Forensic likelihood ratio: Statistical problems and pitfalls

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 01 Jan 2017 English Publisher:Elsevier BVJournal:Science & Justice, volume 57, pages 73-75 (issn: 1355-0306,

Copyright policy )

Authors: A Philip, Dawid;

doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.09.002

pmid: 28063590

Forensic likelihood ratio: Statistical problems and pitfalls

- Summary
- Metrics

Abstract

This article is a response to the position papers published in the Science & Justice virtual special issue on measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios. I point out a number of serious statistical errors in some of these papers. These issues need to be properly addressed before the philosophical debate can be conducted in earnest.

Related Organizations

University of Cambridge
United Kingdom

Impact byBIP!

	selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	10
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%