[Ansley N., Weir R. (1976): a numerical scoring system for Relevant-Irrelevant polygraph tests. Paper presented at the 1976 Annual Seminar of the American Polygraph Association.]Search in Google Scholar
[Barland G.H. (1988): Th e polygraph test in the USA and elsewhere. In A. Gale (Ed.) Th e polygraph test: Lies, truth and science. Sage Publications, London.]Search in Google Scholar
[Blackwell N.J. (1999): Polyscore 3.3 and psychophysiological detection of deception examiner rates of accuracy when scoring examinations from actual criminal investigations. Polygraph 28 (2), 149-175.]Search in Google Scholar
[Carter G., Polger P. (1986): a 20-year summary of National Weather Service verifi cation results for temperature and precipitation. Technical Memorandum NWS FCST 31. Washington DC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.]Search in Google Scholar
[Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1994): Th e eff ects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7 (4), 279-292.10.1002/bdm.3960070405]Search in Google Scholar
[Harris J.C., McQuarrie A.D. (ca 2001): Th e Relevant/Irrelevant Algorithm Description and Validation Results. Th e Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krapohl D., McManus B. (1999): An objective method for manually scoring polygraph data. Polygraph, 28 (3), 209-222.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krapohl D., Rosales T. (2014): Decision accuracy for the Relevant-Irrelevant Screening Test: a partial replication. Polygraph, 41 (1), 20-29.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krapohl D., Senter S., Stern B. (2005): An exploration of methods for the analysis of multiple-issue relevant/irrelevant screening data. Polygraph, 34 (1), 47-61.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krapohl D.J., Shaw P.K. (2015): Polygraph Screening. In Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.10.1016/B978-0-12-802924-4.00006-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Silver N. (2012): Th e Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail - but Some Don’t. Penguin Books, New York.]Search in Google Scholar
