A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison; David H. Kaye; David J. Balding; Duncan Taylor; Philip Dawid; Colin G.G. Aitken; Simone Gittelson; Grzegorz Zadora; Bernard Robertson; Sheila Willis; Susan Pope; Martin Neil; Kristy A. Martire; Amanda Hepler; Richard D. Gill; Allan Jamieson; Jacob de Zoete; R. Brent Ostrum; Amke Caliebe

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison^*, David H. Kaye, David J. Balding, Duncan Taylor, Philip Dawid, Colin G.G. Aitken, Simone Gittelson, Grzegorz Zadora, Bernard Robertson, Sheila Willis, Susan Pope, Martin Neil, Kristy A. Martire, Amanda Hepler, Richard D. Gill, Allan Jamieson, Jacob de Zoete, R. Brent Ostrum, Amke Caliebe

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

26 Citations (SciVal)

67 Downloads (Pure)

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
Pages (from-to)	e7-e9
Number of pages	3
Journal	Forensic Science International
Volume	272
Early online date	26 Oct 2016
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2017

Bibliographical note

Keywords

false alarm
forensic statistics
likelihood ratio
match/non-match
PCAST report
sensitivity to pressure and temperature

Access to Document

10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage
© 2016, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Accepted author manuscript, 230 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Cite this

Morrison, G. S., Kaye, D. H., Balding, D. J., Taylor, D., Dawid, P., Aitken, C. G. G., Gittelson, S., Zadora, G., Robertson, B., Willis, S., Pope, S., Neil, M., Martire, K. A., Hepler, A., Gill, R. D., Jamieson, A., de Zoete, J., Ostrum, R. B., & Caliebe, A. (2017). A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage. Forensic Science International, 272, e7-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

@article{7a93b267c6f742b8945f4c0854a7b7ce,

title = "A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage",

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.",

keywords = "false alarm, forensic statistics, likelihood ratio, match/non-match, PCAST report, sensitivity to pressure and temperature",

author = "Morrison, {Geoffrey Stewart} and Kaye, {David H.} and Balding, {David J.} and Duncan Taylor and Philip Dawid and Aitken, {Colin G.G.} and Simone Gittelson and Grzegorz Zadora and Bernard Robertson and Sheila Willis and Susan Pope and Martin Neil and Martire, {Kristy A.} and Amanda Hepler and Gill, {Richard D.} and Allan Jamieson and {de Zoete}, Jacob and Ostrum, {R. Brent} and Amke Caliebe",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2016, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ",

year = "2017",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018",

language = "English",

volume = "272",

pages = "e7--e9",

journal = "Forensic Science International",

issn = "0379-0738",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Morrison, GS, Kaye, DH, Balding, DJ, Taylor, D, Dawid, P, Aitken, CGG, Gittelson, S, Zadora, G, Robertson, B, Willis, S, Pope, S, Neil, M, Martire, KA, Hepler, A, Gill, RD, Jamieson, A, de Zoete, J, Ostrum, RB & Caliebe, A 2017, 'A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage', Forensic Science International, vol. 272, pp. e7-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

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.

KW - false alarm

KW - forensic statistics

KW - likelihood ratio

KW - match/non-match

KW - PCAST report

KW - sensitivity to pressure and temperature

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85005870143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

M3 - Letter, comment/opinion or interview

AN - SCOPUS:85005870143

SN - 0379-0738

VL - 272

SP - e7-e9

JO - Forensic Science International

JF - Forensic Science International

ER -

A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this