School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Dec;25(6):2346-2355. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1448-3.
Forensic handwriting examiners currently testify to the origin of questioned handwriting for legal purposes. However, forensic scientists are increasingly being encouraged to assign probabilities to their observations in the form of a likelihood ratio. This study is the first to examine whether handwriting experts are able to estimate the frequency of US handwriting features more accurately than novices. The results indicate that the absolute error for experts was lower than novices, but the size of the effect is modest, and the overall error rate even for experts is large enough as to raise questions about whether their estimates can be sufficiently trustworthy for presentation in courts. When errors are separated into effects caused by miscalibration and those caused by imprecision, we find systematic differences between individuals. Finally, we consider several ways of aggregating predictions from multiple experts, suggesting that quite substantial improvements in expert predictions are possible when a suitable aggregation method is used.
法庭笔迹鉴定人目前根据法律目的证明有争议的手写笔迹的出处。然而,法庭科学家越来越多地被鼓励以似然比的形式对手头观察到的结果给出概率。本研究首次检验了笔迹专家是否比新手更能准确地估计美国笔迹特征的出现频率。结果表明,专家的绝对误差低于新手,但效果的幅度较小,即使是专家的总体错误率也大到足以让人怀疑他们的估计是否足够可靠,可在法庭上提出。当错误被分为由校准错误和不精确引起的效果时,我们发现个体之间存在系统性差异。最后,我们考虑了从多个专家那里汇总预测的几种方法,表明当使用合适的汇总方法时,专家预测的改进幅度相当大。