Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 3 European Polygraph

Authors help

  1. 3 Ginton A.

Years help

  1. 1 2022

  2. 1 2021

  3. 1 2019

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Comparison Question Test
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

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

100%
Ginton A.
European Polygraph
|
2022
|
vol. 16
|
issue 2(56)
9-21
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.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

From a Rigid Cover to an Elastic One Via a Blanket too Short. An Adaptive Polygraph Approach

100%
Ginton A.
European Polygraph
|
2021
|
vol. 15
|
issue 2 (54)
9-30
EN
The Polygraph test or the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception is a short blanket that cannot cover everything without paying in errors; a clever polygraph examiner and a wise usage of polygraph must make a choice whether to cover the feet or the head with this short blanket and conduct the examination accordingly. But a wiser approach should look to turn the short blanket into an elastic cover that can deal differently with different people and different situations. Following two-three decades of blessed efforts to develop strict standardization in the field, the time has come to start steering the polygraph ship back to greater flexibility and creativity, this time relying on scientific thinking and knowledge. Thus, contrary to the existing trend in the field, I call to drive modern Polygraphy towards developing a scientifically based approach that follows the motto of “Different Things to Different People and Different Situations”. In other words, I call for developing an adaptive approach or Adaptive Polygraphy. The Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Theory (Ginton, 2009) is presented here as a major theoretical and practical carrier for evolving and shaping the Adaptive Polygraphy. The article analyzes the current situation and draws some lines to follow in developing an Adaptive Polygraphy approach.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Essentials of the Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Comparison Question Test (CQT)

100%
Ginton A.
European Polygraph
|
2019
|
vol. 13
|
issue 4(50)
181-201
EN
The essentials of the Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) theoretical framework for explaining the Comparison Question Test (CQT) (Ginton, 2009), is presented here in a detailed outline format. It is based on the notion that examinees who lie on the test in the relevant questions are attached psychologically to the relevant issue in a different way than the truth-tellers. An essential difference is the strength by which the suspect’s attention is directed, focused, and bound to the relevant issue. These aspects of attention in the context of polygraph examinations are coined, Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength. Th e RIG strength is assumed to distribute differently between the liars and the truth-tellers. There is reason to believe that liars hold a stronger RIG compared to the truthful subjects, and eventually, that affects the differential reactivity to the relevant vs. comparison questions. The following describes the rationale behind the RIG concept, some supporting data, and the theoretical as well as practical implications.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.