↓ Skip to main content

ROC curve analyses of eyewitness identification decisions: An analysis of the recent debate

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
ROC curve analyses of eyewitness identification decisions: An analysis of the recent debate
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0006-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caren M. Rotello, Tina Chen

Abstract

How should the accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions be measured, so that best practices for identification can be determined? This fundamental question is under intense debate. One side advocates for continued use of a traditional measure of identification accuracy, known as the diagnosticity ratio, whereas the other side argues that receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) should be used instead because diagnosticity is confounded with response bias. Diagnosticity proponents have offered several criticisms of ROCs, which we show are either false or irrelevant to the assessment of eyewitness accuracy. We also show that, like diagnosticity, Bayesian measures of identification accuracy confound response bias with witnesses' ability to discriminate guilty from innocent suspects. ROCs are an essential tool for distinguishing memory-based processes from decisional aspects of a response; simulations of different possible identification tasks and response strategies show that they offer important constraints on theory development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#296
of 329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,186
of 322,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.