TY - JOUR
T1 - The Comparison Question Polygraph Test: A Contrast of Methods and Scoring
AU - Honts, Charles R.
AU - Reavy, Racheal
N1 - Honts, Charles R. and Reavy, Racheal. (2015). "The Comparison Question Polygraph Test: A Contrast of Methods and Scoring". Physiology & Behavior, 143, 15-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.028
PY - 2015/5/1
Y1 - 2015/5/1
N2 - We conducted a mock crime experiment with 250 paid participants (126 females, Mdn age = 30 years) contrasting the validity of the probable-lie and the directed-lie variants of the comparison question test (CQT) for the detection of deception. Subjects were assigned at random to one of eight conditions in a Guilt (Guilty/Innocent) × Test Type (Probable-Lie/Directed-Lie) × Stimulation (Between Repetition Stimulation/No Stimulation) factorial design. The data were scored by an experienced polygraph examiner who was unaware of subject assignment to conditions and with a computer algorithm known as the Objective Scoring System Version 2 (OSS2). There were substantial main effects of guilt in both the OSS2 computer scores F (1, 241) = 143.82, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.371, and in the human scoring, F (1, 242) = 98.92, p < .001, η p 2 = .29. There were no differences between the test types in the number of spontaneous countermeasure attempts made against them. Although under the controlled conditions of an experiment the probable-lie and the directed-lie variants of the CQT produced equivocal results in terms of detection accuracy, the directed-lie variant has much to recommend it as it is inherently more standardized in its administration and construction.
AB - We conducted a mock crime experiment with 250 paid participants (126 females, Mdn age = 30 years) contrasting the validity of the probable-lie and the directed-lie variants of the comparison question test (CQT) for the detection of deception. Subjects were assigned at random to one of eight conditions in a Guilt (Guilty/Innocent) × Test Type (Probable-Lie/Directed-Lie) × Stimulation (Between Repetition Stimulation/No Stimulation) factorial design. The data were scored by an experienced polygraph examiner who was unaware of subject assignment to conditions and with a computer algorithm known as the Objective Scoring System Version 2 (OSS2). There were substantial main effects of guilt in both the OSS2 computer scores F (1, 241) = 143.82, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.371, and in the human scoring, F (1, 242) = 98.92, p < .001, η p 2 = .29. There were no differences between the test types in the number of spontaneous countermeasure attempts made against them. Although under the controlled conditions of an experiment the probable-lie and the directed-lie variants of the CQT produced equivocal results in terms of detection accuracy, the directed-lie variant has much to recommend it as it is inherently more standardized in its administration and construction.
KW - comparison question test
KW - deception detection
KW - lie detection
UR - https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/psych_facpubs/204
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.028
M3 - Article
JO - Physiology & Behavior
JF - Physiology & Behavior
ER -