Zobrazit v EDS

Reevaluating skeletal sex estimation practices in forensic anthropology.

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Název: Reevaluating skeletal sex estimation practices in forensic anthropology.
Autoři: Klales AR; Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas, USA., Lesciotto KM; University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Zdroj: Journal of forensic sciences [J Forensic Sci] 2025 May; Vol. 70 (3), pp. 825-834. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Mar 19.
Způsob vydávání: Journal Article
Jazyk: English
Informace o časopise: Publisher: Blackwell Pub Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0375370 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1556-4029 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00221198 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Forensic Sci Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Publication: 2006- : Malden, MA : Blackwell Pub.
Original Publication: [Chicago, Ill.] : Callaghan and Co., 1956-
Výrazy ze slovníku MeSH: Sex Determination by Skeleton*/methods , Forensic Anthropology*/methods, Humans ; Male ; Female ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States
Abstrakt: Understanding practitioner preferences in method selection and reporting for skeletal sex estimation is a necessary step toward the standardization of biological profile estimation within forensic anthropological practice in the United States. To better understand the current state of skeletal sex estimation, an electronic survey was sent via omnichannel distribution methods, targeted to individuals practicing skeletal sex estimation in forensic anthropology. One hundred eighteen individuals responded, answering questions about their educational and training background, case experience, practices, and preferences for skeletal sex estimation, and preferences for future method development. Most respondents use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to estimate skeletal sex (99.0%) and employ multiple methods for casework. The pelvis was preferred for morphological approaches, and the Fordisc program [2005, FORDISC 3: Personal computer forensic discriminate functions] was preferred for metric approaches to skeletal sex estimation. Respondents placed emphasis on the validity and reliability of specific methods, their experience and comfort level with applying specific methods, and utilizing methods that did not require expensive equipment. There was considerable variation in how the final sex estimate was determined and reported, with most either giving preference to the pelvis (36.1%) or reporting all methods but basing the final estimation on experience (39.2%). These results were largely similar to the results from a similar survey conducted in 2012, including a preference for using the pelvis for morphological sex estimation; however, the introduction and adoption of new sex estimation methods since 2012 have changed the landscape of practitioner preferences.
(© 2025 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)
References: Klales AR. Current practices in forensic anthropology for sex estimation in unidentified, adult individuals. Proceedings of the 65th annual scientific meeting of the American Academy of forensic sciences. Washington, DC. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2013. p. 439–440.
Klales AR. Practitioner preferences for sex estimation from human skeletal remains. In: Klales AR, editor. Sex estimation of the human skeleton: history, methods, and emerging techniques. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2020. p. 11–23.
Phenice TW. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1969;30(2):297–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330300214.
Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archaeological Survey; 1994.
Walker PL. Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008;136(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20776.
Jantz RL, Ousley SD. FORDISC 3: personal computer forensic discriminate functions. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Knoxville; 2005.
Spradley MK, Jantz RL. Sex estimation in forensic anthropology: skull versus postcranial elements. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(2):289–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2010.01635.x.
Klales AR, Ousley SD, Vollner JM. A revised method of sexing the human innominate using Phenice's nonmetric traits and statistical methods. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149(1):104–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22102.
Klales AR. MorphoPASSE: the morphological pelvis and skull sex estimation database. 2018. Version 1.0. Topeka, KS: Washburn University. Available from: https://morphopasse.shinyapps.io/morphoPASSE/. [Cited 31 August 2024].
Klales AR, Cole S. MorphoPASSE: the morphological pelvis and skull sex estimation database manual. Topeka, KS: Washburn University; 2018.
Brůžek J, Santos F, Dutailly B, Murail P, Cunha E. Validation and reliability of the sex estimation of the human os coxae using freely available DSP2 software for bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017;164(2):440–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23282.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. Standard 090 – standard for sex estimation in forensic anthropology. Colorado Springs, CO: AAFS Standards Board LLC; 2019.
ABFA. American Board of Forensic Anthropology Multilevel Certification Program. [cited 2024 Jun 10]. Available from: https://www.theabfa.org/multilevel.
NIST. OSAC Lexicon. [cited 2024 Jun 10]. Available from: https://www.nist.gov/glossary/osac‐lexicon.
Christensen AM, Passalacqua NV, Bartelink EJ. Forensic anthropology: current methods and practice. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2019.
Klales AR. Current state of sex estimation in forensic anthropology. Forensic Anthropol. 2021;4(2):118–133. https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2020.3033.
Hughes CE, Juarez CA. Learning from our casework: The forensic anthropology database for assessing methods Accuracy (FADAMA). 2018. NIJ 2018‐DU‐BX‐0213.
DePaolo CA, Wilkinson K. Get your head into the clouds: using word clouds for analyzing qualitative assessment data. TechTrends. 2014;58(3):38–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐014‐0750‐9.
Milner GR, Boldsen JL. Humeral and femoral head diameters in recent white American skeletons. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2011.01953.x.
Stewart TD. Essentials of forensic anthropology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1970.
Walker PL. Greater sciatic notch morphology: sex, age, and population differences. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005;127(4):385–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10422.
King CA. Osteometric assessment of 20th century skeletons from Thailand and Hong Kong. 1997 [thesis]. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University.
Tise ML. A metric analysis of the postcranial skeleton of Hispanic individuals to improve the estimation of sex. 2010. [thesis]. San Marcos, TX: Texas State University‐San Marcos.
Tallman SD, Go MC. Application of the optimized summed scored attributes method to sex estimation in Asian crania. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63(3):809–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13644.
Langley NR, Dudzik B, Cloutier A. A decision tree for nonmetric sex assessment from the skull. J Forensic Sci. 2017;63(1):31–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13534.
Garvin HM, Sholts SB, Mosca LA. Sexual dimorphism in human cranial trait scores: effects of population, age, and body size. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2014;154(2):259–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22502.
Krishan K, Chatterjee PM, Kanchan T, Kaur S, Baryah N, Singh RK. A review of sex estimation techniques during examination of skeletal remains in forensic anthropology casework. Forensic Sci Int. 2016;216:165.e2–165.e165. e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.02.007.
Klales AR. Sex estimation of the human skeleton: history, methods, and emerging techniques. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2020.
Adams DM, Blatt SH, Flaherty TM, Haug JD, Isa MI, Michael AR, et al. Shifting the forensic anthropological paradigm to incorporate the transgender and gender diverse community. Humans. 2023;3(3):142–165. https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3030013.
Kenyhercz MW, Berg GE. Human mandible identification [(hu)MANid]: a free, web‐based GUI to classify human mandibles. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(6):1592–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13479.
Toy S, Secgin Y, Oner Z, Turan MK, Oner S, Senol D. A study on sex estimation by using machine learning algorithms with parameters obtained from computerized tomography images of the cranium. Sci Rep. 2022;12(4278):4278. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐022‐07415‐w.
Bass WM. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual. 5th ed. Columbia, MO: Missouri Archaeological Society; 2005.
France DL. Observational and metric analysis of sex in the skeleton. In: Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. 2nd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Press; 1998. p. 441–458.
Langley N, Jantz R, Jantz LM, Maijanen H, McNulty S, Ousley S. DCP 2.0 osteometric data. Mendeley Data. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2018 https://doi.org/10.17632/6xwhzs2w38.1.
White TD, Black MT, Folkens PA. Human osteology. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2012.
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Report No. 228091; 2009.
Bunch AW. National Academy of Sciences “standardization”: on what terms? J Forensic Sci. 2014;59(4):1041–1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.12496.
Klales A, Lesciotto KM. Sex estimation methods in forensic anthropology: current practice and trends. Proceedings of the 76th annual scientific conference of the American Academy of forensic sciences. Denver, CO. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2024. p. 117.
Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 6th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2017.
Wright KB. Researching internet‐based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. J Comput‐Mediat Commun. 2006;10(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083‐6101.2005.tb00259.x.
Prasad‐Nayak MSD, Narayan KA. Strengths and weaknesses of online surveys. IOSR J Human Soc Sci. 2019;24(5):31–38.
Krogman WM, Isçan MY. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1986.
Rogers T, Saunders S. Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human pelvis. J Forensic Sci. 1994;39(4):1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS13683J.
Bytheway JA, Ross AH. A geometric morphometric approach to sex determination of the human adult as coxa. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(4):859–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2010.01374.x.
Murail P, Brůžek J, Houët F, Cunha E. DSP: a tool for probabilistic sex diagnosis using worldwide variability in hip‐bone measurements. Bull Mém Soc Anthropol Paris. 2005;17(3–4):167–176. https://doi.org/10.4000/bmsap.1157.
Albanese J, Eklics BA, Tuck A. A metric method for sex determination using the proximal femur and fragmentary hipbone. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53(6):1283–1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2008.00855.x.
Vance VL, Steyn M, L'Abbe EN. Nonmetric sex determination from the distal and posterior humerus in black and white south Africans. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(3):710–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2011.01724.x.
Rogers TL. Sex determination of adolescent skeletons using the distal humerus. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999;140:143–148.
Williams BA, Rogers T. Evaluating the accuracy and precision of cranial morphological traits for sex determination. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51(4):729–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2006.00177.
Ascádi G, Nemeskéri J. History of human life span and mortality. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado; 1970.
Wright R. Guide to using the CRANID6 programs CR6aIND: For linear and nearest neighbours discriminant analysis. 2012. [cited 2024 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.scribd.com/document/324417767/CRANID6b‐ManuaL‐1‐pdf.
Giles E, Elliot O. Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1963;21:53–68.
Slice DE, Ross A. 3D‐ID: Geometric morphometric classification of crania for forensic scientists. 2009. Raleigh NC: North Carolina State University. Available from: http://www.3d‐id.org.
Grant Information: DOJ-NIJ-22-RO-0007 National Institute of Justice; 2214747 National Science Foundation
Contributed Indexing: Keywords: best practices; biological profile; forensic anthropology; practitioner preferences; sex estimation; standardization; survey research
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20250319 Date Completed: 20250502 Latest Revision: 20250502
Update Code: 20250502
DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.70014
PMID: 40104904
Databáze: MEDLINE
Popis
Abstrakt:Understanding practitioner preferences in method selection and reporting for skeletal sex estimation is a necessary step toward the standardization of biological profile estimation within forensic anthropological practice in the United States. To better understand the current state of skeletal sex estimation, an electronic survey was sent via omnichannel distribution methods, targeted to individuals practicing skeletal sex estimation in forensic anthropology. One hundred eighteen individuals responded, answering questions about their educational and training background, case experience, practices, and preferences for skeletal sex estimation, and preferences for future method development. Most respondents use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to estimate skeletal sex (99.0%) and employ multiple methods for casework. The pelvis was preferred for morphological approaches, and the Fordisc program [2005, FORDISC 3: Personal computer forensic discriminate functions] was preferred for metric approaches to skeletal sex estimation. Respondents placed emphasis on the validity and reliability of specific methods, their experience and comfort level with applying specific methods, and utilizing methods that did not require expensive equipment. There was considerable variation in how the final sex estimate was determined and reported, with most either giving preference to the pelvis (36.1%) or reporting all methods but basing the final estimation on experience (39.2%). These results were largely similar to the results from a similar survey conducted in 2012, including a preference for using the pelvis for morphological sex estimation; however, the introduction and adoption of new sex estimation methods since 2012 have changed the landscape of practitioner preferences.<br /> (© 2025 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)
ISSN:1556-4029
DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.70014