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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Applied cognitive psychology 2021-03, Vol.35 (2), p.411-427 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & 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 & 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 & 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 |