Lists
Lists
Frowd, Charlie 
ORCID: 0000-0002-5082-1259, Carson, D, Ness, H and Richardson, J
(2005)
A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 11
(1).
pp. 33-52.
ISSN 1068-316X
Preview |
PDF (AAM)
- Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. 296kB |
Official URL: 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.
Repository Staff Only: item control page
