Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Misquantification of Probative Value

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aitken, C. G. G. (1995). Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).

  • Birnbaum, A. (1969). Concepts of statistical evidence. In S. Morgenbasser et al. (Eds.), Philosophy, science, and method (pp. 112-143). New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, W. C., & Armstrong, P. (1986). Communicating the significance of radiologic test-results: The likelihood ratio. American Journal of Roentgenology, 147, 1313–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Criminal victimization: Summary findings. Retrived March 19, 2002 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm

  • Butler, J. M. (2001). Forensic DNA typing: Biology and technology behind STR markers. San Francisco: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Rethinking the probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling, and the "postdiction" of behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 143–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. W. F. (1972). Likelihood. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1986). Comment. Boston University Law Review, 66, 623–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellman, I. M., & Kaye, D. H. (1979). Probabilities and proof: Can HLA and blood test evidence prove paternity? New York University Law Review, 55, 1131–1162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, B. J., & Litwak, T. R. (1974). Psychiatry and the presumption of expertise: Flipping coins in the courtroom. California Law Review, 62, 693–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evett, I. (1991). Interpretation: A personal odyssey. In C. G. G. Aitken & D. A. Stoney (Eds.), The use of statistics in forensic science (pp. 9–22). New York: Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evett, I. W., Jackson, G., Lambert, J. A., & McCrossan, S. (2000). The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice, 40, 233–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evett, I. W., & Weir, B. S. (1998). Interpreting DNA evidence: Statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, D. J., & Galen, R. S. (1982). Probabilistic approaches to clinical decision support. In B. T. Williams (Ed.), Computer aids to clinical decisions (Vol.2, pp. 1–65). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. O., & Fairley, W. B. (1970). A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harvard Law Review, 83, 489–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. O., & Levin, B. (2003). On the probative value of evidence from a screening search. Jurimetrics Journal, 43, 265–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1983). Hypothesis evaluation from a Bayesian perspective. Psychological Review, 90, 239–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (1986). A close look at probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 733–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastwirth, J. L. (1987). The statistical precision of medical screening procedures: Application to polygraph and AIDS antibodies test data. Statistical Science 2, 213–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, L., Cook, E. F., Brand, D. A., Lee, T. H., Rovan, G. W., Weisberg, M. C. (1988). A computer protocol to predict myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with chest pain. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 797–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, I. J. (1983). Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeschke, R., Guyatt, G., & Sackett, D. L. (1994). Users' guides to the medical literature III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based Working Group. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271, 389–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J. B., & Schum, D. A. (1996). A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1986a). Quantifying probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 761–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1986b). Statistical analysis in jury discrimination cases, In D. H. Kaye & M. Aickin (Eds.), Statistical methods in discrimination litigation (pp. 13–32). New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1987a). The validity of tests: Caveant omnes. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 27, 349–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1987b). Apples and oranges: Confidence coefficients and the burden of persuasion. Cornell Law Review, 73, 54–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1987c). The polygraph and the PVP. Statistical Science, 2, 223–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1995). The relevance of "matching" DNA: Is the window half open or half shut? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 676–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1997). Science in evidence. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1999). Clarifying the burden of persuasion: What Bayesian decision rules do and do not do. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 3, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H., & Sensabaugh, G. F. (2000). Reference guide on DNA evidence. In Reference manual on scientific evidence (Federal Judicial Center ed., pp. 485–576). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (1996a). On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios and error rates. University of Colorado Law Review, 67, 859–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (1996b). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Normative, descriptive and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg, H. E. (1974). The logical foundations of statistical inference. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, M., & Schervish, M. J. (1999). Bayes factors: What they are and what they are not. The American Statistician, 53, 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. (1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. J., Talbot, P. R., & Lawson, R. S. (1998). Quantifying the value of diagnostic tests. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 19, 999–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T. D., & Koehler, J. J. (1996). The relevance ratio: Evaluating the probative value of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Cornell Law Review, 82, 43–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1878). The probability of induction. Popular Science Monthly, reprinted In J. R. Newman (Ed.), The world of mathematics (1956 ed., pp. 1341–1354). New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risinger, D. M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G. A. (1995). Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (1984). Dangerousness and expertise. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 133, 97–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, J. W. (Ed.). (1999). McCormick on evidence (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).

  • United States v. Pugliese, 153 F.2d 497, 500 (2d Cir. 1945).

  • Vecchio, T. J. (1966). Predictive value of a single diagnostic test in unselected populations. New England Journal of Medicine, 274, 1171–1173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viana, M., & Farewell, V. (1990). A test for diagnostic utility. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 18, 289–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). The proper seat: A Bayesian discussion of the position of expert witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 499–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H., & Kaye, D. (1997). Prove it with figures: Empirical methods in law and litigation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law and Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

    D. H. Kaye

  2. McCombs School of Business and School Law, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

    Jonathan J. Koehler

Authors
  1. D. H. Kaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan J. Koehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Kaye, D.H., Koehler, J.J. The Misquantification of Probative Value. Law Hum Behav 27, 645–659 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004892.94380.88

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004892.94380.88

Search

Navigation