z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Child eyewitness researchers often bin age: Prevalence of the practice and recommendations for analyzing developmental trends.
Author(s) -
Sierra A. Bainter,
Tristan Tibbe,
Zachary T. Goodman,
Debra Ann Poole
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
law and human behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.432
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1573-661X
pISSN - 0147-7307
DOI - 10.1037/lhb0000416
Subject(s) - legal psychology , psychology , developmental psychology , developmental science , eyewitness testimony , clinical psychology , social psychology
Effective practices for eliciting and analyzing children's eyewitness reports rely on accurate conclusions about age differences in how children retain information and respond to memory probes. Binning, which is the practice of categorizing continuous variables into discrete groups, can lower studies' power to detect age differences and, in some situations, produce significant but spurious effects. In this article, we (a) describe a systematic review that estimated the frequency of binning age in child eyewitness studies, (b) analyze real and simulated data to illustrate how binning can distort conclusions about age and covariate effects, and (c) demonstrate best practices for analyzing and reporting age trends.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom