J.B.,


Quote:

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

I agree with you that more general terms like "polygraph," or "the polygraph" are often used when a more specific application is actually intended.


Quote:

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

I suspect you are right, though I also suspect that the polygraph is not the best instrument for conducting such tests. It should be noted that concealed information tests are not suitable for screening purposes.


Quote:

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.

J.B., in your earlier post, you made the positive assertion that, "The polygraph has been meticulously examined in actual criminal cases and done so more than any other forensic science." My point is that most of the field research on polygraphy (the thousands of cases of which you speak) has not been "meticulous" enough for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that the limited research which has been so published does not establish that CQT polygraphy reliably works at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.

It is my understanding that with most genuine forensic tests (e.g., urinalysis for metabolites of various drugs), laboratory conditions more closely approximate field conditions than is the case with CQT polygraphy (such that laboratory studies may be relied upon), that test procedures are well-defined and standardized (unlike CQT polygraphy), that appropriate control measures exist (such control is completely absent with regard to CQT polygraphy), and that, with regard to diagnostic tests, sensitivity and specificity are knowable (which is not the case with any application of CQT polygraphy).


Quote:

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.

Not so! The NAS conclusion that "...There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods" appears in its conclusions regarding polygraphy in general.