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 *

246 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16254744)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: a criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence.
    Dobolyi DG; Dodson CS
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2013 Dec; 19(4):345-57. PubMed ID: 24188335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency.
    Brewer N; Caon A; Todd C; Weber N
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Feb; 30(1):31-50. PubMed ID: 16729207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Sequential lineups: shift in criterion or decision strategy?
    Gronlund SD
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):362-8. PubMed ID: 15065981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Appearance-change instruction effects on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy are not moderated by amount of appearance change.
    Molinaro PF; Arndorfer A; Charman SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Dec; 37(6):432-40. PubMed ID: 23855325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: the effects of reflection and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration.
    Brewer N; Keast A; Rishworth A
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2002 Mar; 8(1):44-56. PubMed ID: 12009176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Does filler database size influence identification accuracy?
    Bergold AN; Heaton P
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Jun; 42(3):227-243. PubMed ID: 29809026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage.
    Carlson CA; Gronlund SD; Clark SE
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Jun; 14(2):118-128. PubMed ID: 18590368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The grain-size lineup: A test of a novel eyewitness identification procedure.
    Horry R; Brewer N; Weber N
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Apr; 40(2):147-58. PubMed ID: 26595704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.
    Mickes L; Flowe HD; Wixted JT
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2012 Dec; 18(4):361-76. PubMed ID: 23294282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Exposure duration: effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence.
    Memon A; Hope L; Bull R
    Br J Psychol; 2003 Aug; 94(Pt 3):339-54. PubMed ID: 14511547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Is manipulative intent necessary to mitigate the eyewitness post-identification feedback effect?
    Quinlivan DS; Wells GL; Neuschatz JS
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):186-97. PubMed ID: 19399600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: the unruly 10-12-second rule.
    Weber N; Brewer N; Wells GL; Semmler C; Keast A
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Sep; 10(3):139-47. PubMed ID: 15462616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Eyewitness Identification Reforms: Are Suggestiveness-Induced Hits and Guesses True Hits?
    Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2012 May; 7(3):264-71. PubMed ID: 26168463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Exploring the effects of age and delay on children's person identifications: verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the influence of wildcards.
    Karageorge A; Zajac R
    Br J Psychol; 2011 May; 102(2):161-83. PubMed ID: 21492140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Eyewitness Identification: Live, Photo, and Video Lineups.
    Fitzgerald RJ; Price HL; Valentine T
    Psychol Public Policy Law; 2018 Aug; 24(3):307-325. PubMed ID: 30100702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: two codes are better than one.
    Melara RD; DeWitt-Rickards TS; O'Brien TP
    J Appl Psychol; 1989 Oct; 74(5):706-13. PubMed ID: 2793771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.