Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/american-psychological-association/statistical-inference-on-measures-of-lineup-fairness-4c2reiS6fz
References (39)
-
J. C. Brigham, C. C. Brandt (1992)
Measuring lineup fairness: Mock witness responses versus direct evaluations of lineupsLaw and Human Behavior, 16
-
G. Wells, C. Luus (1990)
The diagnosticity of a lineup should not be confused with the diagnostic value of nonlineup evidence.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75
-
L. Haward (1984)
Evaluating witness evidence: S. Llyod-Bostock and R. Clifford (Eds): Wiley, Chichester, England (1983). x + 305 pages. £19.95.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 22
-
G. Wells, Michael Leippe, T. Ostrom (1979)
Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineupLaw and Human Behavior, 3
-
(1988)
Empirical assessment of lineups: Getting down to cases -
D. Navon (1990)
Ecological Parameters + Nonlineup Evidence: A Reply to Wells and LuusJournal of Applied Psychology, 75
-
G. Wells, John Turtle (1986)
Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models.Psychological Bulletin, 99
-
R. Lindsay, J. Lea, Jennifer Fulford (1991)
Sequential lineup presentation : technique mattersJournal of Applied Psychology, 76
-
R. Lindsay, G. Wells (1985)
Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70
-
G. Wells, Eric Seelau, Sheila Rydell, C. Luus (1994)
Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks -
N. Sobel (1972)
Eye-witness identification: legal and practical problems, -
R. Gonzalez, P. Ellsworth, Maceo Pembroke (1993)
Response biases in lineups and showups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64
-
(1988)
South African law of evidence -
A. Agresti, B. Agresti (1978)
Statistical Analysis of Qualitative VariationSociological Methodology, 9
-
(1963)
Identification parades—Parts I and II -
R. Melara, Thomas DeWitt-Rickards, T. O'Brien (1989)
Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: two codes are better than one.The Journal of applied psychology, 74 5
-
C. Luus, G. Wells (1991)
Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineupsLaw and Human Behavior, 15
-
J. Brigham, C. Brandt (1992)
Measuring lineup fairnessLaw and Human Behavior, 16
-
D. Navon (1990)
How critical is the accuracy of an eyewitness's memory? Another look at the issue of lineup diagnosticity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75
-
K. J. Rothman (1986)
Modern epidemiology -
G. Wells, R. Lindsay (1980)
On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness NonidentificationsPsychological Bulletin, 88
-
A. Agresti, B. Agresti (1978)
Sociological methodology -
R. Lindsay, J. Lea, G. Nosworthy, Jennifer Fulford, Julia Hector, Virginia LeVan, Carolyn Seabrook (1991)
Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem.The Journal of applied psychology, 76 6
-
W. Wagenaar, Nancy Veefkind (1992)
Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. -
J. Brigham, Catherine Brandtt (1992)
Mock Witness Responses Versus Direct Evaluations of Lineups -
J. Shepherd, H. Ellis, G. Davies (1983)
Identification evidence : a psychological evaluationAmerican Journal of Psychology, 96
-
G. Wells (1984)
The Psychology of Lineup Identifications1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14
-
R. Lindsay, J. Pozzulo, W. Craig, Kang Lee, S. Corber (1997)
Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and ChildrenLaw and Human Behavior, 21
-
(1973)
Bias in police lineups — Partial remembering -
R. S. Malpass, P. G. Devine (1983)
Evaluating witness evidence -
G. L. Wells, E. P. Seelau, S. M. Rydell, C. A. E. Luus (1994)
Adult Eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments -
F. Lösel, D. Bender, Thomas Bliesener, Law (1992)
Psychology and law : international perspectives -
(1986)
Modem epidemiology -
Patrick Devlin (1976)
Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases -
G. Wells (1988)
Eyewitness identification: A system handbook -
R. Malpass (1981)
Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineupsLaw and Human Behavior, 5
-
(1980)
What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification -
A. Agresti (1990)
Categorical data analysis -
W. L. Hays (1994)
Statistics
- Publisher
- American Psychological Association
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1998 American Psychological Association
- ISSN
- 0147-7307
- eISSN
- 1573-661X
- DOI
- 10.1023/A:1025746220886
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Psychological research on eyewitness testimony has made important contributions to the measurement of lineup fairness. The mock witness task, and measures of functional size, effective size, and diagnosticity have proved useful both in application to real-world problems and to ongoing research aimed at the optimization of criminal investigation techniques. However; these measures are typically used in the absence of any inferential statistical considerations. This is unfortunate, since the mock witness task relies on an implicit probability model. An attempt is made in this paper to identify a suitable formal probability model for the mock witness task, and suggestions are made with respect to how to reason inferentially about many of the lineup measures developed in psycholegal research. It is important to reason inferentially about these measures, and a failure to do so may mislead those to whom measures of lineup fairness are presented.
Journal
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Apr 1, 1998