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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Law and human behavior Jg. 43; H. 1; S. 86
Hauptverfasser: Iacono, William G, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States 01.02.2019
Schlagworte:
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
United States
ISSN:1573-661X, 1573-661X
Online-Zugang:Weitere Angaben
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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).
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1573-661X
1573-661X
DOI:10.1037/lhb0000307