The accuracy of facial “reconstruction”: a review of the published data and their interpretive value

Stephan, C. N. (2009) The accuracy of facial “reconstruction”: a review of the published data and their interpretive value. Minerva Medicolegale, 129 1: 47-60.

Author Stephan, C. N.
Title The accuracy of facial “reconstruction”: a review of the published data and their interpretive value
Journal name Minerva Medicolegale   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0026-4849
1827-1677
Publication date 2009-03
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Open Access Status
Volume 129
Issue 1
Start page 47
End page 60
Total pages 14
Place of publication Turin, Italy
Publisher Edizioni Minerva Medica
Language eng
Formatted abstract
The capabilities of facial reconstruction (FR) methods are ideally assessed through empirical measurement, thus reducing subjectivity and increasing repeatability. Whilst many prior accuracy studies on FR aspire to this goal, all possess significant limitations. In the absence of crucial tests, conclusions concerning the accuracy of the methods must be drawn from the collective evidence. However the differential allocation of interpretive weight to single investigations depending on their advantages/disadvantages is required. This paper reviews assessment protocols and published data to arrive at an overarching assessment of method capabilities. Frequently it is observed that results implying method accuracy are produced by less attractive assessment techniques and small samples of skulls/practitioners/assessors (e.g., resemblance rating studies). Also, the rare production of convincing facial approximation successes by more rigorous tests (i.e., relatively larger sampled face arrays) suggests that the accuracy of current FR techniques is not outstanding. Recently identified flaws in specific facial feature prediction rules underscore methodological problems as a major cause of poor method performance. These observations hold importance for discussions on the validity of: the term “facial reconstruction”; labelling of FR as a “science” — either in part or in whole; and claims that poor method performances are underpinned by practitioner experience/skill. In the future it is clear that more stringent empirical tests are required, including more tightly controlled face array assessments, if overall method performance is to be robustly validated.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collection: School of Biomedical Sciences Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Fri, 23 Jan 2015, 13:46:09 EST by Carl Stephan on behalf of School of Biomedical Sciences