Skip to main content
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

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)
Back to article page