Thoughts on the Inconclusive Zone in Comparison Question Test (CQT)

• Authors: Avital Ginton

Abstracts

EN

The Inconclusive Zone, in one form or another, is an integral part of almost any data analysis method of CQT. It represents the existence of built-in uncertainties in the test and indicates how the test, in general, and the examiners, in particular, bear this limitation in practice. Unfortunately, it is so common that most examiners tend not to spend too much time and attention wondering about its meaning. The following are some reflections on the concept of an Inconclusive Zone, and its actual use, including some resulting recommendations. That includes internal aspects of the test, such as the relation between the extent of using multiple comparison points between relevant and comparison questions and the optimal Inconclusive Zone size. External aspects affecting the Inconclusive Zone’s size and shape are also stressed when looking at the CQT through a prism of aiding decision-making rather than a mere means to sort truth from lies.

Keywords

EN

Comparison Question Test; CQT; Inconclusive Zone; Polygraph; True score theory; Pay-off matrix in polygraph decisions

• Publisher: Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
• Journal: European Polygraph
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 2(56)
• Pages: 9-21

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Avital Ginton

• AV-GN, polygraph, applications & research, Tel-Aviv, Israel

References

• Backster C. (1962), Methods of strengthening our polygraph technique. Police, 6, 61–68.
• Backster C. (1963), Polygraph professionalization through technique standardization. Law and Order, 11, 63–64.
• Elaad E. (1985), Decision Rules in Polygraph Examination. In: Anti-terrorism, Forensic Science, Psychology in Police Investigations (pp. 167–179). A Book of proceeding. First Published, 1985; Imprint Routledge. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429036590.
• Elaad E. (1999), The Control Question Technique: A search for improved decision rules. Polygraph, 28, 65–73.
• Ginton A. (2009), Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength – a new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of psychological set and the role of attention in CQT polygraph examinations. Polygraph, 38 (3), 204–201.
• Ginton A. (2012), A non-standard method for estimating the accuracy of lie detection techniques demonstrated on a self-validating set of field polygraph examinations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.765137
• Ginton A. (2013), The Importance of the Consistency Factor in CQT and OtherPolygraph Tests. Polygraph. 2013, 42, 146–162.
• Honts C.R. (2014), Countermeasures and credibility assessment. In: D.C. Raskin,
• C.R. Honts & J.C. Kircher (eds), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 131–158). Academic Press. Krapohl D.J. (2005), Polygraph decision rules for evidentiary and paired-testing (Marin Protocol) applications. Polygraph, 34, 184–192.
• Krapohl D.J. & McManus B. (1999), An objective method for manually scoring polygraph data. Polygraph, 29, 209–222.
• Krapohl D.J. & Shaw P.K. (2015), Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, Academic Press.
• Lord F.M., Novick M.R. & Birnbaum A. (1968), Statistical theories of mental Test scores. Addison-Wesely, Oxford, England.
• Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology using the polygraph. JAM Publications, Williamsville N.Y.
• Palmatier J.J. & Rovner L. (2015), Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process and construct validity. International, Journal of Psychophysiology, 95 (1), 3–13.
• Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (2002), The comparison question test. In: M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 1–48). Academic Press, New York.
• Reid J.E.& Inbau F.B. (1977), Truth and deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detector”) Technique. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
• Senter S.M., Weatherman D., Krapohl D.J. & Horvath F.S. (2010), Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing. Polygraph, 39(2), 109–117.
• Trochim W.M. (2000), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
• Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. New York

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ep-2022-0008

Biblioteka Nauki

2179254