Abstract
This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e7-e9 |
| Journal | Forensic Science International |
| Volume | 272 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 1 2017 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Cite this
}
A comment on the PCAST report : Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage. / Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart; Kaye, David H.; Balding, David J.; Taylor, Duncan; Dawid, Philip; Aitken, Colin G G; Gittelson, Simone; Zadora, Grzegorz; Robertson, Bernard; Willis, Sheila; Pope, Susan; Neil, Martin; Martire, Kristy A.; Hepler, Amanda; Gill, Richard D.; Jamieson, Allan; de Zoete, Jacob; Ostrum, R. Brent; Caliebe, Amke.
In: Forensic Science International, Vol. 272, 01.03.2017, p. e7-e9.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comment on the PCAST report
T2 - Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage
AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart
AU - Kaye, David H.
AU - Balding, David J.
AU - Taylor, Duncan
AU - Dawid, Philip
AU - Aitken, Colin G G
AU - Gittelson, Simone
AU - Zadora, Grzegorz
AU - Robertson, Bernard
AU - Willis, Sheila
AU - Pope, Susan
AU - Neil, Martin
AU - Martire, Kristy A.
AU - Hepler, Amanda
AU - Gill, Richard D.
AU - Jamieson, Allan
AU - de Zoete, Jacob
AU - Ostrum, R. Brent
AU - Caliebe, Amke
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.
AB - This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85005870143&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85005870143&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018
DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018
M3 - Letter
C2 - 27817943
AN - SCOPUS:85005870143
VL - 272
SP - e7-e9
JO - Forensic Science International
JF - Forensic Science International
SN - 0379-0738
ER -