Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > What does method validation look like for foren...

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Comment/debate › peer-review

Published

Standard

What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert? / Kirchhuebel, Christin; Brown, Georgina; Foulkes, Paul.
In: Science and Justice, Vol. 63, No. 2, 31.03.2023, p. 251-257.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Comment/debate › peer-review

Harvard

Kirchhuebel, C, Brown, G & Foulkes, P 2023, 'What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?', Science and Justice, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 251-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.004

APA

Kirchhuebel, C., Brown, G., & Foulkes, P. (2023). What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert? Science and Justice, 63(2), 251-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.004

Vancouver

Kirchhuebel C, Brown G, Foulkes P. What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert? Science and Justice. 2023 Mar 31;63(2):251-257. Epub 2023 Jan 30. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.004

Author

Kirchhuebel, Christin ; Brown, Georgina ; Foulkes, Paul. / What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?. In: Science and Justice. 2023 ; Vol. 63, No. 2. pp. 251-257.

Bibtex

@article{1a8f6430634f4d33a0c3cde16d309539,
title = "What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?",
abstract = "Method validation has gained traction within forensic speech science. The community recognises the need to demonstrate that the analysis methods used are valid, but finding a way to do so has been more straightforward for some analysis methods than for others. This article addresses the issue of method validation for the Auditory Phonetic and Acoustic (AuPhA) approach to forensic voice comparison. Although it is possible to take inspiration from general regulatory guidance on method validation, it is clear that these cannot be transposed on to all forensic analysis methods with the same degree of success. Particularly with respect to an analysis method like AuPhA, and in a field of the size and characteristics of forensic speech science, a bespoke approach to method validation is required. In this article we address the discussions that have been taking place around method validation, and illustrate one possible solution to demonstrating the validity of voice comparison by a human expert using the AuPhA method. In doing so we consider the constraints placed on sole practitioners, which generally go unacknowledged.",
keywords = "Forensic voice comparison, Method validation, Competency testing",
author = "Christin Kirchhuebel and Georgina Brown and Paul Foulkes",
year = "2023",
month = mar,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.004",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "251--257",
journal = "Science and Justice",
issn = "1355-0306",
publisher = "Forensic Science Society",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?

AU - Kirchhuebel, Christin

AU - Brown, Georgina

AU - Foulkes, Paul

PY - 2023/3/31

Y1 - 2023/3/31

N2 - Method validation has gained traction within forensic speech science. The community recognises the need to demonstrate that the analysis methods used are valid, but finding a way to do so has been more straightforward for some analysis methods than for others. This article addresses the issue of method validation for the Auditory Phonetic and Acoustic (AuPhA) approach to forensic voice comparison. Although it is possible to take inspiration from general regulatory guidance on method validation, it is clear that these cannot be transposed on to all forensic analysis methods with the same degree of success. Particularly with respect to an analysis method like AuPhA, and in a field of the size and characteristics of forensic speech science, a bespoke approach to method validation is required. In this article we address the discussions that have been taking place around method validation, and illustrate one possible solution to demonstrating the validity of voice comparison by a human expert using the AuPhA method. In doing so we consider the constraints placed on sole practitioners, which generally go unacknowledged.

AB - Method validation has gained traction within forensic speech science. The community recognises the need to demonstrate that the analysis methods used are valid, but finding a way to do so has been more straightforward for some analysis methods than for others. This article addresses the issue of method validation for the Auditory Phonetic and Acoustic (AuPhA) approach to forensic voice comparison. Although it is possible to take inspiration from general regulatory guidance on method validation, it is clear that these cannot be transposed on to all forensic analysis methods with the same degree of success. Particularly with respect to an analysis method like AuPhA, and in a field of the size and characteristics of forensic speech science, a bespoke approach to method validation is required. In this article we address the discussions that have been taking place around method validation, and illustrate one possible solution to demonstrating the validity of voice comparison by a human expert using the AuPhA method. In doing so we consider the constraints placed on sole practitioners, which generally go unacknowledged.

KW - Forensic voice comparison

KW - Method validation

KW - Competency testing

U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.004

DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2023.01.004

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 63

SP - 251

EP - 257

JO - Science and Justice

JF - Science and Justice

SN - 1355-0306

IS - 2

ER -