These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11688369)

  • 1. Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: an archival analysis.
    Behrman BW; Davey SL
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Oct; 25(5):475-91. PubMed ID: 11688369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison.
    Steblay N; Dysart J; Fulero S; Lindsay RC
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Oct; 27(5):523-40. PubMed ID: 14593796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: a reality monitoring analysis.
    Behrman BW; Richards RE
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Jun; 29(3):279-301. PubMed ID: 15965629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.
    Eisen ML; Ying RC; Chui C; Swaby MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Jun; 46(3):175-188. PubMed ID: 35604705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Identification Accuracy: A New Synthesis.
    Wixted JT; Wells GL
    Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2017 May; 18(1):10-65. PubMed ID: 28395650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Wright DB
    Memory; 2007 Oct; 15(7):746-54. PubMed ID: 17852725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [The effect of suggestibility on eyewitness identifications: A comparison between showups and lineups].
    Miura H; Itoh Y
    Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 2016 Apr; 87(1):32-9. PubMed ID: 27180511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What we know now: the Evanston Illinois field lineups.
    Steblay NK
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 20177754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification.
    Clark SE; Erickson MA; Breneman J
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Oct; 35(5):364-80. PubMed ID: 20953683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Unfair Lineups Make Witnesses More Likely to Confuse Innocent and Guilty Suspects.
    Colloff MF; Wade KA; Strange D
    Psychol Sci; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1227-39. PubMed ID: 27458070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measuring lineup fairness from eyewitness identification data using a multinomial processing tree model.
    Menne NM; Winter K; Bell R; Buchner A
    Sci Rep; 2023 Apr; 13(1):6290. PubMed ID: 37072473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Eyewitness identification in simultaneous and sequential lineups: an investigation of position effects using receiver operating characteristics.
    Meisters J; Diedenhofen B; Musch J
    Memory; 2018 Oct; 26(9):1297-1309. PubMed ID: 29676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.
    Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 24933175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.
    Oriet C; Fitzgerald RJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Feb; 42(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 29461076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups.
    Wixted JT; Mickes L; Dunn JC; Clark SE; Wells W
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2016 Jan; 113(2):304-9. PubMed ID: 26699467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Suspect filler similarity in eyewitness lineups: a literature review and a novel methodology.
    Fitzgerald RJ; Oriet C; Price HL
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):62-74. PubMed ID: 24955851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. PC_Eyewitness: evaluating the New Jersey method.
    MacLin OH; Phelan CM
    Behav Res Methods; 2007 May; 39(2):242-7. PubMed ID: 17695351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy.
    Colloff MF; Flowe HD; Smith HMJ; Seale-Carlisle TM; Meissner CA; Rockey JC; Pande B; Kujur P; Parveen N; Chandel P; Singh MM; Pradhan S; Parganiha A
    Am Psychol; 2022; 77(2):196-220. PubMed ID: 34793182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Bayesian analysis on the (dis)utility of iterative-showup procedures: The moderating impact of prior probabilities.
    Smith AM; Lindsay RC; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):503-16. PubMed ID: 27182619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. New signal detection theory-based framework for eyewitness performance in lineups.
    Lee J; Penrod SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Oct; 43(5):436-454. PubMed ID: 31368723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.