This just doesn't make sense.

[T.M. Cullen]

From the APA website:

The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations.

Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%.

Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited.

With all of  these studies and high accuracy rates claimed by the APA, why DIDN'T the NAS report consider them when they reviewed available polygraph research?   Or did they?  I don't believe the NAS came to the conclusion that research was available indicating a 80-98% accuracy rate.

At any rate, this, evidently, is where polygraph operators get the 98% accuracy malarkey from.  Well, at least they base it on something.  I can't believe, though,  such a distinguished body of scientists as the NRC would have ignored these findings on purpose.

TC