Ray wrote on Feb 18^th, 2004 at 10:34pm:

If an applicant fails to tell me what they know then the test essentially becomes a known-lie test.  IMO, this test is still valid however I think the odds of inconclusive results are somewhat increased.

Ray,
I'm not sure what you mean here. I assume you mean a DLCQT?? Matte spends considerable effort in his books bashing the DLCQT and is of the belief that it yields too many false negatives - not false positives.

I am rather intrigued by Matte's use of additional questions, to hopefully address both fear the poly works and fear that it doesn't, as a means of compensating for the obvious anxiety a specific incident, forensic poly produces on the relevant questions. Possibly valuable to reduce false positives for uninformed subjects.  Again, I see this as something that is dubious in the case of an informed examinee.  I have found Matte silent on how an "informed" status impacts his exam assumptions though he asserts, by way of a cross examination script, that the testifying polygrapher would be just as accurately examined themselves. The obvious followup questions were not even broached in the script - nor in any other I read. So IMO the script's position (and Matte's presumably) is bluster.

-Marty