posted 03-21-2008 09:39 AM            

First blind stim showed large reactions at 3 and 6. 3 is larger but 6 is concerning.

Second series is backwards.

This one showed large reactions to 4 and 3. 4 is larger, but 3 showed up on the first series. 6 is now the smallest reaction.

The third chart I prioritized my assumptions, by summing the rank order values. There are 5 ranks, for the values 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Question 3 was (5) for chart 1 + (4) for chart 2 = 9

Question 6 was (4) for chart 1 + (1) for chart 2 = 5

Question 4 was (1) or (1.5 tied) for chart 1 + (5) for chart 2 = 6

He was instructed him to answer every question truthfully.

First choice was correct.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-21-2008 01:20 PM         

Good call! There is an additional POT/CIT reaction criterion for the GSR which I don't believe is taught in any school. I "discovered" it in a 1985 study I did for the Government. It is an objective measure of the GSR magnitude fall-off from one question to the next.

Measure the GSR magnitude on question R(n), where n refers to the first scorable question on the chart. From that, subtract the GSR magnitude on the next question R(n+1). Similarly, subtract each subsequent GSR magnitude from the preceding one.

The question pair which has greatest fall-off from the preceding question to the subsequent one indicates that the preceding question is the critical item. You don't need to get out a ruler; eyeballing is usually sufficient to determine the pair which has the greatest fall-off.

That's a largely incoherent way of saying that the question following the critical item usually has a significantly smaller reaction than the critical item itself, and that the greater the reduction in amplitude, the greater the likelihood that the preceding question was the critical item.

It doesn't work in every case, of course, and it's not the only thing you need to look at, but it's one criterion and it sure worked in this case!

Peace,

posted 03-21-2008 03:27 PM         

Note that this "fall-off criterion" is somewhat analogous to scoring a CQT: it compares each relevant against the following question which thus serves as a quasi CQ. Finding the greatest disparity between the successive pairings on that chart helps identify the RQ to which he is deceptive.

Of course you look at all the other GSR criteria: the biggest single reaction, the highest peak on the chart, baseline changes, and changes in lability.

I know I'm inarticulate. It's hard to describe in words, but easy to show in an illustration. I'm simply not good at drawing and pasting to a bulletin board.

posted 03-22-2008 10:53 PM            

I thought you articulated the concept.