ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2020
Do sequential lineups impair underlying discriminability?
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enabling witnesses to actively explore faces and reinstate study-test pose during a lineup increases discriminability.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Trial
- Suspect identification accuracy from lineups, in the lab and in the field.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Review
- New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of first-yes-counts instructions on eyewitness performance using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Toward a more comprehensive modeling of sequential lineups.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Dogs Detecting COVID-19 From Sweat and Saliva of Positive People: A Field Experience in Mexico.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than 30 years. We argue that resolution of this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we developed models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and used these to compare these procedures in terms of underlying discriminability and response bias, thereby testing a key prediction of diagnostic feature detection theory, that underlying discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than for stopping-rule sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255), to data from a new experiment and to eight recent studies comparing simultaneous and sequential lineups. We found that although responses tended to be more conservative for sequential lineups there was little or no difference in underlying discriminability between the two procedures. We discuss the implications of these results for the diagnostic feature detection theory and other kinds of sequential lineups used in current jurisdictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.