Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing

Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report concluded that the scientific basis of the comparison question technique (CQT) was weak, the extant research was of low quality, the polygrap...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law and human behavior Vol. 43; no. 1; p. 86
Main Authors: Iacono, William G, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01.02.2019
Subjects:
ISSN:1573-661X, 1573-661X
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report concluded that the scientific basis of the comparison question technique (CQT) was weak, the extant research was of low quality, the polygraph profession's claims for the high accuracy of the CQT were unfounded, and, although the CQT has greater than chance accuracy, its error rate is unknown. Polygraph proponents argue that current research indicates that the CQT has 90% or better accuracy, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences' (2003) analysis supports this accuracy claim, and the CQT qualifies as legally admissible scientific evidence. We review the scientific literature that has appeared since the appearance of the NAS publication, including a new method for estimating polygraph accuracy. We show that the NAS report has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who support use of the CQT in forensic settings. We conclude that the quality of research has changed little in the years elapsing since the release of the NAS report, and that the report's landmark conclusions still stand. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
AbstractList Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report concluded that the scientific basis of the comparison question technique (CQT) was weak, the extant research was of low quality, the polygraph profession's claims for the high accuracy of the CQT were unfounded, and, although the CQT has greater than chance accuracy, its error rate is unknown. Polygraph proponents argue that current research indicates that the CQT has 90% or better accuracy, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences' (2003) analysis supports this accuracy claim, and the CQT qualifies as legally admissible scientific evidence. We review the scientific literature that has appeared since the appearance of the NAS publication, including a new method for estimating polygraph accuracy. We show that the NAS report has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who support use of the CQT in forensic settings. We conclude that the quality of research has changed little in the years elapsing since the release of the NAS report, and that the report's landmark conclusions still stand. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report concluded that the scientific basis of the comparison question technique (CQT) was weak, the extant research was of low quality, the polygraph profession's claims for the high accuracy of the CQT were unfounded, and, although the CQT has greater than chance accuracy, its error rate is unknown. Polygraph proponents argue that current research indicates that the CQT has 90% or better accuracy, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences' (2003) analysis supports this accuracy claim, and the CQT qualifies as legally admissible scientific evidence. We review the scientific literature that has appeared since the appearance of the NAS publication, including a new method for estimating polygraph accuracy. We show that the NAS report has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who support use of the CQT in forensic settings. We conclude that the quality of research has changed little in the years elapsing since the release of the NAS report, and that the report's landmark conclusions still stand. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report concluded that the scientific basis of the comparison question technique (CQT) was weak, the extant research was of low quality, the polygraph profession's claims for the high accuracy of the CQT were unfounded, and, although the CQT has greater than chance accuracy, its error rate is unknown. Polygraph proponents argue that current research indicates that the CQT has 90% or better accuracy, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences' (2003) analysis supports this accuracy claim, and the CQT qualifies as legally admissible scientific evidence. We review the scientific literature that has appeared since the appearance of the NAS publication, including a new method for estimating polygraph accuracy. We show that the NAS report has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who support use of the CQT in forensic settings. We conclude that the quality of research has changed little in the years elapsing since the release of the NAS report, and that the report's landmark conclusions still stand. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Author Ben-Shakhar, Gershon
Iacono, William G
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: William G
  surname: Iacono
  fullname: Iacono, William G
  organization: Department of Psychology
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Gershon
  surname: Ben-Shakhar
  fullname: Ben-Shakhar, Gershon
  organization: Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30284848$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNkEtPxCAQx4lZ4z704gcwHL1UgT7oettsfCUbPaiJt4bS6RbTQgUas5_Grypd18SBCcPML3-YmaOJNhoQOqfkipKYX7dNSYLFhB-hGU15HGUZfZ_8i6do7txHYJY5SU_QNCYsT8Kaoe_1YC1oj50XfnDY1Lg2IeGUxK0CXIEH6ZXR-Ev5BvsGsDRdL6xyIfc5gNsXA9RoFa43eKXx0FfCw6g18ix8DT-JkRMtXklRQbcbiy9SgZbgsIXeWI-DTm_a3daKPrw0KuvtKTquRevg7HAu0Nvd7ev6Ido83z-uV5tIxCnxUZbLsqoJK-sEapbVSU45MAAuU14yQlMSJ1zw4EuWSYhTyOMqyXgFQjKSA1ugy1_d3pp9V0WnnIS2FRrM4ApGaTZuRgJ6cUCHsoOq6K3qhN0Vf0NlP1XMfOs
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1007_s12207_025_09545_8
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0311948
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2022_1047427
crossref_primary_10_1111_lcrp_12198
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_socec_2021_101699
crossref_primary_10_1111_lcrp_12299
crossref_primary_10_1111_lcrp_12310
crossref_primary_10_1177_10790632221139178
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2022_835285
crossref_primary_10_1177_14613557211026935
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biopsycho_2024_108808
crossref_primary_10_1177_09637214231173095
crossref_primary_10_1017_S0963180120000195
crossref_primary_10_3389_fnins_2024_1445697
crossref_primary_10_1002_acp_3895
crossref_primary_10_1002_acp_3779
crossref_primary_10_1109_TIFS_2024_3435409
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_paid_2019_05_007
crossref_primary_10_2478_ep_2019_0013
crossref_primary_10_1027_1618_3169_a000504
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11896_022_09526_6
crossref_primary_10_1002_jip_1576
crossref_primary_10_1017_S1930297500005441
crossref_primary_10_1177_00332941231172512
crossref_primary_10_1108_JCP_09_2024_0091
crossref_primary_10_1002_jip_1558
crossref_primary_10_31060_rbsp_2024_v18_n1_1710
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_drugpo_2020_103030
crossref_primary_10_3390_brainsci12121644
crossref_primary_10_1109_TIM_2021_3082985
ContentType Journal Article
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1037/lhb0000307
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Psychology
Sociology & Social History
Law
EISSN 1573-661X
ExternalDocumentID 30284848
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
Review
GeographicLocations United States
GeographicLocations_xml – name: United States
GroupedDBID ---
-55
-5G
-BR
-Y2
-~C
-~X
.4L
.86
0-V
0R~
1SB
2.D
28-
29L
2JY
2P1
2VQ
3V.
4.4
53G
5GY
5QI
5VS
67Z
6NX
78A
7RZ
7WY
7X7
85S
88E
8AO
8FI
8FJ
8FL
8G5
8TC
8UJ
8VB
AACLI
AAIAL
AARHV
AAYZH
ABACO
ABIVO
ABMNI
ABNCP
ABQSL
ABTEG
ABUWG
ACBXY
ACHQT
ACNCT
ACOMO
ACPQG
ACYUM
ADBBV
ADEPB
ADIMF
ADINQ
ADKPE
ADMHG
ADNFJ
ADRFC
ADUOI
AEFIE
AEGNC
AEHFB
AEUPB
AFACB
AFBBN
AFEXP
AFFNX
AFGCZ
AFKRA
AFLOW
AFXCU
AGJBK
AGQRV
AHBYD
AHEHV
AHKAY
AHMBA
AHQJS
AHSBF
AJPNJ
AKVCP
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALSLI
AMKLP
AQSKT
AQUVI
ARALO
AWKKM
AZQEC
AZXWR
BA0
BBWZM
BENPR
BEZIV
BGNMA
BGRYB
BHRNT
BPHCQ
BVXVI
CAG
CCPQU
CGNQK
CGR
COF
CS3
CSCUP
CUY
CVF
DL5
DU5
DWQXO
D~-
EBS
EBU
ECM
EHE
EIF
EJD
EKAWT
EPA
F5P
FEDTE
FM.
FRNLG
FTD
FYUFA
GNUQQ
GROUPED_ABI_INFORM_COMPLETE
GROUPED_ABI_INFORM_RESEARCH
GUQSH
GXS
H13
HF~
HG5
HG6
HGD
HISYW
HLICF
HMCUK
HVGLF
HZ~
I09
IHE
ISO
IXC
IZQ
I~X
JAV
JENOY
JST
K1G
K60
K6~
KDC
KOV
KOW
LAK
M0C
M0O
M0T
M1P
M2M
M2O
M4Y
M86
N2Q
NB0
NDZJH
NPM
NU0
O-J
O9-
O93
O9G
O9I
OAM
OPA
OVD
P19
P2P
PADUT
PQBIZ
PQBZA
PQQKQ
PROAC
PSQYO
PSYQQ
Q2X
QF4
QN5
QN7
QOK
QOS
QWB
R4E
R9I
RHO
RIG
RNI
ROL
RPX
RRX
RSV
RWL
RXW
RZC
RZD
S1Z
S26
S27
S28
SBS
SDH
SDM
SOJ
T13
T16
TAA
TAC
TAF
TEORI
TH9
TSK
U2A
UKHRP
VC2
VQA
W2G
W48
WHG
WIP
WK6
WK8
YQR
YQT
YZZ
ZCA
ZCG
ZL0
ZMU
ZPI
~8M
~EX
7X8
ABVOZ
ADXHL
LXHRH
PHGZM
PHGZT
PUEGO
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-a350t-68cbdf02bf4ef26f4817e2ee7c57b20150347a747a926ce35e83d467deac208e2
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 39
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000458608800007&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1573-661X
IngestDate Wed Oct 01 13:27:50 EDT 2025
Wed Feb 19 02:36:36 EST 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a350t-68cbdf02bf4ef26f4817e2ee7c57b20150347a747a926ce35e83d467deac208e2
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
PMID 30284848
PQID 2116116120
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_2116116120
pubmed_primary_30284848
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2019-02-00
20190201
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2019-02-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 02
  year: 2019
  text: 2019-02-00
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Law and human behavior
PublicationTitleAlternate Law Hum Behav
PublicationYear 2019
SSID ssj0009805
Score 2.4100347
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 86
SubjectTerms Humans
Lie Detection
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Monitoring, Physiologic - methods
Monitoring, Physiologic - standards
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
Reproducibility of Results
ROC Curve
Societies, Scientific
Truth Disclosure
United States
Title Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30284848
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2116116120
Volume 43
WOSCitedRecordID wos000458608800007&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1La9wwEB6axyGXtN2805YJlN5EvHpYci4hlIYe0iWHBva22LJMAsHexLsJ-2vyVzsjezenQiDY-CJbDIw8Mxp98w3Ad6tkYpKyEORalNC-MMKRoxXSVcpJb3TwUdNXdjRy43F23Sfc2h5WubSJ0VCXjecc-SltVFK-ZXI-fRDcNYpPV_sWGmuwoSiUYUiXHb-yhWcuQhiHxipBfmi8pCdV9vT-NoZHKrH_Dy2ji7n8-F7hPsF2H1ziRbcaPsOHUA9g7Sp_HsDWytItBnC0KlPBH9gV6GLHF7LYgZeesgm51mjeYlMhBbaMc_dIASuWYRbhWzVyDhcpgES_amaIUWoeXJHDnuFFjfMpZxZ4Ln6foWrYM3KTuF1RCw_2lqbF7igDaZ5pc7-IrNo0Y8sY7V24ufz19-dv0bdxELkyyUykzhdllcii0qGSaaXd0AYZgvXGFpIzLkrbnLY1eSZTH5QJTpVkv8vA9JEuyD1Yr5s6HAAamxdaGyVVFrRPfe48_QlDS5ser4e2OISTpX4m9Jvw2Udeh2beTl41dAj7nZIn047PY6IoxtJ0Hb3h62PYIpGzDrf9BTYqMhLhK2z6p9ld-_gtrj96jq7__AObSeba
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Current+status+of+forensic+lie+detection+with+the+comparison+question+technique%3A+An+update+of+the+2003+National+Academy+of+Sciences+report+on+polygraph+testing&rft.jtitle=Law+and+human+behavior&rft.au=Iacono%2C+William+G&rft.au=Ben-Shakhar%2C+Gershon&rft.date=2019-02-01&rft.issn=1573-661X&rft.eissn=1573-661X&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=86&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037%2Flhb0000307&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon