Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.

A police lineup presents a real-world signal-detection problem because there are two possible states of the world (the suspect is either innocent or guilty), some degree of information about the true state of the world is available (the eyewitness has some degree of memory for the perpetrator), and a decision is made (identifying the suspect or not). A similar state of affairs applies to diagnostic tests in medicine because, in a patient, the disease is either present or absent, a diagnostic test yields some degree of information about the true state of affairs, and a decision is made about the presence or absence of the disease. In medicine, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis is the standard method for assessing diagnostic accuracy. By contrast, in the eyewitness memory literature, this powerful technique has never been used. Instead, researchers have attempted to assess the diagnostic performance of different lineup procedures using methods that cannot identify the better procedure (e.g., by computing a diagnosticity ratio). Here, we describe the basics of ROC analysis, explaining why it is needed and showing how to use it to measure the performance of different lineup procedures. To illustrate the unique advantages of this technique, we also report three ROC experiments that were designed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. According to our findings, the sequential procedure appears to be inferior to the simultaneous procedure in discriminating between the presence vs. absence of a guilty suspect in a lineup

WilsonSupplementalMaterial – Supplemental material for The Prior Odds of Testing a True Effect in Cognitive and Social Psychology

<p>Supplemental material, WilsonSupplementalMaterial for The Prior Odds of Testing a True Effect in Cognitive and Social Psychology by Brent M. Wilson and John T. Wixted in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science</p

WilsonOpenPracticesDisclosure – Supplemental material for The Prior Odds of Testing a True Effect in Cognitive and Social Psychology

<p>Supplemental material, WilsonOpenPracticesDisclosure for The Prior Odds of Testing a True Effect in Cognitive and Social Psychology by Brent M. Wilson and John T. Wixted in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science</p

Decision time and confidence predict choosers' identification performance in photographic showups - Fig 3

<p>Post-lineup probability that the suspect is the perpetrator as a function of the base rate of target-presence for postdictor combinations (panel A) and postdictor combinations and individual postdictors (panel B).</p

Confidence-accuracy characteristic curves (and 95% confidence intervals) for all, fast, and slow chooser decisions.

<p>Confidence-accuracy characteristic curves (and 95% confidence intervals) for all, fast, and slow chooser decisions.</p

Plot of chi2-values (and 95% confidence interval) by decision time boundary for choosers.

<p>Plot of chi2-values (and 95% confidence interval) by decision time boundary for choosers.</p

ColloffOpenPracticesDisclosure – Supplemental material for Filler-Siphoning Theory Does Not Predict the Effect of Lineup Fairness on the Ability to Discriminate Innocent From Guilty Suspects: Reply to Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018)

<p>Supplemental material, ColloffOpenPracticesDisclosure for Filler-Siphoning Theory Does Not Predict the Effect of Lineup Fairness on the Ability to Discriminate Innocent From Guilty Suspects: Reply to Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018) by Melissa F. Colloff, Kimberley A. Wade, Deryn Strange and John T. Wixted in Psychological Science</p

ColloffSupplementalMaterial – Supplemental material for Filler-Siphoning Theory Does Not Predict the Effect of Lineup Fairness on the Ability to Discriminate Innocent From Guilty Suspects: Reply to Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018)

<p>Supplemental material, ColloffSupplementalMaterial for Filler-Siphoning Theory Does Not Predict the Effect of Lineup Fairness on the Ability to Discriminate Innocent From Guilty Suspects: Reply to Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018) by Melissa F. Colloff, Kimberley A. Wade, Deryn Strange and John T. Wixted in Psychological Science</p