J.B.,

Before I address your questions, I note that you didn't really answer mine:

1) Do you agree that that the available peer-reviewed research has not proven that CQT polygraphy works at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions? If not, why? What peer-reviewed field research proves that CQT polygraphy works better than chance? And just how valid does that research prove it to be?

I realize you averaged the Bersh and Barland & Raskin studies to come up with an average accuracy of 67.87? Do you seriously maintain that these two studies prove that CQT polygraphy works better than chance and that it is 67.87% accurate? By the way, you did not specify to which study by Barland & Raskin you were referring. I assume you are referring to the following non-peer-reviewed study discussed at p. 52-54 of the OTA report:

Barland, G.H., and Raskin, D.C., "Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Examinations of Criminal Suspects," report No. 76-1, contract No. 75-N1-99-0001 (Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, 1976).

2) Do you agree that because CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity? If not, why?

Now, you mentioned that you read Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and found no reference to what standardization and control the CQT lacks. That reference is found at pp. 2-3 of the 1st digital edition, where we cite Furedy:


Quote:

Professor John J. Furedy of the University of Toronto (Furedy, 1996) explains regarding the “Control” Question “Test” that …basic terms like “control” and “test” are used in ways that are not consistent with normal usage. For experimental psychophysiologists, it is the Alice-in-Wonderland usage of the term “control” that is most salient. There are virtually an infinite number of dimensions along which the R [relevant] and the so-called “C” [“control”] items of the CQT could differ. These differences include such dimensions as time (immediate versus distant past), potential penalties (imprisonment and a criminal record versus a bad conscience), and amount of time and attention paid to “developing” the questions (limited versus extensive). Accordingly, no logical inference is possible based on the R versus “C” comparison. For those concerned with the more applied issue of evaluating the accuracy of the CQT procedure, it is the procedure’s in-principle lack of standardization that is more critical. The fact that the procedure is not a test, but an unstandardizable interrogatory interview, means that its accuracy is not empirically, but only rhetorically, or anecdotally, evaluatable. That is, one can state accuracy figures only for a given examiner interacting with a given examinee, because the CQT is a dynamic interview situation rather than a standardizable and specifiable test. Even the weak assertion that a certain examiner is highly accurate cannot be supported, as different examinees alter the dynamic examiner-examinee relationship that grossly influences each unique and unspecifiable CQT episode.

Other uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables that may reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a polygraph interrogation include the subject's level of knowledge about CQT polygraphy (that is, whether he/she understands that it's a fraud) and whether the subject has employed countermeasures.

You asked, "Can you reference, for comparison purposes, any other scientific method that has been accepted and its basis for acceptance?" I think Drew Richardson gave a good example in his remarks to the National Academy of Sciences on 17 October 2001, when he compared polygraphy to a test for a urinary metabolite of cocaine:

http://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#control

The test Dr. Richardson describes is genuinely standardized and controlled, unlike polygraphy.

You also asked, "Can you reference, for comparison purposes, any other scientific method that was rejected based on comparable factors you might use to make this statement?" For comparison purposes, look to polygraphy's sister pseudosciences of phrenology and graphology.