Reevaluating skeletal sex estimation practices in forensic anthropology

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.