Frowd CD, Carson D, Ness H, Richardson J, Morrison L, McLanaghan S & Hancock PJB (2005) A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11 (1), pp. 33-52. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10683160310001634313; https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313
An evaluation of E-FIT, PROfit, Sketch, Photofit and EvoFIT composite construction techniques was carried out in a "forensically friendly format": composites of unfamiliar targets were constructed from memory following a 3-4-hour delay using a Cognitive Interview and experienced operators. The main dependent variable was spontaneous naming and overall performance was low (10% average naming rate). E-FITs were named better than all techniques except PROfit, though E-FIT was superior to PROfit when the target was more distinctive. E-FIT, PROfit and Sketch were similar overall in a composite sorting task, but Sketch emerged best for more average-looking targets. Photofit performed poorly, as did EvoFIT, an experimental system. Overall, facial distinctiveness was found to be an important factor for composite naming.
facial composite; memory; distinctiveness; witness
Psychology, Crime and Law: Volume 11, Issue 1