wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2003 at 2:56pm:

Studies by Polygraph Organizations are attacked by opponents using the "Fox watching the henhouse" analogy. Studies by the scientific community within accepted statistical practices are almost non-existent and attacked by proponents of polygraphs as not reflecting the "reality of the test room" and their utility as a tool.

And both are valid objections. Further, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to accurately evaluate CQT's due to baseline issues.


Quote:

The NAS report was a huge watershed document to start serious discussion on polygraph accuracy and validity.

I think in large part due to the dissonance between the report and the broader public belief that the polygraph is near perfect. A belief promulgated by the polygraph trade groups not only out of self interest, but also because belief that the polygraph works actually increases the likelihood that it will.

Quote:

I definitely agree that further studies are necessary to document actual percentage of predicted accuracy of the "polygraph tool."

While I certainly would like to see better research, it appears to be quite difficult, esp re the CQT polygraph. However, I think research into CM's would be far cheaper and more easily controlled. Research into detecting them, not their effectiveness, since that involves quantification of the polygraph CQT itself. Further, I think some forms of CM's are more detectable than others. Physically distinct CM's such as tongue biting or tightening ones sphincter are likely to provide identifiable assymetric signatures - though not perhaps on the limited channels recorded by a polygraph. As I had said some time earlier, I am an EE with considerable experience in signal processing and modeling techniques. There are things more sophisticated than strain gauges.....

-Marty