wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 4:07pm:

Gordon, simply answer the question/provide any support (even one cite)  from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature to suggest that RI testing is valid, the reason for such omission becomes glaringly apparent.  The notion of scientific support so scared PDD-Fed that he has run from the subject and now gone off on a tangent regarding Argosy University (who really cares??)

Scared?

OK, let me settle this.

First of all, I know of no peer reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."

Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour.  This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.  Yet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site...

Am I wrong in this assumption?

PDD-Fed