Skip to main content

Table 1 Hits, hit rates %, false alarms and item statistics of the videos of the CCTV task

From: Face processing in police service: the relationship between laboratory-based assessment of face processing abilities and performance in a real-world identity matching task

Video Number of target persons (targets) View of target persons Number of bystanders Hits False alarms (F.A.)
Hits Hit rate % Corrected item-scale Correlation hits-CFMT+ False alarms Corrected item-scale Correlation F.A.-CFMT+
M (SD) M (SD) r r M (SD) r r
C 1 (C) Frontal < 10 .70 (.46) .70 (.46) .29 .18* .16 (.44) .08 − .01
.85 (.36) .85 (.36) .36 .18 .49 (.72) .13 − .05
D 1 (B) Frontal 10–20 .30 (.46) .30 (.46) .19 .12 .43 (.61) .23 − .07
.49 (.51) .49 (.51) .38 .15 .45 (.58) .33 − .23
E 1 (F) Frontal > 20 .27 (.44) .27 (.44) .15 .06 .36 (.67) .18 − .09
.34 (.48) .34 (.48) .44 .31* .47 (.88) .34 − .33*
F 1 (D) Lateral < 10 .21 (.41) .21 (.41) .20 .03 .34 (.56) .13 − .04
.30 (.46) .30 (.46) .20 − .04 .51 (.62) .38 − .27
G 2 (G, H) Lateral 10–20 1.20 (.70) .60 (.35) .24 .16 .25 (.53) .31 .01
1.32 (.59) .66 (.30) .19 .35* .36 (.49) .35 − .15
H 2 (E, F) Frontal < 10 .65 (.56) .33 (.28) .14 .15 .27 (.54) .34 − .04
.87 (.45) .44 (.22) .25 .22 .53 (.75) .47 − .39**
I 1 (H) Frontal 10–20 .50 (.50) .50 (.50) .24 .09 .44 (.62) .30 .04
.74 (.44) .74 (.44) .34 − .08 .45 (.65) .20 .05
J 2 (B, I) Lateral < 10 1.07 (.68) .54 (.34) .25 .16 .36 (.68) .28 − .06
1.21 (.59) .61 (.29) .34 .31* .30 (.55) .34 .08
K 2 (A, E) Lateral 10–20 .79 (.68) .40 (.34) .25 .13 .46 (.65) .28 − .05
1.15 (.72) .57 (.36) .16 .09 .43 (.62) .24 − .12
L 2 (D, I) Frontal > 20 1.23 (.66) .62 (.33) .33 .13 .23 (.46) .23 − .00
1.49 (.59) .74 (.29) .28 .14 .32 (.63) .25 − .29*
M 2 (A, C) Lateral > 20 .32 (.48) .16 (.24) .18 .13 .52 (.65) .13 .05
.40 (.50) .20 (.25) .42 .19 .68 (.73) .39 − .17
  1. The first row displays results of the first sample (N = 139), and the second row of the second sample (N = 47). Significant correlations are marked with **p < .01; *p < .05, respectively. Moreover, we performed significance tests between groups (analyses of variance with repeated measures) to test for differences of the video manipulations. Lateral videos compared to frontal videos resulted in fewer hits (F1,185 = 26.89, p < .001, η2 = .13), and fewer false alarms (F1,185 = 5.70, p < .05, η2 = .03). However, videos with two target persons did not differ to videos with one target person with respect to hits (F1,185 = 2.92, p > .05, η2 = .02). Videos containing two targets revealed fewer false alarms than videos containing one target (F1,185 = 81.47, p < .001, η2 = .31). Videos containing more than 20 bystanders resulted in fewer hits compared to videos containing less than 20 and 10 to 20 bystanders (F1,185 = 22.04, p < .001, η2 = .11). Videos containing less than 10, 10 to 20, and more than 20 bystanders did not differ with respect to false alarms (F1,185 = 2.88, p > .05, η2 = .02)