TY - JOUR
T1 - Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models
T2 - A response to Lennard (2013) Fingerprint identification: how far have we come?
AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart
AU - Stoel, Reinoud D.
PY - 2014/7/3
Y1 - 2014/7/3
N2 - Lennard (2013) [Fingerprint identification: how far have we come? Aus J Forensic Sci. doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.752037] proposes that the numeric output of statistical models should not be presented in court (except if necessary/if required). Instead, he argues in favour of an expert opinion which may be informed by a statistical model but which is not itself the output of a statistical model. We argue that his proposed procedure lacks the transparency, the ease of testing of validity and reliability, and the relative robustness to cognitive bias that are the strengths of a likelihood-ratio approach based on relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models, and that the latter is therefore preferable.
AB - Lennard (2013) [Fingerprint identification: how far have we come? Aus J Forensic Sci. doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.752037] proposes that the numeric output of statistical models should not be presented in court (except if necessary/if required). Instead, he argues in favour of an expert opinion which may be informed by a statistical model but which is not itself the output of a statistical model. We argue that his proposed procedure lacks the transparency, the ease of testing of validity and reliability, and the relative robustness to cognitive bias that are the strengths of a likelihood-ratio approach based on relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models, and that the latter is therefore preferable.
KW - Evaluation
KW - Evidence
KW - Likelihood ratio
KW - Opinion
KW - Reliability
KW - Statistical model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904764989&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00450618.2013.833648
U2 - 10.1080/00450618.2013.833648
DO - 10.1080/00450618.2013.833648
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:84904764989
SN - 0045-0618
VL - 46
SP - 282
EP - 292
JO - Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
JF - Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
IS - 3
ER -