Quote:I have a question. If polygraphists believe that the polygraph is accurate, why is it they believe that CVSA is "less than chance" regarding accuracy? Is CVSA a financial threat to a polygraphist’s income?
BINGO. . . Burger,
It is apparent that the polygraph industry feels threatened by CVSA--and for good reason. While neither is a reliable means of determining whether or not someone is telling the truth, CVSA has several advantages over the polygraph.
1) Cost: Opting for CVSA allows an agency substantial savings over polygraph. The units cost roughly $1,000 as compared to $10,000 or more for a modern computerized polygraph. Furthermore, CVSA examiner training is cheaper, primarily because of the short time period required. CVSA examiner training is only one week long (as opposed to 8-10 weeks for polygraph school).
2) Susceptibility to Countermeasures: There are no known reliable ways in which an examinee can manipulate the results of CVSA to create a favorable outcome. Polygraphy, on the other hand, is easily defeated by simple countermeasures.
3) Value as an interrogation prop: Polygraphy is plagued by a well-deserved reputation for unreliability. A substantial amount of even the most unsophisticated subjects know this and can counter an examiner's accusations by reminding him of the "test's" unreliability. CVSA, on the other hand, is a relative unknown. Examinees are less familiar with it, and less likely to know that it has never been proven to be more accurate than chance in a peer-reviewed study.
The old cliché "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones" seems particularly apt here. The polygraph industry has no legitimate authority to be attacking another "technology" for lack of accuracy when its own craft
has yet to produce better than chance accuracy in a peer-reviewed study under field conditions. The disparaging remarks about CVSA being made by polygraphers are being made for no purpose other than to protect their own fraudulent art.
Pages: [1] 
cvsa (Read 31804 times)
