Study space analysis for policy development

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 789-801

  Malpass, Roy S ^a   Tredoux, Colin G ^b   Compo, Nadja Schreiber ^c   McQuiston Surrett, Dawn ^d   Maclin, Otto H ^e   Zimmerman, Laura A ^f   Topp, Lisa D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^c FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA   (United States)

^f APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL RESEARCH; ARTICLE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINOLOGY; EPISODIC MEMORY; EXPERT WITNESS; INDEPENDENT VARIABLE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 53849089292     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1483     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bermant, G. (1986). Two conjectures about the issue of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior: The Ethics of Expert Testimony, 10, 97-100.
2. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
3. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706.
4. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., MacDonald, T. K., & Wicke, C. (2002). The intoxicated witness: Effects of alcohol on identification accuracy from show-ups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 170-175.
5. Evans, J., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Intoxicated witness and victims of crime: How common are they? Poster presented at off the witness stand: Using psychology in the practice of justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City.
6. Frye v. U.S., 293F. 1013, 34 A.L.R. 145 (App D.C. 1923).
7. Geller, W. A. (1997, December) Suppose we were really serious about police departments becoming "learning organizations"? National Institute of Justice Journal, 234, 2-7.
8. Home Office. (1999). Action for justice: Implementing the speaking up for justice report on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system in England And Wales. Home Office Communication Directorate: London, UK http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/pvu/pvu.htm.
9. Home Office. (2000). Consultation paper. Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children. Communication Directorate: London, UK. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/pvu/pvu.htm.
10. Home Office. (2001). Vulnerable Witnesses: A Police Service Guide. Home Office Communication Directorate: London, UK http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/pvu/pvu.htm.
11. Home Office. (2002). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children. Home Office Communication Directorate: London, UK http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/pvu/pvu.htm.
12. Home Office in conjunction with Department of Health. (1992). Memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings. London: HMSO.
13. Kargon, R. (1986). Expert testimony in historical perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 15-27.
14. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
15. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
16. Lee, C. H. (2002). Screening mammography: Proven benefit, continued controversy. Radiological Clinics of North America, 40, 395-407.
17. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential line-up. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219-225.
18. Loftus, E. F. (1983a). Silence is not golden. American Psychologist, 38, 564-572.
19. Loftus, E. F. (1983b). Whose shadow is crooked? American Psychologist, 38, 576-577.
20. MacLin, O. H., & Malpass, R. S. (2002). Towards an ecological approach in examining the diagnosticity of sequential and simultaneous line-up presentations. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology - Law Society, Austin, TX.
21. MacLin, O. H., Meissner, C. A., & Zimmerman, L. A. (2005). PC_Eyewitness: A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 324-334.
22. MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Malpass, R. S. (2005). PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: Computer based lineup administration. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 303-321.
23. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. E. (2007). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 155-178). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
24. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983a). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury. American Psychologist, 38, 550-563.
25. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983b). A time to speak, or a time to keep silence? American Psychologist, 38, 573-575.
26. McCloskey, M., Egeth, H. E., & McKenna J. (Eds.). (1986). The ethics of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10.
27. McDougall, G. J., Weber, B. A., Dziuk, T. W., & Heneghan, R. (2000). The controversy of prostate screening. Geriatric Nursing, 21, 245-248.
28. McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12, 137-169.
29. National Institute of Justice. (2003). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics (31st ed). Washington, DC: Author.
30. Read, J. D., Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. (1992). Recollections of a robbery: Effects of arousal and alcohol upon recall and person identification. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 425-446.
31. Swaroop, V. S., & Larson, M. V. (2002). Colonoscopy as a screening test for colorectal cancer in average-risk individuals. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 951-956.
32. Technical Working Group. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. (Document NCJ 178240) Washington DC. Retrieved 3/18/08 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178240.htm.
33. The Innocence Project. (2005). Model Legislation, 2005 State Legislative Sessions. Retrieved 12/26/05 from http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ Model_Statute_Eyewitness-ID.pdf.
34. The Justice Project. (2007). Eyewitness Identification - A Policy Review. Washington, D.C.: The Justice Project.
35. Wai, D., Ferrier, A., Collings, S., & Laverty, C. (1996). Have the most recent Pap smear guidelines affected GP practices? Australian Family Physician, (Suppl 1), S44-S48.
36. Wells, G. L. (2001). Police lineups: Data, theory, and policy. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 7, 791-801.
37. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior; 23, 603-647.
38. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 69-82.
39. Yarmey, A. D. (1986). Ethical responsibilities governing the statements experimental psychologists make in expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 101-116.
40. Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. (1990). Some effects of alcohol on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 268-273.
41. Zimmerman, L. A., Malpass, R. S., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). The Simultaneous v. Sequential Lineup Comparison is Confounded: Fair Comparison Eliminates Sequential Superiority. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at El Paso.