|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|6462473||1421978||2017||3 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
- Feature-comparison methods produce continuously-valued data.
- The PCAST report advocates a two-stage procedure:
- (1) Dichotomise the data into “match” or “non-match”.
- (2) If “match”, assess correct acceptance and false acceptance rates.
- A better procedure would directly statistically model the continuously-valued data.
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.
Journal: Forensic Science International - Volume 272, March 2017, Pages e7-e9