have a thread on solutions. Sort of a, "Don't bring a problem to my desk without bringing one or two solutions to that problem," discussion.

As it stands, certification seems to be in a bit of no-man's land. It isn't something that is used towards accreditation. The test happens in 5-year cycles, so it isn't a yearly proficiency test, however it is referred to as a test of competency in the operations manual.

3.0 Terms and Definitions
3.1 Certification: The process by which a person is tested with regard to knowledge, skill
and ability and deemed competent to reliably practice the discipline for which they
have been certified.

The introduction page gives some background history and the need that prompted its creation:

The need has been recognized to objectively and unequivocally identify latent print examiners qualified to provide essential professional services for the criminal justice system.

So where does it leave us after the current discussion, and what can we do to move forward? The assumption being that we want to move forward with the program. If that's not your goal, then this isn't the thread for you.

Maybe the first thing is to decide what it is. Should it be another proficiency test, such as those by CTS, RS&A, and FA? It could be, but I don't think that's necessarily the goal as originated, and do we need another yearly test to choose from?

So, if it's going to be more than that, what should it be?

As a test with a 5-year cycle for recertification, and specific requirements to qualify, maybe it should be something more? This isn't out of line with it being "analogous to the certifying boards of other scientific specialties and fields." In lieu of the lack of licensing of forensic practitioners, could it serve in this capacity? If so, how does that translate internationally? What should be included on the test and the qualifications? Should people be allowed to take it because they meet the qualifying points by lecturing, attending conferences, training, volunteering to be on forensic boards, but no longer do casework? Who should qualify, based on the stated goals of the program? What kind of continuing education should be required, and what options should be provided in order to meet this level?

Once that's worked out, how is it tested during the 5-year cycle? Should it include a practical test? If the current two-choice system of conclusions doesn't represent casework, should it include inconclusive determinations (many seem to feel yes)? If so, what are the logistics of doing this? Currently the board is seven volunteers. How would they go about determining which prints could be correct if an inconclusive determination was made, and whether or not the documentation properly supports it? And would there be some prints that could only be ID'd, and inconclusive would be a wrong answer? How could the inclusion of inconclusive determinations be applied? It will be more representative of casework, but the logistics may be prohibitive.

I think of my wife being a licensed architect (through the state). She's also LEED AP accredited (people are accredited and the buildings are certified). She had to take a couple of tests to get to the AP level. And then to maintain her accreditation, she is required to take a certain number, and type, of CE hours. However there isn't a re-test system. But at the same time, this certification doesn't qualify her as an architect (the state license does that), but it shows her proficiency in a focused area of her licensed field. But, in Washington, her license expires every two years but doesn't require a retest either. Instead it uses a system of continuing education hours.

So where could the IAI go with this test?
I like the idea of it being used in place of state licensing, similar to what's required for my wife as an architect. A series of tests that show knowledge and proficiency in the field toward initial certification. This would be followed by CE credits that are clearly stated with renewal at a set amount of time. However, a retest may not be required if the requirements are based around the examiner regularly performing and reporting casework. I'm not sure why someone who doesn't work cases, or wouldn't testify in court to working cases, would maintain their certification. Or at least that's my take based on the CLPE introduction page and its purpose. Maybe those that don't regularly work cases, but occasionally consult on cases, could recertify by including a comparison test along with the CE hours.

What do you think? Here's your chance to provide input to improve certification. How would you do it, and how would the logistics work with a 7-person volunteer board?

[NRivera]

Oof!!! You had to open the big can of worms!

There will likely be many small moving parts to this. Immediately I sense that it may take more than the 7 board volunteers to make it happen. Maybe it's a good time to reconsider the involvement of all the regional divisions and how they may be able to contribute to these and other efforts like they did in the past.

One thing I would like to see is a knowledge-based component added to the re-cert test. I don't mean the history or biology or any of the basic stuff. I am thinking more along the lines of new material that has come out and topics that have a significant influence in how the work is done. All that research that has come out since the NAS report was published, the PCAST report and responses, the report out of the McKie case, what we have learned about error rates and basic stats, etc. As examiners we are supposed to be responsible for staying abreast of advances and changes in the field. This should be measured on re-certification. The sources of the material can be listed online and copies provided electronically on request if someone just can't find it or otherwise doesn't have access to it. One of the reasons we all joined the association was to network with other members so this is a good way to do that.

I still see a comparison component as being appropriate. I don't think it is completely amenable to be done entirely like casework. It is a test, you know you're being tested. I submit that the allowable conclusions include the inconclusive decision but here is my 2 cents on that: an inconclusive by definition is a lack of a corresponding anatomical source for comparison, insufficient agreement to ID, insufficient disagreement to exclude, or an inability to locate the correct anatomical source. If the argument is that there is insufficient data to ID or exclude, then the examiner should be providing an increased level of documentation. Think PiaNos or the myriad of documentation tools available in ULW and other digital workflow software packages like ridge tracings, GYRO annotations, quality mapping, L3D markings, target group highlights, anatomical source clues, distortion factors, etc. Mass together as much information as you can glean from that print. In lieu of a correct ID or exclusion decision, that is information speaks directly to competence and proficiency. This approach can be weighed using a score-based system where an erroneous conclusion is a failure, but an inconclusive yields partial credit. I understand this is very labor-intensive on the front end when creating the test materials because all this has to be documented and validated prior to. It also requires that the test be in digital format unless you want to start using colored pencils to draw a quality map on a photo or become responsible for providing colored markers to every candidate.

Perhaps this process is only called upon if and when needed, like an appeals process akin to a consultation or a conflict-resolution procedure. If a test-taker provides all the correct responses initially, then the test in its current form is sufficient.

While I agree with Bill on his comments regarding the effects of AFIS on examiner search skills, I don't see AFIS searches of the test materials as being a solution. There is really no way to know who may be doing this now or even prevent it form happening regardless of the test format as long as it's not proctored. I think the test should focus on what data do you see and how you interpret that data based on your knowledge, skills and abilities. My summarized point being that examiners can and do disagree, but this does not necessarily mean that one or more of them is wrong or incompetent.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I was chairman of the Texas Division latent print certification committee in the mid 1980s, long before a recertification test was required. A long retired, octogenarian member who had grandfathered applied for recertification during my tenure as chairman. At that time, recertification applications and the recertification fee were sent to the state committee. The old man was well known and much liked by all the membership, but he had advanced Parkinson's disease and was clearly not in any shape to be examining latent prints. I talked to the other members of the committee concerning the issue of whether certification was a statement of competence, or an honor that, once earned, stayed with the examiner for life. We agreed that certification should be a statement of qualifications, not an honorary life title. I talked to the chairman of the IAI certification board, but there was no official method to decertify an examiner who had lost competency. After much discussion at all levels, we decided on a course of action -- I conveniently lost the member's recertification application and check. We all believed that his memory was such that he would have no recollection of having applied for recertification and the point would become moot. Sure enough, that was exactly what happened.

That was when I quit recertifying and would apply for new certification each time it expired. The secretary of the certification board warned me in utmost seriousness that if I failed the test, I would lose my certification. I laughingly replied that was exactly what SHOULD happen. From 1990 through 2011, I recertified by retaking the entire test. Ed German was the second CLPE to begin retaking the original test instead of recertifying. Our objective was to encourage others to follow suit and eventually make retesting the norm.

When the first actual recertification test was offered, it quickly gained a reputation for being too easy. Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite pole. People who can sail through the original test are failing the recertification test. That is just as bad, if not worse, than having a recertification test that is too easy.

What is wrong with giving the same test for original certification and recertification? And what is wrong with keeping the passing score as 12 correctly marked out of 15, with no erroneous conclusions? That seems like the perfect solution -- a single level of competence to initially gain, and then retain, certification.

[ER]

So where does it leave us after the current discussion, and what can we do to move forward?

I'm going to try and give my opinion to each of your posed questions.

Should it be another proficiency test, such as those by CTS, RS&A, and FA?

No. It should remain a certification test. I also believe that a 5-year cycle is appropriate.

So, if it's going to be more than that, what should it be? ...something more? ...In lieu of the lack of licensing of forensic practitioners, could it serve in this capacity?

I believe that the certification test should be treated as if it is or will be used by states or countries as a license for the work. If states ever get to the point of requiring forensic scientists to be licensed, then they will likely look to the IAI to provide that testing. Therefore, the certification tests should be ready to take on that load. The IAI will never be in a position to force government agencies to use their test as a license, but it can be ready to fulfill that role.

If so, how does that translate internationally?

The IAI considers itself to be international and has taken steps to expand beyond North America. The IAI should consider input from members across the world in improving their certification tests. Overall, the IAI can only provide the test and again will never be in a position to force any country to use it for licensing their forensic scientists.

What should be included on the test and the qualifications?

The written test should be changed to focus on current issues and less on history. The pattern portion should be removed as it really doesn't pertain to modern casework. The comparison section should include a 50/50 mix of same source and different source comparisons where all 5 conclusions (see new OSAC document) can be reported. Most comparisons would only have one correct answer (ID or EX), but some could be deemed correct with either ID or INC (with a detailed explanation) and some others with either EX or INC (with a detailed explanation). This would make the test much more difficult, but it would also be an opportunity to train up more examiners to a higher ability level in the field.

Should people be allowed to take it because they meet the qualifying points by lecturing, attending conferences, training, volunteering to be on forensic boards, but no longer do casework? Who should qualify, based on the stated goals of the program? What kind of continuing education should be required, and what options should be provided in order to meet this level?

Tough one. The board should closely monitor how people are meeting the re-cert point requirements and see if there are any patterns as to who is failing the test. Implement more specific re-cert requirement questions to see how examiners are spending their time: comparisons, processing, AFIS, supervision, etc.

how is it tested during the 5-year cycle? Should it include a practical test?

Practical test and a written test that includes recent papers, research, etc. Examiners should be able to pass by reading the recommended papers and/or taking training at a conference (including local division conference) specific to this test. The board can work with instructors to ensure that the relevant material is covered.

If the current two-choice system of conclusions doesn't represent casework, should it include inconclusive determinations (many seem to feel yes)? If so, what are the logistics of doing this?

Currently, I'd suggest a 20 comparison test that is roughly 50/50 same source and different source. See above on what is included in the test. When grading the test, 1 bad ID = fail. Two or more incorrect answers = fail. If the examiner only misses 1 comparison with an erroneous exclusion or an inappropriate inconclusive, then they didn't fail, and they can retake the test in (I don't know) 3-6 months.

How would they go about determining which prints could be correct if an inconclusive determination was made, and whether or not the documentation properly supports it?

They would pre-determine which prints should only allow ID, which prints should only allow EX, and which prints should allow ID/EX or INC. Then they would pre-determine specific things to look for in the documentation (e.g. double tap, movement, etc.). Again, they should work with instructors to develop a course on how to sufficiently document so that test-takers will include the appropriate reasons.

And would there be some prints that could only be ID'd, and inconclusive would be a wrong answer?

Yes.

How could the inclusion of inconclusive determinations be applied? It will be more representative of casework, but the logistics may be prohibitive.

I don't think they're prohibitive. Difficult, yes. But do-able.


What do you think?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

... what can we do to move forward?

Test to a standard, plain and simple. It was pure chance yesterday, but the ID news came with a LPCB update. The irony in the update is that they have officially submitted for 17024 accreditation. Ironic because they are going to be held to a set of standards as outlined by an ISO. And it's the most substantive critique of both regular proficiency tests and certification from what I'm hearing, they have no standard. Ground truth is not a standard in what should be an evidence based diagnostic. The literature is overwhelming that this is the case in other evidence based diagnostic tests. Just go peruse PubMed for epidemiology, biotech assays, X-Ray identification or any other related field

Let me demonstrate:

17024-Accredited-Print.jpg

The ground truth of this print is known, so if you don't render the correct conclusion, you fail.

How you get to a standard is obviously the topic at hand, and I'd say it starts with evidence collection considering my position on evidence based conclusions, then moving towards consensus standards. I'd say put in for a grant to develop a software package that becomes a standard for markup. Arguably I'd say make it an ImageJ plugin or a ULW add-on (so that it could tie in to other products like FRStat or the Quality Metrics in ULW) and allow it to point to image sets (either local or cloud) so that agencies or individuals can participate in various studies, or perform their own in house proficiency testing/training/consensus judgements without Examiners having to learn a new one off system each time they test. Arguably, this would actually help the studies themselves due to the GUI introducing error due to user unfamiliarity. This could then be an avenue by which the various testing and certifications get the data because they could release their image sets and have the software point to them.

This ties into the bigger issue and that issue is that the discipline is changing and the IAI is quickly becoming a dinosaur. The trajectory of the discipline is moving towards evidence based conclusions and away from the 'trust me, I'm an expert' model. This is reflected in a rather timely OSAC standards document that was just released. If we have 5 conclusions that can be rendered and your certification model is requiring absolute conclusions, absent of evidence on one hand and telling it's members that they cannot testify to absolute conclusions on the other, I'd say you have a messaging problem.

[Carl Speckels]

I think of my wife being a licensed architect (through the state). She's also LEED AP accredited (people are accredited and the buildings are certified). She had to take a couple of tests to get to the AP level. And then to maintain her accreditation, she is required to take a certain number, and type, of CE hours. However there isn't a re-test system. But at the same time, this certification doesn't qualify her as an architect (the state license does that), but it shows her proficiency in a focused area of her licensed field. But, in Washington, her license expires every two years but doesn't require a retest either. Instead it uses a system of continuing education hours.

Steve, what a great follow up to the original post. There have now been many different reply’s that have highlighted potential problems with the current RE-cert test. So, ok, let’s stop complaining and start fixing.

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. Those that do, like your wife, get certified (accredited) as a prerequisite to doing the job, like how we competency test. Other examples of this are attorneys, engineers, teachers, etc. And also like your wife, they don’t have to re-take the test, they need only CE to maintain it. 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.

But this is a discussion of how to “FIX” the RE-certification test so I would offer these…

Solution #1: Eliminate it. Once a person passes Certification, they are certified. It’s reasonable to assume that as their career progresses, they increase their ability. Maintenance could be in the form of a demonstrable “previous 5-year” record showing that they perform casework, have CE credits, have passed annual proficiency tests, etc; any, all, or one of these could satisfy a maintenance requirement. As a profession, we follow the model of many others that have an expectation of higher education, training, and continued proficiency.

Solution #2: The LPCB uses a 3rd party vendor for their tests. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that their test is not properly constructed nor validated. They claim that it is, but it’s the LPCB, the seven volunteers, who select and assemble the test samples and then are expected to verify and validate. That’s just not possible. Using a 3rd party testing vendor would eliminate those problems and any potential for bias by the LPCB. But then, how is this any different than what CTS and FA already provide? Why would an IAI labeled test demonstrate expertise better than the properly verified and validated proficiency tests that already exist?

Solution #3: Re-construct the test to include casework-like conditions. Allow for Inconclusives, or the expanded conclusion set as both NRivera and ER recommended; require an increased level of documentation for those conclusion types. This would do two things; 1) it would better simulate casework and allow the test-taker to articulate their reasons for not finding the corresponding impression or for not arriving at the expected, “correct” answer (many agencies have written policy for conclusion thresholds, both ID and Exclusion so this would allow those test-takers to articulate that), and 2) almost like a huge consensus process for test samples, this would identify those test samples that have no business being included on the test (after all, who better to query consensus than certified examiners?). For example, test samples that result in error rates that exceed that of our most prolific published studies would get removed. And MOST importantly, the test must be sent out to a qualified group of examiners to be properly validated. Also, allow for a digital test-taking format. On-screen comparisons are the norm these days. If the test is to simulate casework then let me use the tools I use to do casework.

Essentially the solutions come down to, don't do it to begin with, get rid of it, give it to someone else to do, or improve the way you’re doing it.

[CarrieB]

Given the high failure rate for the Re-cert test, it has enlightened at least some of us to question why we hold this exam to such high standards. We see experts that are otherwise qualified in every way, failing the exam. It is not an “anyone can apply” situation like that of the original test - these are the experts of five years before. Judging by the editorial of Stephanie Howard, the Re-cert test is designed to be harder than the original because the examiners will have five years more experience. Wouldn’t we expect the tests to be equal difficulty given that the “award” is the same?

The more I read on this and the “I FAILED THE IAI RE-CERTIFICATION TEST” threads, the more I am convinced that the IAI Certification Exam is an outdated means of rendering someone an expert in this field (others have posted similar comments). For those who meet the education requirements and undergo a scientifically based training program (following the recommendations in the new OSAC training document), and who also must pass annual proficiency exams, I can’t think of any purpose for being a certified examiner other than having an extra credential in court. Do certified examiners believe that they are better examiners than they would be without having proven themselves by passing one more (albeit very specific) exam? I would argue that the annual proficiency tests are sufficient to demonstrate an examiner’s expertise and they are already designed in the way those posting on here have recommended – they are more difficult than the previous (too easy) IAI recertification test, they are properly validated, they are much more representative of casework (notes/report, documentation, allowance of technological advances since the magnifier, verification, etc.), and they have the major benefit of allowing the examiner and/or Agency to do a root cause analysis if there are any errors made. The PT companies have already worked out all of the issues people are discussing regarding the IAI re-cert exam. I agree with one of Michele’s posts - I’m not sure what the C.L.P.E. title is doing for us anymore. The latent community has made significant scientific improvements elsewhere that better demonstrate expertise and knowledge, none of which are reflected or proven during the certification or re-certification exams.

[josher89]

There are several points that I'd like to at least address here (I might cross-post in the FAILED thread as well for visibility) that I hope will get the current CLPEs thinking and hopefully address at the LPCB meeting next week as I will be unable to attend.

All accreditation endeavours have certain requirements that must be met; those that work in accredited labs know this all too well. Since the IAI raised its certification testing fees (and stopped paying the individual state IAI's a cut of that fee) to get accredited to ISO 17024, there are a few things that need to be addressed.

ISO 17024 has 10 chapters with many sections within. Chapter 8 talks about Certification schemes - they define it as

competence (3.6) and other requirements related to specific occupational or skilled categories of persons

So, requirements. OK, I'm on board so far. They define what the requirements are:

a) criteria for initial certification and recertification;
b) assessment methods for initial certification and recertification;
c) surveillance methods and criteria (if applicable);
d) criteria for suspending and withdrawing certification;
e) criteria for changing the scope or level of certification (if applicable).

They must also have documents that demonstrate the following are included:

a) the involvement of appropriate experts;
b) the use of an appropriate structure that fairly represents the interests of all parties significantly concerned,
without any interest predominating;
c) the identification and alignment of prerequisites, if applicable, with the competence requirements;
d) the identification and alignment of the assessment mechanisms with the competence requirements;
e) a job or practice analysis that is conducted and updated to:
 identify the tasks for successful performance;
 identify the required competence for each task;
 identify prerequisites (if applicable);
 confirm the assessment mechanisms and examination content;
 identify the recertification requirements and interval.

Here's a kicker from previous discussion. ISO 17024 also requires

The certification body shall ensure that the certification scheme is reviewed and validated on an ongoing, systematic basis.

I would think that something being reviewed and validated on an ongoing, systematic basis is very important and as others have mentioned, the LPCB re-certification tests do not appear to be properly validated. It is bad science to conduct experiments then ultimately be the only people that get to review the data and say, "Yep, we're good here. Results are good, methods are good. We're good."

ISO 17024, Chapter 9, goes on to say:

The certification body shall verify the methods for assessing candidates. This verification shall ensure
that each assessment is fair and valid.

It seems that there are at least two tests circulating and both have different failure rates. This hardly seems fair and valid.

Examinations shall be designed to assess competence based on, and consistent with, the scheme, by
written, oral, practical, observational or other reliable and objective means. The design of examination
requirements shall ensure the comparability of results of each single examination, both in content and difficulty,
including the validity of fail/pass decisions.

Reliability and objectivity--if we can't use a discipline-wide acceptable conclusion (inconclusive), it seems the testing isn't reliable or objective.

The certification body shall ensure during the recertification process that it confirms continued
competence of the certified person and ongoing compliance with current scheme requirements by the certified
person.

It was pointed out on this board that the LPCB has viewed re-certification as advanced competence not continued competence as the standard requires. "FIve more years of experience means you should be five years smarter." or something to that effect. Not seeing that spelled out in the standard.

There are plenty of other sections to ISO 17024 that I feel are being missed by the LPCB and this re-certification test but they expand on what I've already said.

I can't be there next week to voice my grave concerns with the current practice. My hope is that the room will be packed with concerned CLPEs or prospective CLPEs so that the board can answer for the re-certification process. If your concerns are met with anger from the board, there is clearly something afoot. My sincere hope is that a discussion between the membership and the board can result in changes that will not diminish the meaning of certification but can make it what the standard actually requires, fair, valid, and tests continued competence and not advanced competence.

At the end of the day, the IAI is a for-profit institution and the best way to force change is to hit them where it counts, the pocketbook. The CLPE is the oldest certification and if the current number of over 900 drops significantly, that might make some eyes open up.

I would like to thank others that have had offline discussions with me regarding this topic. I have used some of their arguments in this post (and I agree with them) but will keep them anonymous out of respect.

[NRivera]

For the record, the IAI is a non-profit corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware. The proceeds from memberships, certifications, etc. serve to benefit us as members in the various programs that the association provides. I agree that the pocketbook certainly creates pressure to promote change, just keep in mind who is really going to feel it in the long run. We need to take ownership of our professional association and keep it steered in the direction we want it to go when we elect officers, choose representatives and voice our concerns.

[josher89]

NRivera is correct, the IAI is a registered non-profit. It's listed as a public charity.

[josher89]

For anyone that was at the LPC meeting last week, can you advise how the meeting went? How did it go, were the board members responsive and willing to listen to the members, and what was the outcome of the re-certification test issues?

Thanks.

[4n6Dave]

A copy of the presentation was posted on Onin.com

They also have a copy of the latent print that resulted in the most errors up on the site. It was since removed from the test.

[Dr. Borracho]

They also have a copy of the latent print that resulted in the most errors up on the site. It was since removed from the test.

Please forgive my disinclination to read the report, but can anyone advise me whether, having removed that latent and tacitly admitting its inappropriateness, those who failed the test on account of that latent will be allowed a second chance at salvaging their reputations and careers?

[josher89]

Briefly (and thanks 4n6Dave for the location of the PPT),

They don't allow inconclusives as a correct response because "results are not consistent from agency to agency". I am assuming that this is meant to say that different agencies use different metrics for determining what is considered inconclusive. They allow for an inconclusive response but still consider it an error. So, if you provide justification (usually with markups, your policies and procedures, etc.) as to why you are rendering an inconclusive decision, shouldn't that provide the Board with enough justification of your response and remove the inconsistency between agencies? You would be telling them why you reached that decision and that could be considered a correct answer.

There was several slides from PT tests...what did those have to do with the meeting? Were they trying to say that there were errors associated with the PTs and the percentages were close to the error rate of the recertification test? But I thought earlier in the slideshow they said PTs test the lab system (and by virtue, NOT the examiner) yet were they using PT error rates as a justification for their error rate(s)? RS&A's Spring 2018 PT results show, pretty convincingly, they there were most likely two groups of examiners that submitted the same results (the ones associated with the errors). So again, that would be a measure of the lab system and not necessarily a measure of examiner competence. Since I wasn't there, though, I may be missing something.

If I'm wrong, someone please clarify.

[LPE100]

Having attended the meeting, I felt that the Latent Print Certification Board was open about sharing information, specifically regarding some of the criticism directly from this and/or the other thread.

There was no admission or implication that there were issues with the two latent prints that were shown at the meeting. The Board informed the group that they had decided to share the two impressions that had been brought up specifically in this and/or the other thread. By showing the two impressions to the meeting attendees, the latents would no longer be included in the test. In my opinion, the board wanted the community to see the latent prints being criticized, but now that they're out in the public domain, they cannot be part of the test anymore. They wanted the community to see the two latent prints for themselves. No exemplars were shown.

After having seen the latent prints, in absence of the knowns, it is difficult to say with certainty why an examiner may have erroneously identified or erroneously excluded either of these two latent prints (the Board says that both erroneous conclusions have been reported for at least the first latent). I think based on the latent prints, provided the knowns were of sufficient quality, an inconclusive conclusion, even with documentation, wouldn't coincide with a consensus answer. Sometimes, when we're being tested, the answer is either an ID or an exclusion. That's not how I feel about everyday casework, but in a testing environment, that's sometimes how it has to work.

The information regarding the proficiency tests was included in the meeting as a result of comments made on one of these threads comparing the certification test to proficiency tests. The slides covered some of the failure rates in some commercial proficiency tests. The board did mention that the two tests are not equivalents however.

They provided quite a bit of information about how they review the latent prints twice per year and how the latent prints are vetted prior to being included in the test. At least 12, although I recall something saying 20, examiners have compared the latent prints.

I thought that the suggestions from the crowd, especially the one that mirrors one from this thread, where examiners are given 15 latents and are responsible for reporting on a percentage, has a lot of value. The board said that they would consider that and other suggestions. I'm hopeful we will see some changes, all for the better of the certified latent print examiner community as a whole.