The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis

Loene Howes, Roberta Julian, Sally KELTY, Nenagh Kemp, Paul Kirkbride

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience – police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7-18
Number of pages12
JournalForensic Science
Volume237
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Police
DNA
Language
Forensic Sciences
Lawyers
Criminal Law
Accreditation
Research
Reading

Cite this

Howes, Loene ; Julian, Roberta ; KELTY, Sally ; Kemp, Nenagh ; Kirkbride, Paul. / The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis. In: Forensic Science. 2014 ; Vol. 237. pp. 7-18.
@article{ffcc9a8513784fa08b602b72a98db112,
title = "The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis",
abstract = "DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience – police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.",
keywords = "Content analysis, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Forensic science, Lexical density, Uncertainty",
author = "Loene Howes and Roberta Julian and Sally KELTY and Nenagh Kemp and Paul Kirkbride",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.007",
language = "English",
volume = "237",
pages = "7--18",
journal = "Forensic Science",
issn = "0379-0738",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis. / Howes, Loene; Julian, Roberta; KELTY, Sally; Kemp, Nenagh; Kirkbride, Paul.

In: Forensic Science, Vol. 237, 2014, p. 7-18.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis

AU - Howes, Loene

AU - Julian, Roberta

AU - KELTY, Sally

AU - Kemp, Nenagh

AU - Kirkbride, Paul

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience – police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.

AB - DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience – police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.

KW - Content analysis

KW - Flesch-Kincaid grade level

KW - Forensic science

KW - Lexical density

KW - Uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896721470&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/readability-expert-reports-nonscientist-reportusers-reports-dna-analysis

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.007

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.007

M3 - Article

VL - 237

SP - 7

EP - 18

JO - Forensic Science

JF - Forensic Science

SN - 0379-0738

ER -