The comparison question test: Does it work and if so how?

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 291-303

  Offe, Heinz ^a   Offe, Susanne ^b  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b Gerichtspsychologisches Institut Bielefeld   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparison question test; Detection of deception; Polygraph

Indexed keywords

ACUTE STRESS; ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL STRESS; CRIME; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; GUILT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVIEW; MALE; MULTICHANNEL RECORDER; NORMAL HUMAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CRIME; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEW, PSYCHOLOGICAL; LIE DETECTION; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 34248531504     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9059-3     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Abrams, S. (1999). A response to Honts on the issue of the discussion of questions between charts. Polygraph, 28, 223-228.
2. Bell, B. G., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The Utah numerical scoring system. Polygraph, 28, 1-9.
3. Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the control question test (CQT). In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 103-126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4. Bradley, M. T. (1988). Choice and the detection of deception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 43-48.
5. Bradley, M. T., & Black, M. E. (1998). A control question test oriented towards students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 691-700.
6. Elaad, E. (2003). Is the inference rule of the "controle question polygraph technique" pausible? Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 37-47.
7. Fiedler, K., Schmidt, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313-324.
8. Honts, C. R. (1999). The discussion of questions between list repetition (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy. Polygraph, 28, 117-122.
9. Honts, C. R. (2003). Participants perceptions support rationale of comparison question tests for psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 40, S48.
10. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Amato, S. L., Gordon, A., & Devitt, M. (2000). The hybrid directed lie test, the overemphasized comparison question, chimeras and other inventions: A rejoinder to Abrams (1999). Polygraph, 29, 156-168.
11. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Amato, S. L., & Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 446-483). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
12. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-259.
13. Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108-115.
14. Horvath, F. (1988). The utility of control questions and the effects of two control question types in field polygraph techniques. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 198-209.
15. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case against polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 483-538). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
16. Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 291-302.
17. Matte, J. A. (1996). Forensic Psychophysiology using the polygraph. Williamsville, NY, J. A. M. Publications.
18. Matte, J. A. (2000). A critical analysis of Honts' study: The discussion (stimulation) of comparison questions. Polygraph, 29, 146-150.
19. Mitchell, D. C. (2002). The pre-test interview: A preliminary framework. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 183-216). San Diego, Ca: Academic Press.
20. Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 1-48). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21. Rill, H. G. (2001). Forensische Psychophysiologie. Frankfurt: Die Deutsche Bibliothek. (electronic onlinedissertation, retrieved 10. 4. 05 from: http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=962727717.
22. Steller, M. (1987). Psychophysiologische Aussagebeurteilung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
23. Undeutsch, U., & Klein, G. (1999). Wissenschaftliches Gutachten zum Beweiswert psychophysiologischer Untersuchungen. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 9, Sonderheft, 45-126.