Accuracy of Auditors' and Layered Voice Analysis LVA Operators' Judgments of Truth and Deception During Police Questioning

• NCJ Number: 246050
• Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 58 Issue: 2 Dated: March 2013 Pages: 385-392
• Author(s): Frank Horvath, Ph.D.; Jamie McCloughan, B.S.; Dan Weatherman, M.S.; Stanley Slowik, M.B.A.
• Date Published: March 2013
• Length: 8 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The purpose of this study was to determine if auditors could identify truthful and deceptive persons.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if auditors could identify truthful and deceptive persons in a sample (n = 74) of audio recordings used to assess the effectiveness of layered voice analysis (LVA). The LVA employs an automated algorithm to detect deception, but it was not effective here. There were 31 truthful and 43 deceptive persons in the sample and 2 LVA operators averaged 48 percent correct decisions on truth-tellers and 25 percent on deceivers. Subsequent to the LVA analysis the recordings were audited by three interviewers, each independently rendering a decision of truthful or deceptive and indicating their confidence. Auditors' judgments averaged 68 percent correct decisions on truth-tellers and 71 percent on deceivers. Auditors' detection rates, generally, exceeded chance and there was significantly (p less than 0.05) greater confidence on correct than incorrect judgments of deceivers but not on truth-tellers. These results suggest that the success reported for LVA analysis may be due to operator's judgment. Abstract published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons.