Work

Strengthening operational performance in canine detection teams with double-blind certification testing

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: The present study evaluated the performance of professional canine–handler teams on narcotics detection certification trials conducted under single-blind and double-blind conditions. Across six years of annual testing (2012–2017), we analyzed 667 first-attempt trials and 132 second-attempt trials from 133 distinct canine-handler teams. Teams demonstrated high accuracy under single-blind conditions (94% pass rate for vehicle searches and 100% for luggage searches), but performance dropped substantially under double-blind conditions (72% pass rate for vehicle searches and 88% for luggage searches), where neither handlers nor evaluators knew the number or location of the target odors. Many teams that failed an initial double-blind trial passed on a second attempt, suggesting that at least some observed deficits in performance may be easily remedied with additional practice participating in double-blind trials. A follow-up survey of 20 handlers indicated generally positive perceptions of double-blind testing—although double-blind trials are more difficult, handlers believe that these types of trials increase their confidence, improve training strategies, and more closely reflect real-world scenarios. Incorporating routine double-blind exercises into certification and maintenance training may provide agencies with a reliable means of preparing teams for unpredictable real-world scenarios. Thus, double-blind testing represents a straightforward, cost-efficient strategy for enhancing the accuracy, credibility, and overall integrity of canine detection. • Examined 133 canine-handler teams across 6 years of narcotics certification tests. • Performance was significantly higher on single-blind trials than double-blind trials. • Teams were 7 times more likely to pass single-blind trials than double-blind trials. • Handlers report that double-blind tests are difficult but also increase confidence. • Double-blind tests are feasible, more rigorous, and better reflect operational work.

Source: Forensic Science International Synergy

DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2026.100658

Authors: Adele Quigley-McBride, Paola A. Prada-Tiedemann, Fred Helfers

Institutions: Simon Fraser University, Texas Tech University

Language: English

Topic: Human-Animal Interaction Studies

Subfield: Genetics

Field: Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Domain: Life Sciences

Open Access status: gold

Estimated APC paid: $2,310

Funder: Simon Fraser University