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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15584846)

  • 1. Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy.
    Haw RM; Fisher RP
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Dec; 89(6):1106-12. PubMed ID: 15584846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.
    Clark SE; Marshall TE; Rosenthal R
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):63-75. PubMed ID: 19309217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.
    Greathouse SM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):70-82. PubMed ID: 18594956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Can Lineup Administrators Blind to the Suspect's Identity Influence Witnesses' Decisions?
    McCallum NA; Brewer N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(1):93-105. PubMed ID: 31984009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications.
    Charman SD; Quiroz V
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):477-87. PubMed ID: 27227276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.
    Zimmerman DM; Chorn JA; Rhead LM; Evelo AJ; Kovera MB
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2017 Dec; 23(4):460-473. PubMed ID: 29265857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification.
    Clark SE
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Aug; 29(4):395-424. PubMed ID: 16133947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates.
    Brewer N; Wells GL
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2006 Mar; 12(1):11-30. PubMed ID: 16536656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications.
    Clark SE; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):406-22. PubMed ID: 18095147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy.
    Steblay NK; Dietrich HL; Ryan SL; Raczynski JL; James KA
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):262-74. PubMed ID: 20632113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Administrator blindness affects the recording of eyewitness lineup outcomes.
    Rodriguez DN; Berry MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Feb; 44(1):71-87. PubMed ID: 31535891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance.
    Palmer MA; Brewer N; Weber N
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Dec; 16(4):387-98. PubMed ID: 21198255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification.
    Clark SE
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):575-604. PubMed ID: 16254744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: computer-based lineup administration.
    MacLin OH; Zimmerman LA; Malpass RS
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Jun; 29(3):303-21. PubMed ID: 15965630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence.
    Semmler C; Brewer N; Wells GL
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):334-46. PubMed ID: 15065979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does methodology matter in eyewitness identification research? The effect of live versus video exposure on eyewitness identification accuracy.
    Pozzulo JD; Crescini C; Panton T
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2008; 31(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 18790535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Eyewitness identification accuracy: a comparison of adults with and those without intellectual disabilities.
    Ericson K; Isaacs B
    Ment Retard; 2003 Jun; 41(3):161-73. PubMed ID: 12737610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Investigating investigators: examining the impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators.
    Boyce MA; Lindsay DS; Brimacombe CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):439-53. PubMed ID: 18060486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The effect of pre-event instructions on eyewitness identification.
    Baldassari MJ; Moore KN; Hyman IE; Hope L; Mah EY; Lindsay DS; Mansour J; Saraiva R; Horry R; Rath H; Kelly L; Jones R; Vale S; Lawson B; Pedretti J; Palma TA; Cruz F; Quarenta J; Van der Cruyssen I; Mileva M; Allen J; Jeye B; Wiechert S
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2023 Feb; 8(1):16. PubMed ID: 36854842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.