George,

My last post was simply pointing to the fact that polygraph is often generalized when it is not.

My opinion is that concealed information testing can provide a great amount of diagnostic value to the criminal investigator.

I was generalizing about polygraph, when I talked of field research, for it is generally known by those whom have researched polygraph that the majority of research subsists of criminal specific issue testing using the CQT.  I guess I was guilty of not being more specific considering the intent of the message.

I am unaware of any other forensic science that has compiled research based on thousands of actual field criminal investigations.  The NAS even used medical diagnosis for its comparison of field research, which faired far worse then polygraph. I would be interested for you to point me to the field research conducted on other forensic sciences?  Also in your search, please provide me with the number of actual criminal cases analyzed in comparison to the thousands of polygraph cases.  

The quote you used from the NAS about the polygraphs ability to achieve better results of that of other methods was most certainly directed toward screening examinations and not specific issue criminal testing.  Moreover, the NAS also made it quite clear that their review was focused toward screening and thus did not expound on specific issue but to use its studies for the lack there of in the intended inquiry.  The beginning of the chapter you quoted (8) begins with;


Quote:

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees.