Accuracy rate of lie-detection in China: Estimate the validity of CQT on field cases

Mao, Yuanyi; Liang, Yun-dan; Hu, Zeqing

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.11.063

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, their misinterpretation of the method and the results of the study have the power to mislead the readers about the effect that Ginton's piece of work and its replication (Mao et al, 2015) should have on the current validity status of the CQT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From their enduring position as CQT opponents, they criticised Ginton's paradigm and the results of his study, which indicates an estimated accuracy of decisions for deceptive examinees to be 94% and 83.5% for truthful examinees, with 20.3% of undecided tests. In their critique, one cannot ignore the attempt to undermine the outcomes of this methodology and block the new channel of field research that Ginton has opened, followed by a Chinese replication (Mao et al, 2015), which unfortunately from Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar perspective managed to yield data that is incongruent with their everlasting standpoint against CQT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also clear from the paper that they used only pairs that the two examinations had been conducted parallel in time by two examiners. Thus, in that respect, it is crystal clear that in Mao et al (2015), the within-pair dependency was not an issue.…”

Section: The Within-pair Dependencymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Second, in 2015, a replication of Ginton's study was conducted on a much larger scale by Chinese researchers (Mao, Linge & Hu, 2015), which resulted in very similar outcomes. Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar have addressed it in their article but add a remark that the paper,“… although written in English, was not edited well enough to ensure reader comprehension, thus undermining the ability to understand how the study was conducted and whether it was properly carried out.” I agree with this general comment about the difficulty in fully comprehending the paper.…”

Section: Addressing Iacono and Ben‐shakhar's Critical Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From this model, it follows that, given the percentage of pairs of each of the three possible combinations of outcomes found in the sample, one can use algebraic equations to extract the values of X , Y , W , and Z , which indicate the accuracy and the error rates of CQT in the detection of deception. The method was first published by Ginton (2013) and was replicated successfully by Mao, Liang, and Hu (2015) on a larger sample.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A critical examination of Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar's critique of Ginton's innovative technique for estimating polygraph CQT accuracy in real‐life cases

Ginton¹

2020

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the inherent difficulties in validating the comparison question polygraph test (CQT) by using a wide range of the conventional two categories of studies-field and laboratory-(NRC-The polygraph and lie detection, 2003), the innovative method presented by Ginton (Psychology, Crime & Law, 2013, 19, pp. 577-594), has been considered to be a breakthrough (Raskin & Kircher, 2014, Validity of polygraph techniques and decision methods. p. 82). In their recent review of the current status of polygraph validity, Iacono and Ben-Shakhar (Law & Human Behavior, 2019, 43, pp. 86-98), dedicated a significant portion of their article to scrutinising that novel approach. They did applaud Ginton's innovation for the development of the new methods but criticised its outcomes to the point that nullified any contributions it might have had in dealing with the long-lasting controversy regarding the CQT validity. The present response to that critique examines their argumentations in dismissing Ginton's study point by point, indicating reliance on some speculations that had nothing to do with reality and a profound misunderstanding or misinterpreting of the data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Within-pair Dependencymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Addressing Iacono and Ben‐shakhar's Critical Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A critical examination of Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar's critique of Ginton's innovative technique for estimating polygraph CQT accuracy in real‐life cases

Ginton¹

2020

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test

Honts

Thurber

Handler³

2021

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive outcomes was 0.69 [0.66, 0.79]. We found significant moderator effects. Notably, level of motivation had a positive linear relationship with our outcome measures. Information Gain analysis of CQT outcomes representing the median accuracy showed a significant information increase over interpersonal deception detection across almost the complete range of base rates. Our results suggest that the CQT can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected. We discussed the limitations of the field research literature and problems within polygraph profession that lower field accuracy. We suggest some possible solutions.

show abstract

Fallacies in the estimation of the validity of the Comparison Question Polygraph Test: A reply to Ginton (2020)

Ben‐Shakhar

Iacono

2021

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our recent review of the current status of forensic lie detection (Iacono & Ben-Shakhar, 2019), we critiqued a novel method for estimating comparison question polygraph technique accuracy introduced by Ginton (2013). Ginton (2020) has argued that we misconstrued and misinterpreted his study. In this rejoinder, we dismiss Ginton's (2020) critical points and maintain that his polygraph validity estimates cannot be trusted.Recently, we published a review of the current status of forensic lie detection (Iacono & Ben-Shakhar, 2019) based on literature that emerged since the publication of the 2003 National Research Council critique of polygraph testing that was published by the US National Academy of Sciences. A key problem that we discussed at length was that field studies (those based on real life cases) of polygraph validity use a contaminated criterion to establish ground truth, one that inflates accuracy estimates of the comparison question test (CQT) that is used in forensic investigations. Among the articles included in our review was a paper by Ginton (2013) that attempted to validate the CQT using a method that did not require a ground truth criterion. Ginton's method was based on 'paired' cases where two opposing versions of the same incident were subjected to the CQT (we refer to such cases, as 'paired cases'). In other words, two suspects, where one had to be lying and the other had to be telling the truth both took CQTs. Ginton (2013) showed that by calculating the numbers of concordant verdicts (where both suspects were CORRESPONDENCE

show abstract

Accuracy rate of lie-detection in China: Estimate the validity of CQT on field cases

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

A critical examination of Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar's critique of Ginton's innovative technique for estimating polygraph CQT accuracy in real‐life cases

A critical examination of Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar's critique of Ginton's innovative technique for estimating polygraph CQT accuracy in real‐life cases

A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test

Fallacies in the estimation of the validity of the Comparison Question Polygraph Test: A reply to Ginton (2020)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About