Frowd, Charlie, D.; Carson, Derek; Ness, Hayley; Richardson, Jan; Morrison, Lisa; McLanaghan, Sarah and Hancock, Peter
A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1) pp. 33–52.
An evaluation of E-FIT, PROfit, Sketch, Photofit and EvoFIT composite construction techniques was carried out in a ‘‘forensically friendly format’’: composites of unfamiliar targets were constructed from memory following a 3 /4-hour delay using a Cognitive Interview and experienced operators. The main dependent variable was spontaneous naming and overall performance was low (10% average naming rate). E-FITs were named better than all techniques except PROfit, though E-FIT was superior to PROfit when the target was more distinctive. E-FIT, PROfit and Sketch were similar overall in a composite sorting task, but Sketch emerged best for more average-looking targets. Photofit performed poorly, as did EvoFIT, an experimental system. Overall, facial distinctiveness was found to be an important factor for composite naming.
Actions (login may be required)