1、Designation: E678 07 (Reapproved 2013)Standard Practice forEvaluation of Scientific or Technical Data1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E678; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revisi
2、on. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This practice establishes criteria for evaluating scientificand technical data, and other relevant considerations, whichconstitut
3、e acceptable bases for forming scientific or technicalexpert opinions.1.2 This practice recommends generally acceptable profes-sional practice, although the facts and issues of each situationrequire specific consideration, and may involve matters notexpressly dealt with herein. Deviations from this
4、practice arenot necessarily wrong or inferior, but should be documentedand justifiable, if compliance with this standard is claimed. Notall aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circum-stances.1.3 This practice offers a set of instructions for performingone or more specific operations. T
5、his document cannot replaceeducation or experience and should be used in conjunction withprofessional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may beapplicable in all circumstances.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is there
6、sponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E620 Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Tech-nical ExpertsE860 Practice for
7、 Examining And Preparing Items That AreOr May Become Involved In Criminal or Civil LitigationE1020 Practice for Reporting Incidents that May InvolveCriminal or Civil LitigationE1188 Practice for Collection and Preservation of Informa-tion and Physical Items by a Technical Investigator3. Significance
8、 and Use3.1 Persons engaged in forensic investigations are respon-sible for identifying significant data. They then analyze andcorrelate the data and report conclusions and opinions. Theseopinions should be supported by the data, reported in a formthat is understandable to a layman familiar with the
9、 incident,and capable of being evaluated by knowledgeable scientists,engineers, or investigators.3.2 This practice is intended to serve as a guideline for thescientific or technical expert in conducting an investigation,which includes analyzing and evaluating facts. In addition, thispractice may ass
10、ist others in understanding and evaluating thework performed. Refer to Practice E1188 for guidance pertain-ing to the actual collection of information and physicalevidence, and Practice E1020 for guidance regarding the initialreporting of the incident.4. Evaluation Procedure4.1 This section outlines
11、 basic principles of evaluation inaccordance with accepted scientific and engineering practices.4.1.1 Define the Problem Being Considered: The definitionshould includeThe expert must first define the problem beingconsidered. The definition should include: (1) the allegation(s)made, (2) the scientifi
12、c or technical issues being addressed, (3)the relationship between the allegation(s) and the scientific ortechnical issue(s), and (4) the relationship(s) between thescientific or technical issue(s) and the incident(s) to which theallegations(s) refer.4.1.2 Identification and Validity of Hypotheses:4
13、.1.2.1 State and, if necessary, explain scientific or technicalhypotheses and judgmental criteria used in evaluation. Specifythe source, scientific and technical basis, and relationship ofeach hypothesis and criterion to known incident data4.1.2.2 Address the relative scientific or technical merits
14、ofalternate hypotheses supported by the available data.4.1.3 Evaluation Techniques:4.1.3.1 Prepare and maintain a logical and traceable recordof analysis and deduction. The evaluation should be quantifiedto the extent feasible, but should not assume greater precisionthan is warranted by the quality
15、of the available data. Numeri-cal probability estimates are acceptable only when based on1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on ForensicSciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.11 on Interdisciplin-ary Forensic Science Standards.Current edition approve
16、d March 1, 2013. Published March 2013. Originallyapproved in 1980. Last previous edition approved in 2007 as E678 07. DOI:10.1520/E0678-07R13.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards vol
17、ume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States1sound analytical or statistical principles, and when their con-fidence limits have been calculated.5. Dat
18、a for Evaluation5.1 The evaluation process is based on the informationcollected and is intended to determine the most logical orreasonable explanation of the incident, accounting for allsignificant data. Consider three factors: (1) identification of thesource of the data (2) identification of the so
19、urce validity of thedata; and (3) relevance of the data gathered.5.1.1 Examples of data include: (1) observed or recon-structed objects or events (2) physical characteristics ofpersons, things and conditions involved (3) dates, times andlocations; (4) physical injuries to persons and damage toobject
20、s; (5) product information and conditions of use5.1.2 Identification of Source of Data:5.1.2.1 Catalog all data made available to or collected by theinvestigator by relationship to the incident and physical char-acteristics. Identify quantitative data by type, for example, raw,reduced and interprete
21、d. Specify the basis for any data reduc-tion or analysis.5.1.2.2 Data may also be identified by source, date, time andplace. Sources may be categorized as: (1) testimonial(statements, affidavits, pleadings, depositions, interrogatories,etc.) (2) documentary (specifications, records, reports,publicat
22、ions, literature, manuals, drawings, photographs, etc.),and (3) physical (components, specimens, samples, etc.).Identify distinguishing characteristics as clearly as possible tofulfill evidentiary requirements.5.1.3 Validity of DataValidity of data may be subject toquestion unless it has been genera
23、ted by establishedprocedures, such as those specified in Practice E860, andgenerally accepted test methods.5.1.3.1 Specify the source(s) of other data used in theevaluation. This practice does not preclude the use of datadeveloped for other purposes where such data can be shown tobe relevant to the
24、conditions of the incident. Data published inpeer-reviewed professional journals is generally regarded ashaving more validity than data published in sources withoutpeer review.5.1.4 Relevance of DataWhen reconstructing a historicalevent, the investigator is likely to observe more data than ispertine
25、nt to the reconstruction. Professional judgment is re-quired to assess whether a particular piece of data is relevant.6. Opinions6.1 Opinions should be formed or conclusions drawn onlyafter the data have been evaluated. Opinions or conclusionsmust account for all known relevant facts related to the
26、incidentand be consistent with accepted scientific and logical prin-ciples.7. Report7.1 If a report is to be prepared, guidance on reportpreparation may be found in Practice E620.8. Keywords8.1 data evaluation; data validation; forensic science; tech-nical dataASTM International takes no position re
27、specting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentionedin this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the riskof infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.This
28、 standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years andif not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standardsand should be addressed to ASTM Inter
29、national Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of theresponsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you shouldmake your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown b
30、elow.This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the aboveaddress or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or serviceastm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the ASTM website (www.astm.org/COPYRIGHT/).E678 07 (2013)2
