Forensic aesthetic facial damage—AFD expert’s valuation is a concerning matter in court as expressively vary in between experts. In fact, differences can be quite significant suggesting examiners age, sex and profes...Forensic aesthetic facial damage—AFD expert’s valuation is a concerning matter in court as expressively vary in between experts. In fact, differences can be quite significant suggesting examiners age, sex and professional qualification may influence this valuation. Aiming to offer a systematic and more objective evaluation, some methods for assessing AFD had been proposed lately. Known as Aesthetic Impairment Impact Perception (AIPE), Cobo-Plana’s revised methodology (2010) was idealized to minimize the examiner’s subjectivity by means of answering an ordered sequence of questions related to the specific damage perception. This research aims to access AFD perception differences (simulated cases) in between Lawyers, Heath professionals (Physicians and Dental surgeons) and general professionals (laypeople) under AIPE methodology in order to allow a better comprehension of AFD when dealing with forensic expertise cases. Within Groups perceptions varied (p < 0.05) when evaluating lesions below “important” severity grade. Raters over 35 Years age scored higher AFD lesions, and rater’s sex (as an independent variable) did not express any significant difference in AFD scoring. The tendency of under-rating AFD lesions below very important severity grade was observed being a matter of major concern considered their prevalence and the effective consequences involved to the victim. These results recommend extra caution when performing AFD evaluation and consequently expertise reports, claiming a more judicious analysis based on consolidated standards and suggest, examiners to be more perceptive to physical damage evaluation in order to include social perceptions and reactions, mainly, victims feelings and constrains over their aesthetic loss.展开更多
文摘Forensic aesthetic facial damage—AFD expert’s valuation is a concerning matter in court as expressively vary in between experts. In fact, differences can be quite significant suggesting examiners age, sex and professional qualification may influence this valuation. Aiming to offer a systematic and more objective evaluation, some methods for assessing AFD had been proposed lately. Known as Aesthetic Impairment Impact Perception (AIPE), Cobo-Plana’s revised methodology (2010) was idealized to minimize the examiner’s subjectivity by means of answering an ordered sequence of questions related to the specific damage perception. This research aims to access AFD perception differences (simulated cases) in between Lawyers, Heath professionals (Physicians and Dental surgeons) and general professionals (laypeople) under AIPE methodology in order to allow a better comprehension of AFD when dealing with forensic expertise cases. Within Groups perceptions varied (p < 0.05) when evaluating lesions below “important” severity grade. Raters over 35 Years age scored higher AFD lesions, and rater’s sex (as an independent variable) did not express any significant difference in AFD scoring. The tendency of under-rating AFD lesions below very important severity grade was observed being a matter of major concern considered their prevalence and the effective consequences involved to the victim. These results recommend extra caution when performing AFD evaluation and consequently expertise reports, claiming a more judicious analysis based on consolidated standards and suggest, examiners to be more perceptive to physical damage evaluation in order to include social perceptions and reactions, mainly, victims feelings and constrains over their aesthetic loss.
