by Tom Busey and colleagues has shown that experts
appear to perceive fingerprints using the configural
process or a holistic process, in which the observer
appreciates not only the presence of individual features
but the spatial relations between them as well. This
process is known to occur when humans process visual
information for faces, which produces a characteristic
pattern in the EEG trace. Fingerprint examiners
demonstrate similar brain-wave activity regarding fin-
gerprints as the general population shows with respect
to faces, and this fact suggests that experts recruit sim-
ilar brain processes to support expertise in the finger-
print domain. This suggests that trained latent print
examiners have perceptual abilities not shared by the
rest of the population.John R. Vanderkolk, Bethany Schneider,
and Tom BuseySee alsoExpert Psychological Testimony, Admissibility
Standards; Expert Psychological Testimony, Forms of;
Expert Testimony, Qualifications of ExpertsFurther Readings
Ashbaugh, D. R. (1999). Quantitative-qualitative friction
ridge analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced
ridgeology.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Busey, T. A., & Vanderkolk, J. R. (2005). Behavioral and
electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in
fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45,431–448.
Cole, S. A. (2005). More than zero: Accounting for error in
latent fingerprint identification. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 95(3), 985–1078.
Cowger, J. F. (1983). Friction ridge skin, comparison
and identification of fingerprints.New York: Elsevier
Science.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113
S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
Dror, I. E., Peron, A., Hind, S., & Charlton, D. (2005). When
emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual
top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 19,799–809.
United States v. Byron Mitchell, No. 02-2859 (3d Cir.
September 9, 2003). Retrieved from http://vls.law
.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/022859p.pdfWeb Sites
Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study,
and Technology: http://www.swgfast.orgFITNESS-FOR-DUTYEVALUATIONS
A fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE) is just what the
term suggests, an evaluation of an individual’s fitness
to do his or her job. In high-risk occupations, such as
the police and public safety, the need for psychologi-
cal suitability and fitness is generally established by
statute or case law. In fact, some courts have held that
agencies are required to assess an officer’s fitness
when significant evidence suggests a lack of fitness.
The specifics of what constitutes fitness are defined,
if they are defined, in very general terms, usually by
state statute. The gist is that job holders should be free
of psychological factors, traits, and problems that
would prevent them from performing their duties safely
and effectively. The specifics of how to assess the fit-
ness of job incumbents and the decision-making stan-
dards have received limited research attention. Instead,
the standards are based on the experience of police psy-
chologists. The Psychological Services section of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
developed guidelines for FFDEs. Their revised guide-
lines were published in 2004.
The first issue in FFDEs is whether an evaluation
should be ordered. This issue is important because
although the FFDE can be an important tool in pro-
tecting public safety, it has the potential for misuse.
The current consensus, including the recommendation
of the IACP, is that there should be objective evidence
that the employee may be unable to adequately per-
form the job and a legitimate basis for believing that
the problems are due to psychological issues.
FFDEs are also being increasingly used in a variety
of other occupations when concerns about potential
violent behavior by an employee are said to raise con-
cerns about the employee’s psychological fitness for
duty. This use of FFDEs is more controversial and less
clearly protected by statute or case law. The practice
can be particularly problematic in the absence of clear
written policies outlining the circumstances and pro-
cedures for fitness evaluations. Relevant legal con-
cerns include violations of the Americans with
Disability Act and the individual employee’s privacy
rights. However, the practice can be important to
defend an employer from “wrongful retention” or
“negligent supervision” complaints when people are
injured by violent employees.
For any occupation, experts agree that FFDEs should
not be used as a substitute for the normal disciplinaryFitness-for-Duty Evaluations——— 321F-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 321