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

doi:10.1080/10683160310001634313

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 journal › Article

83 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	33-52
Number of pages	20
Journal	Psychology, Crime and Law
Volume	11
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313
Publication status	Published - Mar 2005

Access to Document

10.1080/10683160310001634313

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

Cite this

Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., Mclanaghan, S., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2005). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313

@article{33ae604d74b34b57a07ec5622d4eaa87,

title = "A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems",

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.",

author = "Frowd, {Charlie D.} and Derek Carson and Hayley Ness and Jan Richardson and Lisa Morrison and Sarah Mclanaghan and Hancock, {Peter J. B.}",

year = "2005",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1080/10683160310001634313",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "33--52",

journal = "Psychology, Crime and Law",

issn = "1068-316X",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems

AU - Frowd, Charlie D.

AU - Carson, Derek

AU - Ness, Hayley

AU - Richardson, Jan

AU - Morrison, Lisa

AU - Mclanaghan, Sarah

AU - Hancock, Peter J. B.

PY - 2005/3

Y1 - 2005/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1080/10683160310001634313

DO - 10.1080/10683160310001634313

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 33

EP - 52

JO - Psychology, Crime and Law

JF - Psychology, Crime and Law

SN - 1068-316X

IS - 1

ER -