Abstract
Estimation of sex is generally the first step when constructing the biological profile of an unidentified individual, primarily because most of the methods currently used for ancestry, stature, and age estimation are sex-specific. Current methods used to estimate sex consist of either quantitative measures of skeletal elements, or qualitative observations of gross morphology, primarily of the pelvis and skull. Despite attempts for standardization, the methods employed and the ways in which the results are reported for biological profile parameters vary considerably by practitioner. In many forensic cases, both metric and morphological methods are employed for sex estimation to generate the biological profile. Inconsistency within forensic anthropology for sex estimation method preferences, method applications, and subsequent result reporting is problematic in light of the Daubert decision and raises questions of methodological protocol for sex estimation and consistency within the field. An electronic questionnaire was created and participants were recruited via email through a bulk list serve distribution from professional organizations that included forensic anthropologists, or through announcement of the research on these organizations’ websites. Responses were received from 152 individuals. The findings from this research highlight the high degree of variability in the methods used for sex estimation and the need for standardization within the field.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call