The repeatability and reproducibility of the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool

The accuracy and validity of the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool

Gait is now widely used in the UK as a contributor to identification, and increasing interest is being shown in its use in both Europe and the US. One of the long standing criticisms of the use of gait as evidence has been the lack of a validated standard methodology. With the publication of the 'Code of practice for forensic gait analysis', and the adoption of the code as part of the 'Codes of Practice and Conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners in the Criminal Justice System' by the Forensic Science Regulator, forensic gait analysts are now required to provide evidence of the testing of the methods used. The Sheffield Features of Gait Tool is specifically designed to assist observational gait analysis in the forensic context, and was developed by forensic gait analysis practitioners based on their casework and trial experience. Birch et al 2019 reported the findings of a study undertaken to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the tool. This paper reports the findings of a study undertaken to assess the accuracy with which analysts identified features of gait when using the tool. Fourteen participants, with experience in observational gait analysis, viewed footage of computer generated avatars walking, and completed the features of gait tool on multiple occasions. The results showed a mean accuracy score of 134.92 out of a possible 180 (74.96%), a standard deviation of 9.49 (5.27%) and a coefficient of variation of 7.03%, demonstrating a good degree of consistency between the scores (Cronbach's alpha <0.90; ANOVA p-value <0.05). The findings of this study, coupled with those of the Birch et al 2019 study which showed there to be good levels of both repeatability and reproducibility of observations of features of gait made by the participants, suggest that the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool is a valid and fit for purpose method of observing and recording features of gait in the forensic context. The use of the tool provides the basis of a standardised methodology for observational gait analysis in the forensic context.

The Application of Forensic Podiatry to Clinical Practice

The practice of the clinical podiatrist traditionally focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions of the foot, ankle, and related structures of the leg. Clinical podiatrists are expected to be mindful of "the principles and applications of scientific enquiry." This includes the evaluation of treatment efficacy and the research process. In contrast, the forensic podiatrist specializes in the analysis of foot-, ankle-, and gait-related evidence in the context of the criminal justice system. Although forensic podiatry is a separate, specialized field, many aspects of this discipline can be useful in the clinical treatment and management of foot and ankle problems. The authors, who are forensic podiatrists, contend that the clinical podiatrist can gain significant insights from the field of forensic podiatry. This article aims to provide clinical podiatrists with an overview of the principles and methods that have been tested and applied by forensic podiatrists in their practice, and suggests that the clinical practice of the nonforensic foot practitioner may benefit from such knowledge.

The identification of individuals by observational gait analysis using closed circuit television footage: Comparing the ability and confidence of experienced and non-experienced analysts

Gait is known to have been used as evidence since 1839, initially based on the apocryphal belief that a person can be identified by their gait. The potential uniqueness of gait has yet to be proven, and therefore gait is currently considered to be a contributor to identification rather than a method of identification. In 2013 Birch et al. [1] published the findings of an investigation into the ability of individuals with experience in gait analysis to identify people by observing features of gait recorded by closed circuit television cameras. The study showed that the participants made correct decisions in 71% of cases, significantly better than would have been expected to have occurred by chance. However, the presentation of gait evidence is not limited to witnesses with experience in gait analysis. This study compared the abilities and confidence of participants with experience in gait analysis with those of participants with no experience of gait analysis using the methodology of Birch et al. 2013 [1]. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of correct identification decisions made by the two groups of participants, although the participants with experience of gait analysis made slightly more false negative than false positive decisions, whereas the participants with no experience made more false positive than false negative decisions. The participants with no experience in gait analysis reported significantly more confidence in their decisions than did the participants with experience (p < 0.05). The results suggest that lay people giving gait based evidence are likely to be more confident in their assertions as to identity based on that evidence, than would a witness with experience of gait analysis. Careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the submission of gait based evidence by lay witnesses.