156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32650935)
1. Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: A field study.
Mattijssen EJAT; Witteman CLM; Berger CEH; Stoel RD
Sci Justice; 2020 Jul; 60(4):337-346. PubMed ID: 32650935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The use of contextual information in forensic toxicology: An international survey of toxicologists' experiences.
Hamnett HJ; Jack RE
Sci Justice; 2019 Jul; 59(4):380-389. PubMed ID: 31256809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Validity and reliability of forensic firearm examiners.
Mattijssen EJAT; Witteman CLM; Berger CEH; Brand NW; Stoel RD
Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Feb; 307():110112. PubMed ID: 31881373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli.
Sneyd D; Schreiber Compo N; Rivard J; Pena M; Stoiloff S; Hernandez G
J Forensic Sci; 2020 Sep; 65(5):1507-1516. PubMed ID: 32628285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis.
Pena MM; Stoiloff S; Sparacino M; Schreiber Compo N
J Forensic Sci; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38922874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer-based comparisons.
Mattijssen EJAT; Witteman CLM; Berger CEH; Zheng XA; Soons JA; Stoel RD
J Forensic Sci; 2021 Jan; 66(1):96-111. PubMed ID: 32970858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework.
Smith TP; Andrew Smith G; Snipes JB
J Forensic Sci; 2016 Jul; 61(4):939-46. PubMed ID: 27135174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.
Neal TMS; Lienert P; Denne E; Singh JP
Law Hum Behav; 2022 Apr; 46(2):99-120. PubMed ID: 35191729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions.
Law EF; Morris KB
J Forensic Sci; 2021 Sep; 66(5):1704-1720. PubMed ID: 34057735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Empathy or objectivity: The forensic examiner's dilemma?
Shuman DW; Zervopoulos JA
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(5):585-602. PubMed ID: 20821814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Surveying practicing firearm examiners.
Scurich N; Garrett BL; Thompson RM
Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2022; 4():100228. PubMed ID: 35510144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions.
Ulery BT; Hicklin RA; Buscaglia J; Roberts MA
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2011 May; 108(19):7733-8. PubMed ID: 21518906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fillers can help control for contextual bias in forensic comparison tasks.
Quigley-McBride A; Wells GL
Law Hum Behav; 2018 Aug; 42(4):295-305. PubMed ID: 30035551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners.
Dror IE; Scherr KC; Mohammed LA; MacLean CL; Cunningham L
Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Jan; 318():110610. PubMed ID: 33358191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reliability of ordinal outcomes in forensic black-box studies.
Arora HM; Kaplan-Damary N; Stern HS
Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jan; 354():111909. PubMed ID: 38104395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition.
Dror IE; Cole SA
Psychon Bull Rev; 2010 Apr; 17(2):161-7. PubMed ID: 20382914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook.
Curley LJ; Munro J; Lages M; MacLean R; Murray J
J Forensic Sci; 2020 Mar; 65(2):354-360. PubMed ID: 31693180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Examiner training: A study of examiners making sense of norm-referenced feedback.
Crossley JGM; Groves J; Croke D; Brennan PA
Med Teach; 2019 Jul; 41(7):787-794. PubMed ID: 30912989
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The use of interprofessional peer examiners in an objective structured clinical examination: can dental students act as examiners?
Ogden GR; Green M; Ker JS
Br Dent J; 2000 Aug; 189(3):160-4. PubMed ID: 11021034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
