The importance of decision bias for predicting eyewitness lineup choices: toward a Lineup Skills Test

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Table 1 Literature measuring correlation with the Cambridge Face Memory Test

Paper	Predictor	r	N	CI lower	CI upper
Bobak et al., 2016	Face-matching HR	0.61^a	27	0.29	0.8
	Face-matching FAR	0.57^a	27	0.24	0.78
	Face memory target-present trials	0.38^a	27	0	0.67
	Face memory target-absent trials	0.46^a	27	0.1	0.72
Bowles et al., 2009	CFPT	0.61	124	0.24	0.8
McGugin et al., 2012	Holistic processing test	0.26	109	0.09	0.44
McKone et al., 2011	CFMT-Aus	0.61	74	0.44	0.74

Where not reported, 95% CIs calculated using vassarstats.net/rho.html
CI confidence interval, CFMT-Aus Cambridge Face Memory Test (Australia), CFPT Cambridge Face Perception Test, FAR False alarm rate, HR Hit rate
^aSpearman’s rho calculated by authors, used here as well