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: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313

Abstract

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.

Viewing alternatives

Metrics

Public Attention

Altmetrics from Altmetric

Number of Citations

Citations from Dimensions

Item Actions

Export

About

Recommendations