358 Forensic dentistrythe results show an interesting distribution. A review of Arheart and Pretty’s
ABFO Bitemark Workshop, Table 3, p. 111, reveals that five of the thirty-two
participants achieved diagnostic accuracy scores (AUC) of 1.0 on each case,
that is, 100% overall, and another four achieved AUC scores of 0.99 or 99%
overall. In ROC analysis, the area under the ROC curve defines the diagnostic
accuracy. Sixteen, half of the participants, scored 92% or better overall, and
twelve had no single score lower than 91%. It seems clear from these data, in
spite of the short comings of the study’s design, that some participants were
able to accurately analyze the material and were clearly more skilled in analysis
of that material than others. This information supports the shared opinion of
this chapter’s authors that bitemark analysis, when performed by some expe-
rienced forensic odontologists, following appropriate guidelines, can be a very
accurate discipline. It also illustrates, conversely, that some forensic dentists
should not be independently or individually responsible for bitemark analysis
cases until their skills are sufficiently developed and demonstrated. These data
further support the recommended requirements for seeking second opinions,
the need for true proficiency testing for forensic odontologists in bitemark
analysis , and mandatory remedial education for those not performing well on
those proficiency tests. It may also indicate that the qualifications required to
apply for board certification should be modified to include an increase in the
level of bitemark analysis experience required and the mandated oversight of
the bitemark-related activities of new diplomates.
14.4.5 The Totalitarian EgoSome have said that the egocentricity of some forensic odontologists is a
major factor in the generation of the problem cases in bitemark analysis.
There are theoretical sociological and psychological bases for these opinions.
Greenwald discussed the relationships between the ego and cognitive biases
in his 1980 article.^80 The discussion centers on the effect that cognitive biases,
especially egocentricity, beneffectance (accepting personal responsibility for
desired but not undesired outcomes), and cognitive conservatism (resistance
to cognitive change), have on the ego and human behavior. He theorizes that
those biases combine to negative effect, especially in individuals involved in
“higher level organizations of knowledge, perhaps best exemplified by theo-
retical paradigms in science.”^80 In a later work Tavris paraphrases Greenwald,
“The ego is a self-justifying historian, which seeks only that information that
agrees with it, rewrites history when it needs to, and does not even see the
evidence that threatens it.”^81 That quote seems to accurately apply to the
actions and statements of some forensic odontologists involved with problem
cases. Greenwald, Tavris, and others assert that an integral part of cognitive
conservatism, resistance to certain kinds of change, is the tendency toward
susceptibility to confirmation bias, a persistent problem in the identification