Literature DB >> 28454631

Understanding forensic expert evaluative evidence: A study of the perception of verbal expressions of the strength of evidence.

Eleanor Arscott1, Ruth Morgan2, Georgina Meakin2, James French3.   

Abstract

Verbal expressions of evidential strength are routinely used when presenting forensic expert evaluative evidence. The degree to which these verbal expressions are interpreted uniformly among different individuals requires further empirical study. This study focussed on groups of individuals with different roles within the criminal justice system and individuals with varying degrees of expertise and knowledge. Three groups of individuals were identified: laypeople, legal professionals and those with some forensic or investigative knowledge. The participants in the study (n=230) were provided with a case summary to which a verbal expression of the strength of evidence was randomly assigned. Participants were subsequently invited to indicate their perception of the strength of the evidence on a scale that was provided. Generally, across the study groups, the trend was one of increased perceived strength of evidence as the intended strength of the verbal expression was increased, with some notable exceptions. In general, there was good concordance between the groups in the way the different expressions were perceived. It was found that participants performed poorly when it came to differentiating between expressions at the 'strong' end of the scale ('strong', 'very strong' and 'extremely strong'). The findings resonate with calls for validated and robust communication frameworks for evaluative opinions. Further empirical research in this area is warranted and that such research can represent an important contribution towards improving the communication and presentation of forensic evidence.
Copyright © 2017 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Likelihood ratio; Perception; Strength of evidence; Verbal scale

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28454631     DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Justice        ISSN: 1355-0306            Impact factor:   2.124


  4 in total

1.  Estimating the Relevance of Historical Red Flags in the Diagnosis of Abusive Head Trauma.

Authors:  Kent P Hymel; Gloria Lee; Stephen Boos; Wouter A Karst; Andrew Sirotnak; Suzanne B Haney; Antoinette Laskey; Ming Wang
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 2.  Interpol review of fibres and textiles 2016-2019.

Authors:  Laurent Lepot; Kyra Lunstroot; Kris De Wael
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 3.  Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis.

Authors:  Heidi Eldridge
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  Must the random man be unrelated? A lingering misconception in forensic genetics.

Authors:  Emmanuel Milot; Simon Baechler; Frank Crispino
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 2.395

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.