A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

81 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 - 1 Mar 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

profit
Interviews
interview
evaluation
performance

Cite this

Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., Mclanaghan, S., & Hancock, P. (2005). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313
Frowd, Charlie D. ; Carson, Derek ; Ness, Hayley ; Richardson, Jan ; Morrison, Lisa ; Mclanaghan, Sarah ; Hancock, Peter. / A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. In: Psychology, Crime and Law. 2005 ; Vol. 11, No. 1. pp. 33-52.
@article{22690cf68dd64c95ba6c767caf608103,
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 Peter Hancock",
year = "2005",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10683160310001634313",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "33--52",
journal = "Psychology, Crime and Law",
issn = "1068-316X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

Frowd, CD, Carson, D, Ness, H, Richardson, J, Morrison, L, Mclanaghan, S & Hancock, P 2005, 'A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems' Psychology, Crime and Law, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313

A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. / Frowd, Charlie D.; Carson, Derek; Ness, Hayley; Richardson, Jan; Morrison, Lisa; Mclanaghan, Sarah; Hancock, Peter.

In: Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.03.2005, p. 33-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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

PY - 2005/3/1

Y1 - 2005/3/1

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12344316985&partnerID=8YFLogxK

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 -

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