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.
235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26011788)
21. Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects. Jones JM; Katzman J; Kovera MB Front Psychol; 2024; 15():1233782. PubMed ID: 38680285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Absolute-judgment models better predict eyewitness decision-making than do relative-judgment models. Smith AM; Ying RC; Goldstein AR; Fitzgerald RJ Cognition; 2024 Jul; 251():105877. PubMed ID: 39002429 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Holistic Facial Composite Construction and Subsequent Lineup Identification Accuracy: Comparing Adults and Children. Davis JP; Thorniley S; Gibson S; Solomon C J Psychol; 2016; 150(1):102-18. PubMed ID: 25705795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Using machine learning analyses to explore relations between eyewitness lineup looking behaviors and suspect guilt. Price HL; Bruer KC; Adkins MC Law Hum Behav; 2020 Jun; 44(3):223-237. PubMed ID: 32105097 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
29. fullROC: An R package for generating and analyzing eyewitness-lineup ROC curves. Yang Y; Smith AM Behav Res Methods; 2023 Apr; 55(3):1259-1274. PubMed ID: 35641680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Palmer MA; Brewer N Law Hum Behav; 2012 Jun; 36(3):247-55. PubMed ID: 22667814 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Identifying the bad guy in a lineup using confidence judgments under deadline pressure. Brewer N; Weber N; Wootton D; Lindsay DS Psychol Sci; 2012 Oct; 23(10):1208-14. PubMed ID: 22933457 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: do prelineup questions and sequential testing help? Memon A; Gabbert F J Appl Psychol; 2003 Apr; 88(2):341-7. PubMed ID: 12731718 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Distinguishing Between Investigator Discriminability and Eyewitness Discriminability: A Method for Creating Full Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of Lineup Identification Performance. Smith AM; Yang Y; Wells GL Perspect Psychol Sci; 2020 May; 15(3):589-607. PubMed ID: 32375014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Mock-juror evaluations of traditional and ratings-based eyewitness identification evidence. Sauer JD; Palmer MA; Brewer N Law Hum Behav; 2017 Aug; 41(4):375-384. PubMed ID: 28191988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]