National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Looking to the Future
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. Field Evaluation in the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Context: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12854.
×

References

Bhatt, S., and Brandon, S.E. (2008). Review of the preliminary credibility assessment screening system (PCASS). Unpublished manuscript, Washington, DC.

Bhatt, S., and Brandon, S.E. (2009). Review of voice stress-based technologies for the detection of deception. Unpublished manuscript, Washington, DC.

Brander, G. (2009). A U.K. perspective. Presentation at the Workshop on Field Evaluation of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences-Based Methods and Tools for Intelligence and Counterintelligence, September 22-23, National Academies, Washington, DC. Available: http://nationalacademies.org/bbcss/Field_Evaluation_Workshop_Presentations.html [accessed February 2010].

Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., and McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Fisk, C. (1972). The Sino-Soviet border dispute: A comparison of the conventional and Bayesian methods for intelligence warning. Studies in Intelligence, 16(2), 53-62.

Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Hallberg, A.M., Lebow, B., Snitz, E., and Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.

Heuer, R.J., Jr. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

Innocence Project. (2009a). Innocence Project case profiles. Available: http://www.innocence project.org/know/ [accessed January 2010].

Innocence Project. (2009b). The causes of wrongful conviction. Available: http://www.innocence project.org/understand/ [accessed September 2009].

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Lindsay, R.C.L., and Wells, G.L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. Field Evaluation in the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Context: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12854.
×

Lum, C., Kennedy, L.W., and Sherley, A.J. (2006). The effectiveness of counter-terrorism strategies: A Campbell systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 489-516.

Lum, C., Koper, C., and Telep, C.W. (2009). Evidence-based policing matrix. Available: http://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/matrix.html [accessed January 2010].

Meissner, C.A. (2009). Eyewitness (mis)identification: How errors of memory can lead to wrongful conviction. Presented at the Actual Innocence Conference, Plano, TX.

Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Doubleday, Page.

National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Committee on a Feasibility Study for a Strategic Education Research Program, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2008). Emerging cognitive neuroscience and related technologies. Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades. Standing Committee for Technology Insight—Gauge, Evaluate, and Review Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Opportunities in neuroscience for future army applications. Committee on Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications. Board on Army Science and Technology, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2010). Strengthening scientific research and development at the National Institute of Justice. Committee on Assessing the Research Program of the National Institute of Justice. Center for Economic, Governance, and International Studies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ruger, T., Kim, P., Martin, A., and Quinn, K. (2004). The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal and political science approaches to Supreme Court decision making. Columbia Law Review, 104, 1150. Available: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/truger/workingpapers/104ColumLR1150.pdf [accessed January 2010].

Sherman, L.W. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Sticha, P., Buede, D., and Rees, R.L. (2005). APOLLO: An analytical tool for predicting a subject’s decision making. Presented at the International Conference on Intelligence Analysis Methods and Tools. May 2-6, McLean, VA.

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (2003). Eyewitness evidence: A trainer’s manual for law enforcement. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council. Washington, DC.

Wells, G.L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R.S., Fulero, S.M., and Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 603-647.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. Field Evaluation in the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Context: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12854.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. Field Evaluation in the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Context: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12854.
×
Page 90
Next: Appendix A: Workshop Agenda and Participants »
Field Evaluation in the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Context: Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $41.00 Buy Ebook | $32.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

On September 22-23, 2009, the National Research Council held a workshop on the field evaluation of behavioral and cognitive sciences--based methods and tools for use in the areas of intelligence and counterintelligence. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the best ways to take methods and tools from behavioral science and apply them to work in intelligence operations. More specifically, the workshop focused on the issue of field evaluation--the testing of these methods and tools in the context in which they will be used in order to determine if they are effective in real-world settings.

This book is a summary and synthesis of the two days of presentations and discussions that took place during the workshop. The workshop participants included invited speakers and experts from a number of areas related to the behavioral sciences and the intelligence community. The discussions covered such ground as the obstacles to field evaluation of behavioral science tools and methods, the importance of field evaluation, and various lessons learned from experience with field evaluation in other areas.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!