Development and Evaluation of a Valid and Reliable Footprint Measurement Approach in Forensic Identification
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Development and Evaluation of a Valid and Reliable Footprint Measurement Approach in Forensic Identification Sarah Mai-Lin Reel 059000068 Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds York St John University School of Health and Life Sciences December 2012 - ii The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own, except where work which has formed part of jointly-authored publications has been included. The contribution of the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The candidate confirms that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. The right of Sarah Mai-Lin Reel to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. © 2012 The University of Leeds and Sarah Mai-Lin Reel. Publications arising from this work: Reel, S., Rouse, S., Vernon, W. & Doherty, P. (2010) Reliability of a two dimensional footprint measurement approach. Sci Justice, 50, 113-8. Reel, S., Rouse, S., Vernon, W. & Doherty, P. (2012) Estimation of stature from static and dynamic footprints. Forensic Sci Int, 219, 283.e1-283.e5. The publications arose from the work that is presented in Chapters 6 and 7. All authors contributed to the writing for these publications. -iii Acknowledgements I am most grateful for the invaluable support and thought-provoking guidance generously given to me by my supervisors, Professor Patrick Doherty, Dr Simon Rouse and Professor Wesley Vernon OBE. Without their unfailing enthusiasm and encouragement from the beginning to the end, this doctoral thesis would not have been possible. I am indebted to the volunteers who took part in the study, and to my research assistants, Nor Razaob, Snehal Pakhare, Hannah Smith and Samantha Lambert. I would also like to thank friends, colleagues and family members for their belief in me, especially my parents. Finally, I would like to express my love and gratitude to my sons Joe and Adam who lit the spark that allowed me to pursue my interest in forensic podiatry. Most importantly I would like to thank my husband Jim, who was forced to share my journey without complaint and with unremitting love and support. - iv Abstract Introduction: Bare footprints found at a crime scene can be used as forensic evidence to link a person to the incident using comparison methods. Identification relies upon methods of evaluation including measurement; however the science underpinning measurement in this field has not been fully explored. Method: A critical review of the literature revealed various measurement approaches and also demonstrated little or no measurement rigour in terms of reliability and validity. Therefore a novel pragmatic method for collecting and measuring two-dimensional bare foot impressions was developed by the researcher to provide the necessary tool for use in this field. Evaluation involved three static and three dynamic footprints collected from thirty female and thirty one male volunteers using an inkless paper system. The footprints were digitised and widths, lengths and angles constructed and automatically measured using freely available measurement software. Measurement rigour was pursued using modern validity and intra-linter-rater reliability approaches followed by an evaluation of the tool by experts in the field. These explorations are presented within the thesis as separate investigations. Results: Statistically significant differences occurred between paired static and dynamic linear measurements (df 60) with t values ranging from 3.08 to 23.17, P < 0.01. The highest correlations with stature were shown to be the linear measurement from the heel to fifth toe print in the dynamic footprints (r =0.858, P < 0.01). The reliability analysis found high intra-rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99 with a 95% standard error of measurement 0.84 mm, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) -0.91 to 0.65. Conclusion: The research establishes a valid and reliable two-dimensional measurement approach, useful for footprint identification purposes and also as a baseline method for further research in this field. -v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................iii Abstract .......................................................................................................iv Table of Contents .........................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................x List of Figures ............................................................................................xii Preface .......................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2 Critical Appraisal of the Literature ........................................... .4 2.1 Measurement concepts within forensic identification science ......... .4 2.1.1 Identification through marks left by a bare foot .................... .4 2.1.2 Challenges to forensic identification science ........................ 6 2.2 Measurement concepts within the area of law ............................... 10 2.2.1 Law-driven recommendations ............................................. 10 2.3 Measurement concepts within the area of science ........................ 14 2.3.1 Reliability, validity, precision, accuracy and consistency .... 14 2.3.2 Validity concepts in measurement ...................................... 16 2.3.3 Measurement reliability ....................................................... 18 2.4 Searching the Literature ................................................................. 21 2.4.1 Methods of footprint collection and justification for further refining of the main literature search .................................... 23 2.4.2 Footprint evaluation methods .............................................. 26 2.4.2.1 The Overlay Method ................................................ 27 2.4.2.2 Robbins Method ....................................................... 29 2.4.2.3 Gunn Method ........................................................... 30 2.4.2.4 Rossi's Podometrics System ................................... 32 2.4.2.5 Optical Center Method ............................................. 33 2.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 40 2.5.1 Presentation of the thesis .................................................. .41 Chapter 3 The Development of a New Measurement Approach ........... 42 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................42 3.2 Footprint collection method ........................................................... .43 3.3 Measurement of scanned images ................................................. .48 3.4 Justification of measurement choice .............................................. 50 - vi 3.5 Justification of measurement software choice ................................ 54 3.6 Development of the manual ........................................................... 56 3.7 Conclusions ................................................................................... 58 Chapter 4 Establishing Evidence of Convergent and Discriminant Validity ................................................................................................59 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 59 4.2 Literature Review ........................................................................... 60 4.2.1 Motion ................................................................................. 61 4.2.2 Sex ......................................................................................63 4.2.3 Height .................................................................................66 4.2.4 Weight. ................................................................................68 4.2.5 Body Mass Index ................................................................ 70 4.2.6 Age ..................................................................................... 70 4.2.7 Ethnicity .............................................................................. 71 4.2.8 Summary of findings from literature review ......................... 72 4.3 Research ethics .............................................................................73 4.4 Sample ...........................................................................................74 4.5 Method ...........................................................................................76 4.5.1 Statistical analysis ............................................................... 77 4.6 Results ........................................................................................... 79 4.6.1 Inter-relationships between footprint measurements .......... 79 4.7 Discussion ..................................................................................... 84 4.8 Conclusions ..................................................................................