Eyewitness Memory and Eyewitness Identification Performance in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Since individuals with intellectual disabilities are often the only witnesses to alleged crimes, it is important to know their capacity to provide eyewitness testimony. Methods Twenty‐two participants with intellectual disabilities and 23 comparison group participants had their photographs taken by a confederate. One to two weeks following the photography session, participants were interviewed about the event and were asked to identify the photographer. Two misleading questions, to test for suggestibility, were asked at the end of the interview. Results Comparison group participants performed significantly better than participants with intellectual disabilities with a target‐present lineup, but no significant differences were found between participant groups with a target‐absent lineup. Comparison group participants performed significantly better than chance with the target‐absent lineup, but participants with intellectual disabilities did not. In the interview, participants with intellectual disabilities provided significantly fewer details than comparison group participants, and the details provided by both groups were mainly accurate. Participants with intellectual disabilities were significantly more likely to acquiesce to one of the suggestive questions than comparison group participants, but the two participant groups did not differ in likelihood of acquiescence for the other suggestive question. Conclusions It seems that individuals with intellectual disabilities may make adequate witnesses if they are interviewed in a non‐leading manner. Future research should examine methods to improve their eyewitness identification performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".