The effects of awareness of crime-relevant information on the detection of deception with the Guilty Knowledge Test were examined. Student subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: a guilty group, members of which committed a mock crime; an innocent group aware of details about the crime; or an innocent group unaware of such information. After following instructions, subjects were tested on the polygraph with a 10-item Guilty Knowledge Test and were offered $20.00 for an innocent test outcome. Skin resistance response scores of guilty subjects lying about crime-relevant information were higher than the scores of innocent informed subjects, whose scores in turn were higher than those of innocent unaware subjects. This replicated findings of an earlier study in which similar procedures were used and supported the view that subjects aware of crime-relevant information can appear less deceptive than subjects lying about crime-relevant information.

Level of Service (LS) is one of the most widely used general risk and need assessment tools in criminal justice agencies across North America. However, there is significant interstudy variability in the magnitude of the validity estimates. This study was conducted to examine possible sources of this variability. The predictive validity of LS risk and need increased with length of follow-up period and with investigator allegiance to LS. The combination of these two variables reveals consistent increases in mean predictive validity estimates from modest (in the .20s) through large (in the mid .30s) to very large (in the .40s) in samples of both male and female offenders. We hypothesized that the "allegiance effect" reflects the integrity of LS implementation and support provided by the agency for risk assessment. This is akin to the difference between "demonstration projects" and "practical" rehabilitation programming in the offender treatment research. Moreover, controls for Canadian versus non-Canadian evaluations reduced the effect of allegiance and length of follow-up to nonsignificant levels. Possible explanations for these findings include the degree of integrity in conducting risk and need assessments, the accuracy of recidivism as the criterion measure, and generalizability across international boundaries.