NCJ Number
208413
Journal
Polygraph Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: 2004 Pages: 214-222
Date Published
2004
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Using laboratory data, this study examined alternative psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) data evaluation methods, focusing on data accuracy from the University of Utah and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
Abstract
With forensic science, the psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) serves a critical complementary function. The PDD represents a powerful and effective method for determining suspect case involvement. Attempts are continually made to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the PDD through controlled laboratory settings. This study used laboratory data to examine alternative PDD data evaluation methods. The study utilized the University of Utah (UOUT) and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) where accuracy discrepancies by scorers were reported when evaluating PDD examinations in laboratory environments. Laboratory data collected from 50 deceptive and 50 non-deceptive participants were evaluated by 4 different scorers. The results suggest that, at least for laboratory data, the differences between the UOUT and DODPI veracity decision accuracies were likely not due to the institute-specific guidelines used to assign values to physiological responses. The accuracy for specific issue laboratory polygraph studies based at UOUT was approximately 12 percent higher than for similar studies conducted at the DODPI. The results suggest that a change in DODPI data evaluation conventions may improve laboratory-based veracity decision accuracy and remove the historical decision accuracy difference between the DODPI and UOUT. References