de Roo RHD, Stevens L, de Poot CJ. The impact of institutional authority on forensic evidence evaluation by criminal justice professionals. J Forensic Sci. 2026;71(1):413–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.70190
In paragraph 3 of the “3.1.3. Presumed guilt defendant” section, the text “When looking further into the results, it shows that in all cases a participant stated that a report was ‘not incriminating’ (n = 32), they indicated not to not have sufficient (case) information to assess the defendant's guilt.” was incorrect. This should have read: “When looking further into the results, it shows that in all cases where a participant stated ‘I don't know’ (n = 32), they indicated not to have sufficient (case) information to assess the defendant's guilt.”
In paragraph 2 of the “3.2.2. Impact perceived institutional authority on the sound and unsound reports” section, the means provided for the unsound reports are incorrect. Instead, the means for the sound reports were filled in here. However, Table 2 does display the correct numbers, and the results of the statistical tests are also correct. The text "Further analyses of the data revealed that the unsound reports (n = 97) were assessed differently between the institutes (F(2, 94) = 3.209, p = 0.045). The post hoc test showed that reports with an NFI logo (M = 3.4) were considered more reliable (p = 0.05) than the same reports when they came from the ForensX institute (M = 3.1). No significant differences were found between the reliability of the unsound police reports (M = 3.3) and the unsound reports of the other two institutes. However, for the sound reports (n = 97), no significant difference in the perceived reliability was found between the three institutes (NFI, M = 3.4; Police, M = 3.3; ForensX, M = 3.1; F(2, 94) = 1.152, p = 0.320)." was incorrect. This should have read: "Further analyses of the data revealed that the unsound reports (n = 97) were assessed differently between the institutes (F(2, 94) = 3.209, p = 0.045). The post hoc test showed that reports with an NFI logo (M = 3.3) were considered more reliable (p = 0.05) than the same reports when they came from the ForensX institute (M = 2.7). No significant differences were found between the reliability of the unsound police reports (M = 3.2) and the unsound reports of the other two institutes. However, for the sound reports (n = 97), no significant difference in the perceived reliability was found between the three institutes (NFI, M = 3.4; Police, M = 3.2; ForensX, M = 3.1; F(2, 94) = 1.152, p = 0.320)."
The sample sizes in the Figures 3, 4, and 5 are incorrect (n=137 and n=138). During the final production stage, an older version of these figures was inadvertently uploaded. The correct sample size is n=133 and n=133. The correct figures are shown here.
FIGURE 3 The assessed reliability of sound reports and unsound reports by criminal justice professionals.
FIGURE 4 The assessed evidential value of sound and unsound reports by criminal justice professionals.
FIGURE 5 Count presumed guilt of the defendant by criminal justice professionals for the sound reports and unsound reports.
We apologize for these errors.