Skip to main content
. 2018 Aug;24(3):307–325. doi: 10.1037/law0000164

Table 3. Comparisons Between Photo and U.K. Video Lineups.

Target, outcome, and study Event Condition Photo U.K. video Effect size and CIs Test of null
Rate Type n Rate Type n OR LL UL z p
Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit 95% CI; UL = upper limit 95% CI; Sim = simultaneous presentation; Seq = sequential presentation; BW = black and white (monochrome); ID = identification. Choosing rates are collapsed across target-present and target-absent or (if no target-absent lineups were used) target-present only. To facilitate comparisons, all ORs below 1.00 and associated CIs are converted to their inverse.
Present
 Hit
  Beresford and Blades (2006) Video Elimination .44 Sim 43 .33 Seq 42 1.60 .66 3.85 1.04 .30
Modified .49 Sim 43 .45 Seq 42 1.17 .50 2.75 .37 .71
Standard .47 Sim 43 .50 Seq 44 1.12 .49 2.63 .28 .78
  Darling, Valentine, and Memon (2008) Live Descript-match .48 Seq 23 .42 Seq 24 1.27 .40 4.03 .41 .68
Suspect-match .54 Seq 26 .44 Seq 27 1.49 .51 4.41 .73 .47
  Havard, Memon, Clifford, and Gabbert (2010) Video — .58 Seq 55 .68 Seq 53 1.54 .70 3.33 1.07 .28
  Seale-Carlisle and Mickes (2016) Video — .39 Sim 571 .20 Seq 554 2.56 1.96 3.34 6.88 <.001
  Valentine, Darling, and Memon (2007) Live Strict .31 Seq 29 .42 Seq 24 1.61 .52 5.00 .83 .41
U.K. .61 Seq 28 .71 Seq 24 1.56 .49 5.00 .75 .45
 Filler
  Beresford and Blades (2006) Video Elimination .21 Sim 43 .19 Seq 42 1.13 .39 3.29 .23 .82
Modified .26 Sim 43 .24 Seq 42 1.11 .42 2.97 .21 .83
Standard .28 Sim 43 .34 Seq 44 1.33 .53 3.33 .60 .55
  Darling et al. (2008) Live Descript-match .09 Seq 23 .08 Seq 24 1.14 .15 8.86 .12 .90
Suspect-match .08 Seq 26 .04 Seq 27 2.09 .19 22.78 .60 .55
  Havard et al. (2010) Video — .20 Seq 55 .25 Seq 53 1.33 .54 3.33 .62 .53
  Seale-Carlisle and Mickes (2016) Video — .31 Sim 571 .50 Seq 554 2.22 1.75 2.86 6.45 <.001
  Valentine et al. (2007) Live Strict .14 Seq 29 .08 Seq 24 1.87 .31 11.44 .68 .50
U.K. .11 Seq 28 .08 Seq 24 1.42 .21 9.42 .36 .72
 No ID
  Beresford and Blades (2006) Video Elimination .35 Seq 43 .48 Seq 42 1.72 .72 4.17 1.21 .23
Modified .26 Seq 43 .31 Seq 42 1.28 .50 3.33 .51 .61
Standard .26 Seq 43 .16 Seq 44 1.84 .64 5.30 1.14 .26
  Darling et al. (2008) Live Descript-Match .44 Seq 23 .50 Seq 24 1.27 .40 4.00 .41 .68
Suspect-Match .39 Seq 26 .52 Seq 27 1.69 .57 5.00 .95 .34
  Havard et al. (2010) Video — .22 Seq 55 .08 Seq 53 3.24 1.00 10.55 1.95 .05
  Seale-Carlisle and Mickes (2016) Video — .31 Sim 571 .30 Seq 554 1.05 .81 1.35 .36 .72
  Valentine et al. (2007) Live Strict .55 Seq 29 .50 Seq 24 1.22 .41 3.61 .36 .72
U.K. .29 Seq 28 .21 Seq 24 1.54 .43 5.51 .66 .51
Absent
 No ID
  Beresford and Blades (2006) Video Elimination .63 Sim 43 .50 Seq 42 1.70 .72 4.05 1.21 .23
Modified .51 Sim 43 .57 Seq 42 1.27 .54 3.03 .55 .58
Standard .26 Sim 43 .29 Seq 41 1.16 .45 3.03 .31 .76
  Darling et al. (2008) Live Descript-match .62 Seq 21 .86 Seq 22 3.70 .85 16.67 1.74 .08
Suspect-match .82 Seq 28 .79 Seq 29 1.21 .33 4.51 .29 .78
  Havard et al. (2010) Video — .42 Seq 53 .50 Seq 54 1.39 .65 2.94 .83 .41
  Seale-Carlisle and Mickes (2016) Video — .45 Sim 577 .30 Seq 503 1.91 1.48 2.46 5.04 <.001
  Valentine et al. (2007) Live Strict .83 Seq 23 .96 Seq 26 5.26 .54 51.00 1.52 .12
U.K. .67 Seq 24 .88 Seq 24 3.50 .80 15.34 1.73 .08
Both
 Choosing
  Beresford and Blades (2006) Video Elimination .51 Sim 86 .51 Seq 84 1.00 .55 1.82 .00 1.00
Modified .62 Sim 86 .56 Seq 84 1.28 .69 2.37 .79 .43
Standard .74 Sim 86 .77 Seq 85 1.18 .58 2.38 .46 .65
  Darling et al. (2008) Live Descript-match .48 Seq 44 .33 Seq 46 1.87 .80 4.40 1.44 .15
Suspect-match .39 Seq 54 .34 Seq 56 1.24 .57 2.70 .54 .59
  Havard et al. (2010) Video — .70 Seq 108 .70 Seq 107 1.00 .56 1.79 .00 1.00
  Seale-Carlisle and Mickes (2016) Video — .62 Sim 1148 .70 Seq 1057 1.43 1.19 1.69 3.95 <.001
  Valentine et al. (2007) Live Strict .33 Seq 53 .26 Seq 50 1.40 .60 3.29 .78 .44
U.K. .54 Seq 52 .46 Seq 47 1.38 .62 3.04 .79 .43