The Open UniversitySkip to content

A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems

Frowd, Charlie, D.; Carson, Derek; Ness, Hayley; Richardson, Jan; Morrison, Lisa; McLanaghan, Sarah and Hancock, Peter (2005). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1) pp. 33–52.

DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar


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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Copyright Holders: 2005 Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 1068-316X
Keywords: facial composite; memory; distinctiveness; witness
Academic Unit/Department: Social Sciences > Psychology in the Social Sciences
Item ID: 24568
Depositing User: Hayley Ness
Date Deposited: 10 Nov 2010 15:08
Last Modified: 23 Oct 2012 10:52
Share this page:


Scopus Citations

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   + 44 (0)870 333 4340