Table 2 Literature measuring correlation for lineup accuracy

Andersen et al., 2014

CFMT

CP simultaneous lineup

0.26^a

119

0.09

0.42

CFMT

CA simultaneous lineup

0.28^a

119

0.1

0.44

CFMT

CP sequential lineup

ns^b

119

CFMT

CA sequential lineup

0.27^a

119

0.09

0.43

Bindemann et al., 2012

Hit rate, Bruce 1-in-10 as memory task

Probability of being a good witness (choosers)

0.7

37

0.49

0.83

Hit rate, Bruce 1-in-10 as memory task

Probability of being a good witness (choosers)

0.83

86

0.75

0.89

FA rate, Bruce 1-in-10 as memory task

Probability of being a good witness (nonchoosers)

0.49

43

0.22

0.69

FA rate, Bruce 1-in-10 as memory task

Probability of being a good witness (nonchoosers)

0.38

99

0.2

0.54

Deffenbacher et al., 1978

Y/N face recognition overall accuracy

4-person simultaneous lineup of class exam administrators

−0.28

45

−0.53

0.01

Hosch, 1994

BFRT

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

0.54

32

0.24

0.75

BFRT

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

0.39

38

0.08

0.63

BFRT

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

0.41

27

0.04

0.68

Y/N face recognition sensitivity

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

−0.07

33

−0.4

0.28

Y/N face recognition sensitivity

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

−0.21

36^c

− 0.5

0.13

Y/N face recognition response bias

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

0.5

33

0.19

0.72

Y/N face recognition response bias

Single lineup of experimenter (half CP)

0.28

36^c

−0.05

0.56

Kantner & Lindsay, 2014

Y/N face recognition response bias

1 CP and 4 CA lineups

0.29

65

0.06

0.5