Fact or Friction: examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis
Fact or Friction: examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis
Three studies are presented which provide a mixed methods exploration of fingerprint analysis. Using a qualitative approach (Expt 1), expert analysts used a ‘think aloud’ task to describe their process of analysis. Thematic analysis indicated consistency of practice, and experts’ comments underpinned the development of a training tool for subsequent use. Following this, a quantitative approach (Expt 2) assessed expert reliability on a fingerprint matching task. The results suggested that performance was high and often at ceiling, regardless of the length of experience held by the expert. As a final test, the experts’ fingerprint analysis method was taught to a set of naïve students, and their performance on the fingerprint matching task was compared both to the expert group and to an untrained novice group (Expt 3). Results confirmed that the trained students performed significantly better than the untrained students. However, performance remained substantially below that of the experts. Several explanations are explored to account for the performance gap between experts and trained novices, and their implications are discussed in terms of the future of fingerprint evidence in court.
145-156
Stevenage, Sarah V.
493f8c57-9af9-4783-b189-e06b8e958460
Pitfield, Christy
c254811a-5726-45f6-82b0-d4a510a3eea7
October 2016
Stevenage, Sarah V.
493f8c57-9af9-4783-b189-e06b8e958460
Pitfield, Christy
c254811a-5726-45f6-82b0-d4a510a3eea7
Stevenage, Sarah V. and Pitfield, Christy
(2016)
Fact or Friction: examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis.
Forensic Science International, 267, .
(doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.026).
Abstract
Three studies are presented which provide a mixed methods exploration of fingerprint analysis. Using a qualitative approach (Expt 1), expert analysts used a ‘think aloud’ task to describe their process of analysis. Thematic analysis indicated consistency of practice, and experts’ comments underpinned the development of a training tool for subsequent use. Following this, a quantitative approach (Expt 2) assessed expert reliability on a fingerprint matching task. The results suggested that performance was high and often at ceiling, regardless of the length of experience held by the expert. As a final test, the experts’ fingerprint analysis method was taught to a set of naïve students, and their performance on the fingerprint matching task was compared both to the expert group and to an untrained novice group (Expt 3). Results confirmed that the trained students performed significantly better than the untrained students. However, performance remained substantially below that of the experts. Several explanations are explored to account for the performance gap between experts and trained novices, and their implications are discussed in terms of the future of fingerprint evidence in court.
Text
Fact or Friction AUTHOR ACCEPTED VERSION.docx
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
1-s2.0-S0379073816303565-main.pdf
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 17 August 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 August 2016
Published date: October 2016
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 400066
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/400066
ISSN: 0379-0738
PURE UUID: 575a0d98-9eb6-4f2e-b39a-af458277e540
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Sep 2016 15:07
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 05:52
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Christy Pitfield
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
