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 | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2005 |
Keywords
- Facial composite
- Distinctiveness
- Memory
- Witness