Decision Accuracy for the Relevant-Irrelevant Screening Test: Influence of an Algorithm on Human Decision-Making

Open access

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Krapohl D. McManus B. (1999): An objective method for manually scoring polygraph data. Polygraph 28 (3) 209-222.

  • Krapohl D. Rosales T. (2014): Decision accuracy for the Relevant-Irrelevant Screening Test: a partial replication. Polygraph 41 (1) 20-29.

  • 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.

  • Krapohl D.J. Shaw P.K. (2015): Polygraph Screening. In Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice. Academic Press San Diego CA.

  • Silver N. (2012): Th e Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail - but Some Don’t. Penguin Books New York.

Journal information
Target audience: Researchers and experts in the field of criminal law
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 334 103 3
PDF Downloads 122 43 3