Loading…

A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test

We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive ou...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied cognitive psychology 2021-03, Vol.35 (2), p.411-427
Main Authors: Honts, Charles R., Thurber, Steven, Handler, Mark
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3
container_end_page 427
container_issue 2
container_start_page 411
container_title Applied cognitive psychology
container_volume 35
creator Honts, Charles R.
Thurber, Steven
Handler, Mark
description We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive outcomes was 0.69 [0.66, 0.79]. We found significant moderator effects. Notably, level of motivation had a positive linear relationship with our outcome measures. Information Gain analysis of CQT outcomes representing the median accuracy showed a significant information increase over interpersonal deception detection across almost the complete range of base rates. Our results suggest that the CQT can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected. We discussed the limitations of the field research literature and problems within polygraph profession that lower field accuracy. We suggest some possible solutions.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/acp.3779
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2509242192</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1290512</ericid><sourcerecordid>2509242192</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1KAzEURoMoWKvgCwgDbtxMvfmZSbIspdVKQRe6Dpk0Y1OmnTGZKrPzEXxGn8S0I-5c3cu9h8PHh9AlhhEGILfaNCPKuTxCAwxSpsAJHKMBCCFSBgJO0VkIawCQOSYDNB8npt403q7sNrh3m2xsq78_v_RWV11wIanLpF3ZA6S9C_U2edvZ0Lq4NHXVvXrdrJI2Xs7RSamrYC9-5xC9zKbPk_t08Xg3n4wXqaEs5slwiZngRhgGOM-lwNQKLSjPC8mgsFxklOVlISQVWVlk3NCiWEK-NAQkJZYO0XXvbXx9iKLW9c7HuEGRDCRhBEsSqZueMr4OwdtSNd5ttO8UBrUvSsWi1L6oiF71qPXO_GHTB0wkZHivSvv_h6ts969HjSdPB98PMvpzAQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2509242192</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><creator>Honts, Charles R. ; Thurber, Steven ; Handler, Mark</creator><creatorcontrib>Honts, Charles R. ; Thurber, Steven ; Handler, Mark</creatorcontrib><description>We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive outcomes was 0.69 [0.66, 0.79]. We found significant moderator effects. Notably, level of motivation had a positive linear relationship with our outcome measures. Information Gain analysis of CQT outcomes representing the median accuracy showed a significant information increase over interpersonal deception detection across almost the complete range of base rates. Our results suggest that the CQT can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected. We discussed the limitations of the field research literature and problems within polygraph profession that lower field accuracy. We suggest some possible solutions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0888-4080</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-0720</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acp.3779</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: Wiley</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Base rates ; Bias ; comparison question test ; Crime ; Deception ; deception detection ; Fieldwork ; Forensic science ; Generalizability Theory ; Measurement Equipment ; Meta Analysis ; Moderators ; Motivation ; Outcome Measures ; polygraph ; Polygraphs ; psychophysiological deception detection ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Applied cognitive psychology, 2021-03, Vol.35 (2), p.411-427</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6925-731X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1290512$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Honts, Charles R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thurber, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handler, Mark</creatorcontrib><title>A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test</title><title>Applied cognitive psychology</title><description>We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive outcomes was 0.69 [0.66, 0.79]. We found significant moderator effects. Notably, level of motivation had a positive linear relationship with our outcome measures. Information Gain analysis of CQT outcomes representing the median accuracy showed a significant information increase over interpersonal deception detection across almost the complete range of base rates. Our results suggest that the CQT can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected. We discussed the limitations of the field research literature and problems within polygraph profession that lower field accuracy. We suggest some possible solutions.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Base rates</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>comparison question test</subject><subject>Crime</subject><subject>Deception</subject><subject>deception detection</subject><subject>Fieldwork</subject><subject>Forensic science</subject><subject>Generalizability Theory</subject><subject>Measurement Equipment</subject><subject>Meta Analysis</subject><subject>Moderators</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Outcome Measures</subject><subject>polygraph</subject><subject>Polygraphs</subject><subject>psychophysiological deception detection</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0888-4080</issn><issn>1099-0720</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1KAzEURoMoWKvgCwgDbtxMvfmZSbIspdVKQRe6Dpk0Y1OmnTGZKrPzEXxGn8S0I-5c3cu9h8PHh9AlhhEGILfaNCPKuTxCAwxSpsAJHKMBCCFSBgJO0VkIawCQOSYDNB8npt403q7sNrh3m2xsq78_v_RWV11wIanLpF3ZA6S9C_U2edvZ0Lq4NHXVvXrdrJI2Xs7RSamrYC9-5xC9zKbPk_t08Xg3n4wXqaEs5slwiZngRhgGOM-lwNQKLSjPC8mgsFxklOVlISQVWVlk3NCiWEK-NAQkJZYO0XXvbXx9iKLW9c7HuEGRDCRhBEsSqZueMr4OwdtSNd5ttO8UBrUvSsWi1L6oiF71qPXO_GHTB0wkZHivSvv_h6ts969HjSdPB98PMvpzAQ</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>Honts, Charles R.</creator><creator>Thurber, Steven</creator><creator>Handler, Mark</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6925-731X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test</title><author>Honts, Charles R. ; Thurber, Steven ; Handler, Mark</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Base rates</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>comparison question test</topic><topic>Crime</topic><topic>Deception</topic><topic>deception detection</topic><topic>Fieldwork</topic><topic>Forensic science</topic><topic>Generalizability Theory</topic><topic>Measurement Equipment</topic><topic>Meta Analysis</topic><topic>Moderators</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Outcome Measures</topic><topic>polygraph</topic><topic>Polygraphs</topic><topic>psychophysiological deception detection</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Honts, Charles R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thurber, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handler, Mark</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Journals</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Applied cognitive psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Honts, Charles R.</au><au>Thurber, Steven</au><au>Handler, Mark</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1290512</ericid><atitle>A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test</atitle><jtitle>Applied cognitive psychology</jtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>411</spage><epage>427</epage><pages>411-427</pages><issn>0888-4080</issn><eissn>1099-0720</eissn><abstract>We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive outcomes was 0.69 [0.66, 0.79]. We found significant moderator effects. Notably, level of motivation had a positive linear relationship with our outcome measures. Information Gain analysis of CQT outcomes representing the median accuracy showed a significant information increase over interpersonal deception detection across almost the complete range of base rates. Our results suggest that the CQT can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected. We discussed the limitations of the field research literature and problems within polygraph profession that lower field accuracy. We suggest some possible solutions.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1002/acp.3779</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6925-731X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0888-4080
ispartof Applied cognitive psychology, 2021-03, Vol.35 (2), p.411-427
issn 0888-4080
1099-0720
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2509242192
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; ERIC
subjects Accuracy
Base rates
Bias
comparison question test
Crime
Deception
deception detection
Fieldwork
Forensic science
Generalizability Theory
Measurement Equipment
Meta Analysis
Moderators
Motivation
Outcome Measures
polygraph
Polygraphs
psychophysiological deception detection
Systematic review
title A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T14%3A01%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comprehensive%20meta%E2%80%90analysis%20of%20the%20comparison%20question%20polygraph%20test&rft.jtitle=Applied%20cognitive%20psychology&rft.au=Honts,%20Charles%20R.&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=411&rft.epage=427&rft.pages=411-427&rft.issn=0888-4080&rft.eissn=1099-0720&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acp.3779&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2509242192%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3499-51f1487c8c401669813e8a8376b940be785346fb89385fb57c3bbd06dc20932e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2509242192&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1290512&rfr_iscdi=true