Skip to main content

The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Appendix G: Process for Systematic Review of Polygraph Validation Studies
Pages 323-339

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 323...
... Systematic reviews incorporate a common set of steps, conducted and documented so that, as with primary scientific studies, it is possible for other researchers to replicate the systematic review process to confirm its results. The five common steps, each of which may be elaborated in a variety of ways, are question formulation, literature search and compilation, critical characterization and data extraction, integration of results, and contextual evaluation.
From page 324...
... One was a normal literature search using computerized bibliographic databases such as PsycInfo, Social Science Citation Index, Medline, and so forth, using relevant keywords. In addition, we sent requests by regular or electronic mail to a variety of individuals and organizations that we believed might have, or be able to lead us to, research reports useful for this study.
From page 325...
... Initial Staff Screen Polygraph validation reports were reviewed by staff for conformity to six basic criteria of scientific acceptability and potential usefulness for baseline ROC assessment. The criteria were initially discussed by all involved staff and a committee research methodologist.
From page 326...
... Experimental studies passed the screen if they stated or showed that both the polygraph examiners and scorers were kept unaware of the examinee's guilt or innocence, even if the procedures to achieve this masking might have been flawed. Nonexperimental studies passed if scorers were kept uninformed about all case information relevant to determining truth, even if the original polygraph examiners were not uninformed.
From page 327...
... they compared truthful and deceptive responses of the same individual in a within-subjects design (e.g., concealed information technique studies)
From page 328...
... Studies were categorized as laboratory or field studies. "Laboratory" refers to studies in a controlled environment using polygraph examinations conducted specifically for research purposes.
From page 329...
... Each study was similarly rated 1-5, incorporating internal validity as well as broader issues. For experimental studies, considerable weight was given to external validity, including how well an experiment mimicked actual polygraph testing situations with regard to choices of engaging in or refraining from the target activity and to be deceptive or forthcoming and the consequences of being found deceptive on the test.
From page 330...
... While this approach shares with computer scoring the laudable intent of reducing errors due to examiner variability, to our knowledge such a scoring method is never used in practice, and it will often exaggerate the validity of a single polygraph examination. We also excluded, for this particular purpose, data from an otherwise interesting research category: studies of concealed information tests using subjects as their own controls that did not also include subjects who had no concealed information about the questions asked.
From page 331...
... Studies comparing the contributions of skin resistance, cardiovascular, and respiratory responses have generally found skin resistance to have the most discriminating power of the polygraph channels and most have found the additional contributions of cardiovascular and respiratory responses to be modest.
From page 332...
... Two reports included data from administration of comparison question and concealed information polygraph tests to different groups of subjects. We extracted one dataset for each type of testing procedure from each of these two studies.
From page 333...
... The laboratory studies employ instruments measuring different physiological parameters, multiple scales of measurement and systems of scoring, varying methods of interviewing, examiners of different levels of experience, and multiple study populations. The field studies present all these kinds of heterogeneity and more: they include variation within studies in the deceptions of concern, in examiners' expectancies, and in multiple unrecorded aspects of the social interaction during the polygraph examination.
From page 334...
... Our main substantive concern is with the relevance of the available literature to our task of reviewing the scientific evidence on polygraph testing with particular attention to national security screening applications. There is only a single study that provides directly relevant data addressing the performance of the polygraph in this context (Brownlie et al., 1998)
From page 335...
... Dolev 1996 Psychophysiological detection through the Guilty Knowledge technique: Effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology 67~6~:701-713.
From page 336...
... Elaad, E., and M Kleiner 1990 Effects of polygraph chart interpreter experience on psychophysiological detection of deception.
From page 337...
... Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. 1998 Test of a Mock Theft Scenario for Use in the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception: VI.
From page 338...
... U.S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute 1998a Test of a Mock Theft Scenario for Use in the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception: IV.
From page 339...
... Ben-Shakhar, G., and E Elaad 2002 The Validity of Psychophysiological Detection of Information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: A Meta-analytic Review.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.