On the use of receiver operating characteristic area under the curve in eyewitness memory research

被引:2
作者
Riesthuis, Paul [1 ,2 ]
Otgaar, Henry [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Leuven Inst Criminol, Fac Law & Criminol, Oude Markt 13, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[2] Maastricht Univ, Fac Psychol & Neurosci, Forens Psychol Sect, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
关键词
area under the curve; power analysis; receiver operating characteristic curve; smallest effect size of interest; PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH; CONFIDENCE-INTERVALS; RECOGNITION MEMORY; EFFECT SIZE; IDENTIFICATION; RELIABILITY; HYPOTHESIS; LINEUPS; TESTS; ROCS;
D O I
10.1111/lcrp.12300
中图分类号
DF [法律]; D9 [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
PurposeEyewitness memory research has reformed police practices and policy and is sometimes relied upon in legal proceedings. Due to the practical implications derived from this research, it is imperative to evaluate how practical recommendations are postulated. To assess the practical relevance of research, effect sizes and their interpretation play a pivotal role.MethodsWe examined how the frequently used effect size Area Under the Curve (AUC) obtained via Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves are used and interpreted in eyewitness memory research. We identified 157 eyewitness memory related articles that conducted ROC curve analyses resulting in 1580 AUCs.ResultsApproximately 90% of the AUCs were only interpreted via statistical significance. The majority of studies did not report 95%CIs for their AUCs. Finally, power analyses were frequently not conducted or not reproducible.ConclusionsTo improve the practical inferences of eyewitness memory research, we recommend establishing a smallest effect size of interest, focusing on 95%CIs, and conducting reproducible power analyses.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 66 条
  • [1] Not All Effects Are Indispensable: Psychological Science Requires Verifiable Lines of Reasoning for Whether an Effect Matters
    Anvari, Farid
    Kievit, Rogier
    Lakens, Daniel
    Pennington, Charlotte R.
    Przybylski, Andrew K.
    Tiokhin, Leo
    Wiernik, Brenton M.
    Orben, Amy
    [J]. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 18 (02) : 503 - 507
  • [2] Using anchor-based methods to determine the smallest effect size of interest
    Anvari, Farid
    Lakens, Daniel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 96
  • [3] Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?
    Baguley, Thom
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 100 : 603 - 617
  • [4] How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: decision analysis comes through
    Baker, Stuart G.
    Schuit, Ewoud
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Pencina, Michael J.
    Vickers, Andew
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Mol, Ben W. J.
    Lindeman, Karen S.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2014, 33 (22) : 3946 - 3959
  • [5] Bartos F., 2022, Meta-Psychology, V6, DOI [DOI 10.15626/MP.2021.2720, 10.15626/MP.2021.2720]
  • [6] Blackstone William., 1765, COMMENTARIES LAWS EN
  • [7] ROC curve equivalence using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
    Bradley, Andrew P.
    [J]. PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS, 2013, 34 (05) : 470 - 475
  • [8] Measuring memory is harder than you think: How to avoid problematic measurement practices in memory research
    Brady, Timothy F.
    Robinson, Maria M.
    Williams, Jamal R.
    Wixted, John T.
    [J]. PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2023, 30 (02) : 421 - 449
  • [9] Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
    Button, Katherine S.
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    Mokrysz, Claire
    Nosek, Brian A.
    Flint, Jonathan
    Robinson, Emma S. J.
    Munafo, Marcus R.
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 14 (05) : 365 - 376
  • [10] Chin J. M., 2022, Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, V100113, DOI [10.1016/j.fsiml.2022.100113, DOI 10.1016/J.FSIML.2022.100113]