Comparison of Utah and DoDPI Scoring Accuracy: Equating Veracity Decision Rule, Chart Rule, and Number of Data Channels Used

Abstract

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collectior of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188}, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)July 2000 5d. PROJECT NUMBER DoDPI97-P-00055e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)DoD Polygraph Insituste 7540 Pickens Avenue Fort Jackson, SC 29207 The performance of scorers using the University of Utah and Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) physiological detection of deception chart evaluation rules were compared to discover if differences in laboratory-based decision accuracy rates are due to chart evaluation rules. Four scorers (two based at the DoDPI, two based at the University of Utah) evaluated the charts from 100 polygraph examinations (50 deceptive, 50 nondeceptive). We attempted to isolate scorer ability by equating the rules for making veracity decisions, number of charts used, and number of data channels considered. There was no evidence, when these variables were held constant, that scorers differed on the proportion of correct, incorrect, or no opinion decisions rendered. Results suggest no differences in chart scoring ability among scorers based at the two institutions. Observed differences in accuracies for Utah and DoDPI scoring systems may be due to differences in veracity decision rules, the number of charts evaluated, the inclusion of the photo-plethysmograph data channel, or a combination of these factors. The greatest accuracy was obtained by all scorers using the University of Utah chart evaluation rules. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER DoDPIOO-R-0001 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)DoD SUBJECT TERMSpolygraph, chart evaluation, veracity, decision accuracy, psychophysiological detection of deception Director's Foreword DoDPI has an abiding interest in developing and testing scoring and decision rules in the field of psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD), with the objective of disseminating best practices to field examiners in the government. As part of this continuing venture, the present study evaluated the DoDPI rules and the University of Utah rules on PDD recording collected in a laboratory study. Within the context of analog study data, the results suggest that th...

Human and Computer Decision-making in the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception

“…Rules for numerical scoring developed independently at the University of Utah further reduced the number of criteria to 10 (Bell et al, 1999). Consistent with the idea that fewer is better, Senter, Dollins, and Krapohl (1999) found that evaluations based on Utah criteria were more reliable and more valid than those based on DoDPI criteria.…”

“…Truthful suspects' veracity had been established by the subsequent confession of another individual that cleared the suspect of any wrongdoing. Deceptive suspects' veracity had been established by their own admission that they had lied to the relevant questions sometime after they had taken the polygraph test or by irrefutable physical evidence (Dollins et al, 1999).…”

“…The standardization sample consisted of 40 truthful and 40 deceptive cases selected at random from the 41 truthful and 56 deceptive cases in the Dollins et al (1999) study. Three charts of physiological data were available for each case.…”

“…Questions always may be raised about the extent to which the samples of truthful and deceptive cases in our studies adequately represent the target populations of truthful and deceptive suspects (e.g., Iacono & Lykken, 1997;Krapohl, Shull, & Ryan, 2002;. The procedures for selecting cases from archives of field polygraph examinations are described above and in Dollins et al (1999), and characteristics of the standardization and validation samples are presented in the Table 1. In our judgment, the procedures used by Dollins et al were adequate to represent the population of polygraph examinations conducted by federally trained examiners, and our results are representative of the accuracies achieved in criminal investigations by federally-trained field polygraph examiners using Axciton polygraphs.…”