A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems

Charlie D. Frowd, Derek Carson, Hayley Ness, Jan Richardson, Lisa Morrison, Sarah Mclanaghan, Peter J. B. Hancock

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    98 Citations (Scopus)

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)33-52
    Number of pages20
    JournalPsychology, Crime and Law
    Volume11
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2005

    Keywords

    • Facial composite
    • Distinctiveness
    • Memory
    • Witness

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this