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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31144829)

  • 1. Mistaken eyewitness identification rates increase when either witnessing or testing conditions get worse.
    Smith AM; Wilford MM; Quigley-McBride A; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Aug; 43(4):358-368. PubMed ID: 31144829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Mansour JK; Beaudry JL; Bertrand MI; Kalmet N; Melsom EI; Lindsay RCL
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Dec; 44(6):502-515. PubMed ID: 33444064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The importance of decision bias for predicting eyewitness lineup choices: toward a Lineup Skills Test.
    Baldassari MJ; Kantner J; Lindsay DS
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2019 Jan; 4(1):2. PubMed ID: 30693377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Do masked-face lineups facilitate eyewitness identification of a masked individual?
    Manley KD; Chan JCK; Wells GL
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2019 Sep; 25(3):396-409. PubMed ID: 30556719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Providing witnesses with an option to say "I'm not sure" to a showup neither improves classification performance nor the reliability of suspect identifications.
    Jalava ST; Smith AM; Mackovichova S
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Feb; 45(1):68-79. PubMed ID: 33734750
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance.
    Horry R; Palmer MA; Brewer N
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2012 Dec; 18(4):346-60. PubMed ID: 22924858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences.
    Fitzgerald RJ; Price HL
    Psychol Bull; 2015 Nov; 141(6):1228-65. PubMed ID: 26011788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Estimation of eyewitness error rates in fair and biased lineups.
    Fitzgerald RJ; Tredoux CG; Juncu S
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Aug; 47(4):463-483. PubMed ID: 37471013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pre-identification confidence is related to eyewitness lineup identification accuracy across heterogeneous encoding conditions.
    Molinaro PF; Charman SD; Wylie K
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Dec; 45(6):524-541. PubMed ID: 34661424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.