Deviation from Perfect Performance Measures the Diagnostic Utility of Eyewitness Lineups but Partial Area Under the ROC Curve Does Not

When one lineup identification procedure leads to both fewer innocent–suspect identifications and fewer culprit identifications than does some other lineup procedure, it is difficult to determine whether the procedures differ in diagnostic accuracy. In an influential article, Wixted and Mickes (2012 ) argued that measures of probative value do not inform diagnostic accuracy in these situations but that the partial area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (pAUC) does. In more recent research, we have found that pAUC does not necessarily indicate which of two lineup procedures has higher expected utility. When two lineup procedures produce different innocent-suspect identification rates, it leads to differential truncation of the ROC curves. As a result, diagnostic utility as measured by the pAUC is confounded with witness confidence level. We introduce a novel receiver operator characteristic measure, deviation from perfect performance (DPP), that unconfounds diagnostic utility and witness confidence level and consistently indicates which of two lineup procedures has higher expected utility. Our findings suggest that eyewitness scientists should abandon pAUC as a measure of diagnostic accuracy and embrace deviation from perfect performance.

[1]  Deryn Strange,et al.  Unfair Lineups Make Witnesses More Likely to Confuse Innocent and Guilty Suspects , 2016, Psychological science.

[2]  S. Clark Costs and Benefits of Eyewitness Identification Reform , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[3]  J. Wixted,et al.  The Field of Eyewitness Memory Should Abandon Probative Value and Embrace Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[4]  R. K. Hanson,et al.  Improving Risk Assessments for Sex Offenders: A Comparison of Three Actuarial Scales , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[5]  John T. Wixted,et al.  Theoretical vs. empirical discriminability: the application of ROC methods to eyewitness identification , 2018, Cognitive research: principles and implications.

[6]  John T Wixted,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[7]  Yuri Gurevich,et al.  The Classical Decision Problem , 1997, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic.

[8]  Scott D. Gronlund,et al.  ROC Analysis in Theory and Practice , 2017 .

[9]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[10]  R. Lindsay,et al.  On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness Nonidentifications , 1980 .

[11]  Xavier Robin,et al.  pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[12]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[13]  Kylie N. Key,et al.  Do the clothes make the criminal? The influence of clothing match on identification accuracy in showups , 2015 .

[14]  Heather L. Price,et al.  The Effect of Suspect-Filler Similarity on Eyewitness Identification Decisions: A Meta-Analysis , 2013 .

[15]  Richard D. Friedman,et al.  The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications , 2000 .