Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Technical Note

The 2015 ENFSI Fingerprint Working Group testing programme

A. Matteia , J. Fishb , M. Hilgertc , T. Lvbyd, M. Svenssond, J. Vaughane , F. Zampaf,* ,
On behalf of the ENFSI Fingerprint Working Group
a
Reparto Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientiche (R.I.S.), Messina, Italy
b
National Crime Agency (NCA), London, United Kingdom
c
Bunderskriminalamt (BKA), Wiesbaden, Germany
d
National Forensic Centre (NFC), Linkoping, Sweden
e
Home Ofce, London, United Kingdom
f
Reparto Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientiche (R.I.S.), Parma, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 1 April 2017 As early as 2004, the Fingerprint Working Group (EFP-WG) of the European Network of Forensic Science
Received in revised form 31 August 2017 Institutes (ENFSI) has organised prociency tests (PTs), as well as collaborative exercises (CEs), as a way
Accepted 4 September 2017 of raising standards within the ngerprint profession.
Available online xxx This article provides an overview of the three collaborative exercises carried out in 2015. The
characteristics of the testing programme are summarised, followed by an overview of the knowledge that
Keywords: has been gained, including depicting what lessons have been learnt.
Fingermarks Crown Copyright 2017 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
ENFSI EFP-WG
Collaborative exercises 2015
Visualisation
Imaging
Individualisation

1. Introduction The purpose of this work is, therefore, to provide an overview

In 2004, the Fingerprint Working Group (EFP-WG) of the
European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) initiated a
collaborative testing programme for ngermarks as one of the
activities to meet the objectives of ENFSI, which are: sharing
knowledge, exchanging experiences and coming to mutual
agreements in the eld of forensic science.
In the interests of justice, the conduct of prociency tests
(PTs) and collaborative exercises (CEs) at an international level
should be viewed as a mandatory activity. In fact, accredited
laboratories, following the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005,
are now tasked to demonstrate, in an objective way, the
performance of their processes and their overall competence in
producing consistent results.
Between 2004 and 2014 several collaborative tests were
conducted. A summary of these tests is described in Ref. [1],
emphasising the critical issues that need be addressed.
* Corresponding author at: Reparto Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientiche, Strada
delle Fonderie 2, 43125 Parma, Italy. Fax: +39 0521 537789.
E-mail addresses: zampa.francesco@gmail.com, francesco.zampa@carabinieri.it
(F. Zampa).
of the testing programme carried out in 2015. These tests were co-
funded by the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme
of the European Union [24], Direct Grant Towards the Vision for
European Forensic Science 2020 (TVEFS-2020) HOME/2013/
ISEC/MO/ENFSI/4000005962, work package T3 Prociency Tests
and Collaborative Exercises for the Fingerprint Domain. The
organisation of the test was carried out by the Project Team
involved in the abovementioned assignment.
2. Types of tests and provider
In 2015 three tests were carried out:
 Visualisation Collaborative Exercise (V-CE);
 Imaging Collaborative Exercise (Im-CE);
 Individualisation Collaborative Exercise (In-CE).
The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) supplied the tests
voluntarily and free of charge for participants.
Although the tests were provided on behalf of the EFP-WG it
must be stressed that the Project Team were at this time unable to
act in an advisory capacity. For this reason, the decisions made
around test design and delivery were solely made by the provider.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.09.002
0379-0738/Crown Copyright 2017 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563
Each participant received a unique Lab Code Number to assist
with anonymity during participation, nal results are provided
against this corresponding code.
All data presented in Sections 3 and 4 have been taken from the
providers nal report.
3. Test overviews
3.1. Visualisation Collaborative Exercise (V-CE)
The exercise contained:
 Two pieces of white paper; each piece should have been treated
with a different amino-acid reagent, i.e. for example one with
ninhydrin and the other with 1,8-diazauoren-9-one.
 A brown piece of paper; in this case the participant was free to
choose which visualisation technique(s) should be used (Fig. 1).
To achieve uniform test samples for every participant, dots of
three different amino acid solutions were placed in known
volumes and concentrations. In addition, a control sample of
water was also included (Fig. 2). The amino acids present in the
solution were glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, threonine, histidine,
valine, leucine, isoleucine, ornithine and glutamic acid. These
amino acids were selected as they are commonly present in
ngerprint residue. Ultimately the dots contained the amino acids
listed each one at the concentration reported in Fig. 2 for the total
volume indicated.
The samples were prepared between the 12th and 16th of June
2015. To ensure homogeneity of the test materials, batch sampling
was undertaken after every fth sample, these were treated within
the NFI to demonstrate the presence of amino acids. The remaining
samples were packaged and sent to participants on the 17th of June
2015.
Post treatment, samples and a detailed response form were
returned to the NFI, where two individuals assessed the presence
Fig. 1. Test samples of the visualisation part.
Fig. 2. Preparation of test sample.
of the visualised dots; all samples were photographed on the same
day.
One dot resulted in a score of 1, two dots in a score of 2 and all
three dots in a score of 3.
3.2. Imaging Collaborative Exercise (Im-CE)
The participants were asked to enhance four photographs
containing ngermarks (Fig. 3) in order to evaluate their capability
in providing extra information (I, II and III details) which could
assist a practitioner in his/her decision-making process. In doing so
it should be also important to avoid processing techniques that
introduce permanent changes or artifacts within the image.
The selected images were reproduced by NFI to resemble
typical casework ngermarks using similar surfaces and known
donors (true source):
1. Tin can treated with cyanoacrylate
2. Black cardboard treated with indandione
3. White paper with blue text treated with ninhydrin
4. Brown wrapping paper treated with ninhydrin
Participants were asked to record the software programs and
image processing techniques that were used to enhance the
images.
On the 17th of June 2015 the test material was made available
for registered participants by three download links (RAW format
le, PSD format le and TIFF format le) to the Imaging exercise on
Google Drive. Response forms were sent individually to all
participating institutes.
3.3. Individualisation Collaborative Exercise (In-CE)
A total of 10 marks and 5 sets of reference prints (donor #1
#5 with complete tenprint and palmprint cards) were made
available online for registered participants to download.
All marks and reference prints were selected from a True
Source Database currently in use within the NFI. All marks in the
True Source Database were made by NFI employees simulating
different types of activity. Fingermarks were left on several
surfaces such as plastic, metal, tape, glass and paper and were
visualised using typical methods.
Furthermore, to represent casework samples where the orienta-
tion of marks is not always known, the marks in the individualisation
exercise were presented in different orientations. At the request of
participants, all marks were reproduced to include a scale or
background that indicated the size of the marks (Fig. 4).
The participants were asked to provide an evaluation of the
marks, including the total number of minutiae found during their
analysis phase and to decide whether or not the mark was of value
as well as to indicate a match, no match or inconclusive decision.
The test also allowed for a probabilistic evaluation of the evidential
value of the marks, using either a verbal term, a numerical value of
the likelihood ratio, or both.
 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563 57

Fig. 3. Fingermarks for the Imaging test.

4. Results All participants had the opportunity to record which visualisa-

4.1. Visualisation Collaborative Exercise (V-CE)
From a total of 49 subscribers, 40 participants returned results
on time (82%). The maximum score for the visualisation exercise
being a score of 3, this score was graded if all three dots of the
amino acid solution were visualised (Fig. 5).
For the pieces of white paper, the purpose of each exercise was
to check the performance of a single visualisation technique;
unfortunately, not every participant accurately followed the
instructions provided and subsequently treated the samples with
more than one reagent.
tion technique had been used in the response form. However, not
every participant recorded this information, including the
concentration of the reagents, or the type of solvent used and
therefore this did not allow for consistent subsequent analysis.
The result sheet in Table 1 gives an overview of performance.
The participants using a single reagent are graded in the same way
as those using multiple reagents.
The results for the two samples of white paper are summarised
in the next tables; participants that treated a sample with more
than one reagent were excluded from the overview.
The participants with the maximum score used one or more of
the following visualisation techniques; indandione, DFO or
ninhydrin.

Fig. 4. Examples of ngermarks (n. 2, 4 and 7) used for the Individualisation test.
58 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563

 Amped FIVE (Amped software) > 3%

 GIMP2 (GIMP Development; freeware) > 0,8%
 Photolter (Softonic; freeware) > 2%
 Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) > 1%

Many participants used the grayscale conversion in the Adobe

RAW converter in combination with levels/contrast adjustments or
used the DCS4 program with pre-adjusted buttons.

4.3. Individualisation Collaborative Exercise (In-CE)

From a total of 56 subscribers, 50 participants returned their

Fig. 5. Example of an item treated with DFO score of 3. results (89% feedback).

Sample 1 white paper (Table 2): 52% of the participants,
treating the sample with a single amino acid reagent, were able to
visualise the maximum of three dots.
Sample 2 white paper (Table 3): 28% of the participants,
treating the sample with a single amino acid reagent, were able to
visualise the maximum of three dots.
Sample 3 no conclusive analysis is possible.
4.2. Imaging Collaborative Exercise (Im-CE)
From a total of 46 subscribers, 33 participants returned their
results (71%).
All results were made available in pdf format on Google Drive
through a download link.
To enhance the photos ve different programs were used plus a
common lter:
 Photoshop (Cs2-Cs6) (Raw converter included) > 77,2%
 DCS4 (Foster + Freeman) > 17%
4.3.1. Quality of the mark
On the response form, the participants were asked to give an
evaluation of the quality of the mark based on clearness of the
ridges, amount of distortion, etc. The participants had to write
down a (G) for good, (M) for moderate or (B) for bad quality. Fig. 6
provides a general overview.
4.3.2. Total number of assigned minutiae
Within the individualisation process, often a method is applied
called the ACE-V method. The rst stage of the method is
commonly known as the analysis phase. In the analysis phase,
an encoding is made (usually done individually by a latent print
examiner) of all minutiae that are considered present in the mark.
On the response form, a specic question was asked to all
participants to write down the total number of minutiae found in
the analysis phase.
In Fig. 7, the observed minutiae count is presented on the
vertical axis (040). The marks are presented on the horizontal
axis (mark #01#10). The results are presented using boxplots

Table 1
Result sheet for the Visualisation test.

Lab code Paper 1 Reagent Paper 2 Reagent Paper 3 Reagent Lab Code Paper 1 Reagent Paper 2 Reagent Paper 3 Reagent
FP201502 3 IND 2 NIN 0 Sequence FP201528 3 DFO 2 NIN 2 Sequence
FP201503 2 NIN 3 IND 0 Sequence FP201530 3 NIN 2 IND 0 IND
FP201504 2 IND/NIN 3 IND/NIN 0 Sequence FP201531 3 DFO/NIN 3 NIN 2 NIN
FP201506 3 DFO 3 NIN 1 Sequence FP201532 3 IND/NIN 3 IND/NIN 0 Sequence
FP201507 2 DFO 3 NIN 0 Sequence FP201534 3 DFO 2 NIN 0 Sequence
FP201508 3 NIN 3 IND 1 Sequence FP201535 2 DFO 3 NIN 2 Sequence
FP201509 2 DFO/IND/NIN 2 DFO/IND/NIN 0 Sequence FP201536 3 IND 2 NIN 1 Sequence
FP201510 3 IND/NIN 3 IND/NIN 0 Sequence FP201537 2 IND 2 NIN 3 Sequence
FP201511 3 IND/NIN 3 IND/NIN 0 Sequence FP201539 2 DFO 2 NIN 1 Sequence
FP201512 1 NIN 0 DFO 2 NIN FP201540 0 IND 2 NIN 0 Sequence
FP201515 2 DFO 2 NIN 0 Sequence FP201541 2 DFO 1 IND 0 DFO
FP201516 0 NIN 0 NIN 2 NIN FP201543 3 IND/NIN 2 NIN 0 Sequence
FP201517 0 DFO 2 NIN 0 Sequence FP201548 0 DFO/NIN 1 DFO/NIN 0 Sequence
FP201518 3 IND 2 NIN 0 IND FP201550 3 DFO/NIN 3 DFO/NIN 0 Sequence
FP201520 3 DFO 0 NIN 0 Sequence FP201552 2 IND/NIN 2 IND/NIN 1 Sequence
FP201521 3 DFO 2 NIN 0 Sequence FP201553 3 IND 0 NIN 0 IND
FP201522 3 NIN 3 DFO/NIN 3 Sequence FP201555 0 IND/NIN 0 IND/NIN 0 Sequence
FP201524 3 IND 2 NIN 0 Sequence FP201557 3 DFO/IND/NIN 3 DFO/IND/NIN 1 Sequence
FP201525 1 IND/NIN 0 ORO 1 Sequence FP201559 1 NIN 3 IND 0 Sequence
FP201527 3 DFO 3 NIN 0 Sequence FP201562 0 NIN 0 NIN 0 Sequence

Table 2 Table 3
Sample 1, white paper. Sample 2, white paper.

Total 27 100% Total 28 100%

Score 0 4 15% Score 0 5 18%
Score 1 2 7% Score 1 1 4%
Score 2 7 26% Score 2 14 50%
Score 3 14 52% Score 3 8 28%
Treated paper in sequence 13 Treated paper in sequence 12
 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563 59

Fig. 6. Quality of the mark overview of the answers given by participants.

covering the total of observed minutiae per mark, from the lowest
to the highest observed minutiae count. Each boxplot contains a
vertical line and a box, the vertical line represents all observed
minutiae counts, the box represents 50% of all observed minutiae
counts.
Example for Mark #01:
 the orange box represents 50% of the observed minutiae count:
50% of the respondents observed a minutiae count between
14 and 19;
 the lowest minutiae count for mark #01 is 9 minutiae;
 the highest minutiae count for mark #01 is 28 minutiae;
 the average minutiae count for mark #01 is 16 minutiae (this is
represented by the horizontal black line in the box).

Fig. 7. Boxplot displaying minutiae counts of mark #01 to mark #10.

60 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563

Table 4
Table displaying the number of false negative results (22) and false positive results
(6) of the individualisation part.

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10
False negatives 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 11 3 0
False positives 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0

5. Discussion

5.1. Visualisation Collaborative Exercise (V-CE)

The intention of the provider was that samples #1 and #2 would

be used to compare the sensitivity of the amino acid techniques
that are generally employed in laboratories around visualisation.
With this in mind, two preliminary considerations are possible:

Fig. 8. Summary of the results for the individualisation part of the exercise.
4.3.3. Individualisation part
A summary of results for the 50 participants of the Individu-
alisation part of the Collaborative exercise 2015 is shown in Fig. 8.
15 out of the 50 participating institutes marked all answers
correctly (100% score). One institute reported back 1 correct
answer (10% score).
The Individualisation part of the collaborative exercise
contained a total of 9 matches and 1 no match (Mark
#07 was the only no match). The best results were obtained
with Mark #01, in which only 1 incorrect result was given (98%
correct). The second best results were obtained with Mark #05,
in which 2 of the answers were marked as an incorrect result
(96% correct). As expected Marks #07, #08 and #09 were the
most difcult marks. The most difcult mark was Mark #07, in
which 27 of the answers were marked incorrect (46% correct),
followed by Mark #08, in which 17 answers were marked
incorrect (66% correct) and Mark #09, in which 20 answers were
marked incorrect (60% correct) (Fig. 9).
Of the incorrect results, a distinction is made between false
negative results (the true donor in the reference set was incorrectly
excluded) and false positive results (the mark was attributed to a
wrong donor) (Table 4). Note: the false positive answer for Mark
#01 was considered an administrative error and is not considered
as a false attribution.
 For most of the participants the instructions did not provide
sufcient clarity to undertake the test. This is borne from the fact
that 30% of the laboratories undertook sequential treatment,
rather than the intended single visualisation technique. The
unintended consequence was that an inter-laboratory compari-
son of only twenty-four participants out of a possible forty
participants was possible.
 According to recent literature [5,6], the composition of amino
acids within test solutions should be representative of natural
secretions; therefore, the absence of serine, an abundant amino
acid in sweat, is considered a factor that might inuence test
results.
That being stated, in Figs. 10 and 11 it is possible to observe the
performance of ninhydrin (NIN), 1,8-diazauoren-9-one (DFO) and
1,2-indandione (IND). For sample 1, indandione seems to be a more
effective technique.
For sample 2, it can be seen that the participants with the
maximum score used the visualisation techniques, indandione or
ninhydrin.
Unfortunately, the lack of details around the solutions
employed prevents the authors from making an in-depth
evaluation around furthering an understanding on whether the
observed results correlate to the reagents components.
However, if we consider sample #1 and sample #2 as consistent
samples, two main observations can be made:

Fig. 9. Overview of correct/incorrect answers for each mark for the individualisation part of the exercise.
 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563
Fig. 10. Visualisation Test Sample 1 (white paper) overview of the results.
Fig. 11. Visualisation Test Sample 2 (white paper) overview of the results.
 IND versus NIN: Within the 56% of samples (5 out 9) IND
performed better whilst in the 33% of samples (3 out 9) there was
no visible difference
 DFO versus NIN: Within 36% of samples (4 out 11) DFO performed
better that NIN, in the 36% of samples (4 out 11) there was no
visible difference and in 27% of items (3 out 11) NIN performed
better than DFO
Results obtained from two laboratories (FP201504 and
FP201548), do however raise doubts on the homogeneity of
samples 1 and 2, as can been noted from Table 1. Although using
different sequential treatments to each other, the laboratories used
the same sequential treatments on both the samples and obtained
different scores for each. This assumes that the formulations of
reagents and the timetable of treatments for each laboratory were
identical between the samples. It should be noted that 52% of the
participants were able to visualise 3 dots with one reagent on
sample 1 and 28% of the participants were able to visualise 3 dots
with one reagent on sample 2. This is a signicant difference and,
even allowing a tolerance for different techniques and reagent
composition indicates a potential underlying issue, the root cause
of which remains unexplained due to the lack of available
information.
Missing information, not requested by the provider, as to the
sequencing of steps employed by participants prevents analysis of
the results obtained for paper #3.
5.2. Imaging Collaborative Exercise (Im-CE)
Whilst Im-CE 2014 & Im-CE 2015 introduced different methods
of distribution, a consistent approach aligned to best practice was
adopted in respect to imaging format.
However, from a technical perspective it is felt that collabora-
tive exercises must allow the participant and the provider to gain
knowledge about:
a) which image processing techniques should be avoided as to not
introduce irreversible changes or artifacts in the item;
b) which image processing techniques align themselves to best
practice.
61
Due to the design limitation of the 2015 Im-CE, the provider was
not in a position to report these ndings, including the expected
results, to the participants.
As a lesson learnt, it is acknowledged that one of the most
important objectives of CEs is the sharing of information with
participants in order to promote professional development and
best practice. ENFSI EFP-WG should therefore ensure that this
aspect is taken into account for all future CE provision.
5.3. Individualisation Collaborative Exercise (In-CE)
5.3.1. Quality of the mark
The data collected within the test demonstrates that there is the
complete range of variability in the assessment of quality, within
9 of the 10 marks (good, moderate and bad). This means the
categories are considered too subjective to be of use. In order for
quality assessment of marks to be consistent and meaningful, any
categories adopted must be dened in more detail and agreed
beforehand.
Although some Institutes have made proposals to address this
issue [7], currently there is no standardisation in the application of
denitions to assist such quality assessment of the mark. This CE
indicates that in the interests of future data sharing this current
gap of an objective measure needs to be overcome.
5.3.2. Total number of assigned minutiae
Within ngerprints, minutiae are major ridge path deviations.
Basic forms are ridge endings, bifurcations, and dots [8]. Additional
types of minutiae (combinations of the basic minutiae) have been
identied but for them the nomenclature in the literature is not
standardized [9].
The data collected within the test demonstrates that there is
variability in the number of minutiae assigned within each mark by
each participant. Although a small level of variability can be
anticipated, without the detailed information (i.e. the image of the
mark annotated with the minutiae), which was not requested as
part of this test, the extent of variability observed cannot be subject
to further exploration within this article.
Therefore, as for the quality of the mark, the ngerprint
community needs to dene a common denominator of what is a
minutia and when its possible to mark it up.
5.3.3. Source attribution
The ngermarks selected for the exercise were representative of
casework samples. According to the provider, all the ngermarks
distributed had to be considered of value for comparison purposes,
independently of local standards.
The analysis of the results concludes the following (Table 5).
Note that the percentages showed in Table 5 cannot be directly
compared with results reported in Ref. [10] due to the fact that that
study considered only one to one comparisons, whereas in this test
the full reference material of ve individuals were supplied for
comparison against each mark.
All ve false positives within this test were reported against
Mark #07, whereas the highest number of false negatives (eleven)
in this test were reported against Mark #08. A further in-depth
Table 5
Individualisation tests 2015: false positives and false negatives rates.
Individualisation test
Total Percentage examination
False positives 5 1%
(5/500)
False negatives 25 4.4%
(22/500)
62 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563
Table 6
Individualisation tests 2015: in-depth overview of mark #07 and mark #08.
Mark #07
I level Although a delta can be seen, no pattern is visible. The absence of it may have
details caused participants to consider this both as a ngermark and palm mark,
despite the small size.
II level The mark shows a lack of continuity in the ridge ow.
details
III level Not clearly visible
details
overview of the factors that could have negatively inuenced the
comparison of the two marks is given in Table 6.
5.4. Issues and lessons learnt
The purpose of the pilot study is to undertake an indepen-
dent evaluation of the test in order to identify ambiguity
regarding the instructions, to verify that the test materials are t
for purpose and to ensure that every element from the receipt of
the material to the return of the response form can be accounted
for. The risk of not conducting the pilot study has the potential
to invalidate the test results, or to reduce the ability of the
provider to analyse results. This applies across all of the areas
mentioned in this paper (visualisation/imaging/individualisa-
tion).
In addition to the pilot study it is essential to conduct quality
checks on the samples that are produced for the test.
The importance of conducting both the pilot study and the
quality checks of the samples cannot be underestimated.
5.4.1. Visualisation Collaborative Exercise (V-CE)
Instructions of the CE: the instructions relating to the treatment
of the two pieces of white paper were ambiguous, resulting in 14 of
the 40 laboratories performing sequential treatments on the item.
These results were excluded from the evaluation and therefore
invalidated this part of the test for those laboratories.
In addition, for practical purposes the amino acid solutions
were placed as dots and not as friction ridge details. This was not
mentioned in the instructions, therefore when the dots were
developed the participants did not recognize these as a result
because they were expecting friction ridge details. Although the
use of friction ridge details should not be regarded as mandatory,
there is a need for this to be made clear in the instructions as this is
a deviation to the outcomes that would be anticipated in the
working environment that is being tested.
Consistency of samples: on the white paper using the same
technique some participants obtained different results, concluding
that the samples were not homogeneous. Every effort must be
taken in the preparation of the samples in order to ensure
homogeneity; otherwise the test results could be invalidated.
Mark #08
No pattern is visible. In addition, the mark was presented with a 90-degree
rotation to the right, which could have brought the examiners towards a
wrong conclusion.
The visibility of some minutiae in a specic area has been reduced by
background noise uorescence.
Only some pores visible
Construction of the test: with regard to the brown paper, as a
result of the lack of the recording of the outcome of each step in the
sequential treatment, no conclusive analysis of the results was
possible.
Response form: in order to support the evaluation of the test, the
response form should be designed to collect more detailed
information from the participants. For example, having the
information about formulations or methods, can allow for
unexpected results to be further investigated as part of root cause
analysis.
Reporting of results: the report to participants must be supplied
within a reasonable time-frame and with sufcient details, so that
the participants can evaluate their individual results against the
overall test results and have the opportunity to make improve-
ments so that casework samples are not unduly affected.
5.4.2. Imaging Collaborative Exercise (Im-CE)
Construction of the test: even if the images submitted for the
analysis were of the appropriate le format and they were in line
with the average casework images, in order to maximize the
usefulness of the test the provider should include in the report to
the participants the procedure which has been taken as a reference
when designing the test (e.g. what anticipated results were
expected).
Reporting of results: although the individual response forms
collated all the procedures followed by the participants, this level
of detail was not published in the report. The report to participants
must be supplied within a reasonable time-frame and with
sufcient details, so that the participants can evaluate their
individual results against the overall results and have the
opportunity to make improvements.
5.4.3. Individualisation Collaborative Exercise (In-CE)
Construction of the test: with regard to the total number of
minutiae assigned, it would be better to ask for the images in
order to see how the participant marks up the minutiae. This is a
critical point as reported in Ref. [11] and it needs to be addressed in
a CE in the near future.
In addition, a scale must be included and effort made to ensure
that images are in focus.
 A. Mattei et al. / Forensic Science International 280 (2017) 5563
6. Conclusions
The experience of running the 2015 ENFSI EFP-WG test has
greatly assisted the direction for future collaborative exercises and
prociency testing and the NFI should be thanked for their
contribution in furthering the ngerprint community.
Due to the sensitivities of forensic methods, including the
exposure to sources of secondary contamination, future tests
should include:
 The importance of a pilot study (run a complete test before
preparing the material to be distributed to the participants) and
quality checks (batch sampling of the material prepared for
distribution) cannot be underestimated.
 An awareness of the unconscious bias that individual training
methods, or local operational procedures can impact on the
subject matter expert that has been tasked to prepare the test. It
is felt that the involvement of an Advisory Group with an
international background can mitigate against this bias through
establishing the needs of the community as well as undertaking
an independent review of the test.
 Where the relevant Ground Source information is not available,
consideration of the engagement of specic laboratories to act as
referees in order to establish if the desired result has been
achieved. This is common practice in other areas of prociency
testing and could be valuable, particularly with regard to future
Visualisation and Imaging exercises.
 PT/CEs constitute a reliable and objective measure of the
variability of the forensic analysis (if properly conducted), which
could be used by forensic organisations, policing and policy units
to (a) exchange information in cross border criminal cases
investigations; (b) better understand potential areas of improve-
ments.
 Whilst from a laboratory perspective, prociency testing
provides a mechanism to assure competence in producing
consistent results, for international professional organisations
such as ENFSI, collaborative exercises are an objective means of
collecting and sharing information to increase understanding
and striving for best practice.
 The information collected could inform education and training
plans for knowledge sharing across Europe.
 That participation in testing will, over time, increase the
condence of the laboratory in the results they are providing
on casework.
Disclaimer
This project has been funded with the support of the European
Commission. This publication reects the views only of the
63
authors, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible
for any use which may be made of the information contained
therein.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank the colleagues of the Netherlands
Forensic Institute (NFI) in the persons of Anko Lubach and Linda
Koomen for their invaluable work in organising all the collabora-
tive exercises discussed in this article.
The testing programme carried out and discussed in this article
is in scope of the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme
of the European Union, Direct Grant Towards the Vision for
European Forensic Science 2020 (TVEFS-2020) HOME/2013/ISEC/
MO/ENFSI/4000005962, work package T3 Prociency Tests and
Collaborative Exercises for the Fingerprint Domain.
References
[1] A. Mattei, J. Fish, M. Hilgert, T. Lvby, M. Svensson, J. Vaughan, F. Zampa, ENFSI
collaborative testing programme for ngermarks: past experiences and future
perspectives, Forensic Sci. Int. 275 (2017) 282301.
[2] Council decision of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013,
as part of General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the
Specic Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European
Union online http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:
L:2007:058:0007:0012:EN:PDF. (Accessed 30 August 2017).
[3] Council conclusions on the vision for European Forensic Science 2020,
including the creation of a European Forensic Science Area and the
development of forensic science infrastructure in Europe online
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/
126875.pdf. (Accessed 30 August 2017).
[4] Commission implementing decision of 19.9.2012 on adopting the annual work
programme for 2013 for the specic programme on the Prevention of and Fight
against Crime as part of the General Programme Security and Safeguarding
Liberties serving as a nancing decision online
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/les/nancing/fundings/
pdf/isec/isec_awp_2013_en.pdf. (Accessed 30 August 2017).
[5] M. De Puit, M. Ismail, X. Xu, LCMS analysis of ngerprints, the amino acid
prole of 20 donors, J. Forensic Sci. 59 (2) (2014) 364370.
[6] A. Girod, R. Ramotowski, C. Weyermann, Composition of ngermarks residue:
a qualitative and quantitative review, Forensic Sci. Int. 223 (2012) 1024.
[7] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, Special Publica-
tion 1151, Markup instructions for the extended friction ridge features, 2013.
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1151.pdf
(Accessed 19 September 2017).
[8] R.D. Olsen, Friction ridge characteristics and points of identity: an unresolved
dichotomy of terms, Identif. News 31 (11) (1981) 1213.
[9] K.D. Saviers, Friction ridge characteristics: a study and comparison of proposed
standards, J. Forensic Identif. 39 (1989) 157163.
[10] B.T. Ulery, R.A. Hicklin, J. Buscaglia, M.A. Roberts, Accuracy and reliability of
forensic latent ngerprint decisions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (19)
(2011) 77337738.
[11] B.T. Ulery, R.A. Hicklin, M.A. Roberts, J. Buscaglia, Interexaminer variation of
minutia markup on latent ngerprints, Forensic Sci. Int. 264 (2016) 8999.