Perception problems of the verbal scale

Science and Justice

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 154-158

  Mullen, Carrie ^a   Spence, Danielle ^b   Moxey, Linda ^b   Jamieson, Allan ^a  

^a Forensic Institute   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Perception; Verbal scale; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CHARACTER STATE; COURT; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERBAL SCALE; VOLUNTEER;

PERCEPTION; VERBAL SCALE; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS;

EID: 84895878095     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Association of Forensic Science Providers Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci. Justice 2009, 49:161-164.
2. Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J., Champod C., Evett I.A.W., Jackson G. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:43-49.
3. Martire Kristy A., Kemp Richard I., Newell Ben R. The psychology of interpreting expert evaluative opinions. Australian J. Forensic Sci. 2013, 10.1080/00450618.2013.784361.
4. Aitken, et al. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:1-2.
5. [2010] EWCA Crim 2439.
6. [2009] EWCA Crim 2698.
7. [2010] EWCA Crim 1085.
8. [2013] EWCA Crim 2.
9. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. A verbal scale for the interpretation of evidence. Sci. Justice 1998, 38(4):279-283.
10. [2009] EWCA Crim 1876.
11. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J. Forecast. 1982, 1:257-269.
12. Erev I., Cohen B.L. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1990, 45:1-18.
13. Moxey L.M., Sanford A.J. Communicating quantities: a review of pscyholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2000, 14:237-255.
14. Jackson G., Jones S., Booth G., Champod C., Evett I.W. The nature of forensic science opinion - a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. Sci. Justice 2006, 1:33-44.