Perception problems of the verbal scale: A reanalysis and application of a membership function approach

Science and Justice

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 264-273

  Martire, Kristy A ^a   Watkins, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Communicating uncertainty; Expert evaluative opinions; Likelihood ratios; Membership functions; Verbal conclusion scales

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; COMMUNICATION SKILL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SEEKING; INTERPRETATION BIAS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRANSLATING (LANGUAGE); VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; EXPERT WITNESS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS;

EID: 84930925261     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2015.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Mullen C., et al. Perception problems of the verbal scale. Sci. Justice 2014, 51(2):154-158.
2. Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Sci. Int. 2008, 177(2):120-132.
3. Evett I. Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Sci. Justice 1998, 38(3):198-202.
4. Evett I., et al. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation and the structure and content of statements. Sci. Justice 2000, 40(4):233-239.
5. Jackson G., et al. The nature of forensic science opinion-a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigation and in court proceedings. Sci. Justice 2006, 46(1):33-44.
6. Taroni F., Aitken C. Forensic science at trial. Jurimetrics 1997, 327-337.
7. Edwards H., Gotsonis C. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
8. Found B., Edmond G. Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 44. 10.1080/00450618.2011.644260.
9. Howes L.M., Martire K.A., Kelty S.F. Response to Recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS Report-standards for formatting and reporting expert evaluative opinions: where do we stand?. Forensic Sci. Policy Manage Int. J. 2014, 5(1-2):1-14.
10. Ligertwood A., Edmond G. Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law Probab. Risk 2012, 11(4):289-302.
11. Sjerps M.J., Berger C.E. How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law Probab. Risk 2012, 11(4):317-329.
12. Jackson G. Understanding forensic science opinions. Handbook of Forensic Science 2009, 419-455.
13. Aitken C., et al. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci. Justice 2011, 51(1):1-2.
14. Berger C.E.H. Criminalistics is reasoning backwards. Ned. Juistenblad 2010, 85:784-789.
15. Jackson G. The scientist and the scales of justice. Sci. Justice 2000, 40(2):81-85.
16. Association of Forensic Science P. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci. Justice 2009, 49(3):161-164.
17. Budescu D., Wallsten T.S. Processing linguistic probabilities: general principles and empirical evidence. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 1995, 32:275-318.
18. Rudram D. Interpretation of scientific evidence. Sci. Justice 1996, 36(3):133-138.
19. Shor Y., Weisner S. A survey on the conclusions drawn on the same footwear marks obtained in actual cases by several experts throughout the world. J. Forensic Sci. 1999, 44:380-384.
20. Budescu D., Broomell S., Por H.H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20(3):299-308.
21. Budescu D., Por H.H., Broomell S. Effective communicating of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Clim. Chang. 2012, 113:181-200.
22. Juanchich M., Teigen K.H., Villejoubert G. Is guilt 'likely' or 'not certain'?: contrast with previous probabilities determines choice of verbal terms. Acta Psychol. 2010, 135(3):267-277.
23. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J. Forecast. 1982, 1(3):257-269.
24. Teigen K.H., Brun W. Ambiguous probabilities: when does p=0.3 reflect a possibility, and when does it express a doubt?. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2000, 13(3):345-362.
25. Buckleton J., Triggs C., Champod C. An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidence. Sci. Justice 2006, 46(2):69-78.
26. Morrison G.S. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Sci. Justice 2011, 51(3):91-98.
27. Neumann C., et al. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. J. Forensic Sci. 2007, 52(1):54-64.
28. Martire K., et al. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law Hum. Behav. 2013, 37(3):197-207.
29. Martire K., et al. On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014, 240:61-68.
30. R v T, 2439 (England and Wales Court of Appeal 2010).
31. Dhami M. On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2008, 14(4):353-363.
32. Juanchich M., et al. Can membership-functions capture the directionality of verbal probabilities?. Think. Reason. 2013, 19(2):231-247.
33. Wallsten T.S., et al. Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1986, 115(4):348.
34. Budescu D., Karelitz T.M., Wallsten T.S. Predicting the directionality of probability words from their membership functions. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2003, 16(3):159-180.
35. Dhami M., Wallsten T. Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: toward translating linguistic probabilities. Mem. Cogn. 2005, 33(6):1057-1068.
36. Karelitz T., Budescu D., Wallsten T. Validation of a new technique for eliciting membership functions of probability phrases. Paper Presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Annual Meeting, New Orleans 2000.
37. Paolacci G., Chandler J. Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 23(3):184-188.
38. Paolacci G., Chandler J., Ipeirotis P. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decis. Making 2010, 5(5):411-419.
39. Von Ahn L., et al. CAPTCHA: using hard AI problems for security. Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2003 2003, 294-311. Springer.