Quantifying the value of diagnostic tests

Jj, Lloyd; Pr, Talbot; Rs, Lawson

doi:10.1097/00006231-199810000-00010

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1963; Fischhoff & Beyth‐Marom 1983; Meehl & Rosen 1955), medicine (Black & Armstrong 1986; Jaeschke et al. 1994; Lloyd et al. 1998), and law (Finkelstein & Levin 2003; Friedman & Park 2003; Kadane & Schum 1996; Kaye 1986; Kaye & Koehler 2003; Lyon & Koehler 1996; McCormick 1999; Robertson & Vignaux [1995] 1998; Wagenaar 1988; but see Allen & Pardo 2007 for an opposing view).…”

Section: Reliability Diagnosticity and Probativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony

Koehler

2011

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The probative value of forensic science evidence (such as a shoeprint) varies widely depending on how the evidence and hypothesis of interest is characterized. This article uses a likelihood ratio (LR) approach to identify the probative value of forensic science evidence. It argues that the “evidence” component should be characterized as a “reported match,” and that the hypothesis component should be characterized as “the matching person or object is the source of the crime scene sample.” This characterization of the LR forces examiners to incorporate risks from sample mixups and examiner error into their match statistics. But will legal decisionmakers be sensitive to the extent to which examiners' statistical testimony accounts for various potential sources of risk and error? A controlled experiment with 315 jury‐eligible jurors who received a shoeprint match statistic in a hypothetical burglary case finds that, contrary to normative theory, people are more persuaded by statistical testimony that ignores various error risks than by testimony that is objectively stronger by virtue of taking those risks into account. The experiment also finds that jurors are relatively unresponsive to exposure of those risks by a defense attorney on cross‐examination. These results support and extend previous research that finds many people are confused about how to evaluate the risk of error associated with expert forensic testimony.

show abstract

Section: Reliability Diagnosticity and Probativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony

Koehler

2011

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LR is a common measure of probative value in law (Finkelstein & Levin, in press; Kaye, 1986a, 1995; Koehler, 1996a; Strong, 1999), forensic science (Aitken, 1995; Evett & Weir, 1998; Kadane & Schum, 1996; Robertson & Vignaux, 1995), medicine (Black & Armstrong, 1986; Jaeschke, Guyatt, & Sackett, 1994; Lloyd, Talbot, & Lawson, 1998), and psychology (Edwards, Lindman, & Savage, 1963; Fischhoff & Beyth-Marom, 1983; Meehl & Rosen, 1955). 8 In some fields, the LR components for assessing probative (or diagnostic) value are present, but referred to by other names.…”

Section: Measures Of Probative Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

The Misquantification of Probative Value.

Kaye

Koehler

2003

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002) purport to show that when "the base rate" for a crime is low, the probative value of "characteristics known to be strongly associated with the crime . . . will be virtually nil." Their analysis rests on the choice of an arbitrary and inapposite measure of the probative value of evidence. When a more suitable metric is used (e.g., a likelihood ratio), it becomes clear that evidence they would dismiss as devoid of probative value is relevant and diagnostic.

show abstract

Quantifying the value of diagnostic tests

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony

If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony

The Misquantification of Probative Value.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About