[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is extracted from the footnotes of the amicus curiae brief supporting
use of polygraphs in court. I made a stupid blunder in writing the Supreme
Court had made its decision. For those who think Dr. Lykkens, the best
known opponent of polygraphs, is a prophet they might be interested in
another view:
19.The Gallup Organization, Survey of the members of the Society for
Psychophysiological Research concerning their
opinions of polygraph test interpretations...
[-]
20.Respondents in both surveys gave responses to the following question:
Which one of these four statements best
describes your own opinion of polygraph test interpretations by those
who have received systematic training in the
technique, when they are called upon to interpret whether a subject is
or is not telling the truth? A) It is a sufficiently
reliable method to be the sole determinant, B) It is a useful
diagnostic tool when considered with other available
information, C) It is questionable usefulness, entitled to little
weight against other available information, D) It is of no
usefulness.
[These footnotes supported the statement that polygraphs are accepted by
appropriate scientists. But here is a third:]
21.There has recently been a third survey of the members of the SPR. That
survey was reported by William Iacono and
David Lykken of the University of Minnesota, The Scientific Status of
Research on Polygraph Techniques: The
Case Against Polygraph Tests, in MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW
AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT
TESTIMONY, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds. in
press). Drs. Iacono and Lykken are two of
the most outspoken critics of polygraph testing. However, at present
there are reasons to believe that the Iacono and
Lykken survey is so flawed and at this time so controversial that it
cannot be used for any substantive purpose. Problems
with the Iacono and Lykken study include: 1) The cover letter for the
Iacono and Lykken survey sets the survey in the
context of the legal admissibility of the polygraph in court, rather
than about the scientific acceptance and validity of the
technique. In effect this is asking the respondents to make a political
and legal judgment rather than a scientific one. This
is in clear contrast the Amato survey (Supra note 19) which was set in
the context of whether or not the Society for
Psychophysiological Research should have a formal scientific policy
regarding the validity of polygraph testing. The
context of the Iacono and Lykken survey is clearly inappropriate since
few, if any, of the members of the SPR have the
legal background to make an admissibility assessment. 2) The sample of
respondents to the Iacono and Lykken survey
describe themselves as very uninformed about the topic of polygraph
examinations. When asked, "About how many
empirical studies, literature reviews, commentaries, or presentations
at scientific meetings dealing with the validity of the
CQT have you read or attended?" the average respondent replied 2.6,
with a standard deviation of 1.5. This means that
83% of the respondents had read or attended fewer than 4.1 papers or
presentations on polygraph. Moreover, fewer
than 2% of the respondents had read more than 5.6 articles. Given the
large number of scientific articles and
presentations on this topic (Dr. Charles Honts has either authored or
co-authored over 100 such papers and
presentations by himself, many of which were given at the Society for
Psychophysiological Research meetings), these
data provide a strong indication that the Iacono and Lykken sample was,
as a whole, highly uninformed about the
polygraph, and thus has little to offer in terms of informed opinion
about its scientific validity. 3) There is one known
anomaly in the Iacono and Lykken data analysis that makes it impossible
to compare some of their results to the other
surveys in any meaningful way. In determining their highly informed
group, Iacono and Lykken cut the distribution at 4
and above on their 7-point scale. In forming their highly informed
group, Amato and Honts cut the distribution at 5 and
above. This difference in cutting scores makes it impossible to compare
these results across the two surveys. Iacono and
Lykken's choice of a cutting point almost certainly reduced the
confidence estimate by their highly informed subjects. 4)
In their chapter in the Faigman et al. book, supra, Iacono and Lykken
represent their survey as a random survey.
However, Iacono recently admitted under cross-examination (U. S. v.
Fergerson) that the Iacono and Lykken survey
was in fact not based on a random sample. Drs. Raskin, Honts, and
Kircher were deliberately left out of the sampling
frame and thus did not have an opportunity to review, respond, or be
represented in the survey. 5) Because of the
serious anomaly in the data analysis and the self-admitted
misrepresentation of the survey in a publication intended for
the legal profession, Drs. Amato and Honts sought to obtain the data
from the Iacono and Lykken survey for reanalysis.
Under the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association,
psychologists are required to make their data
available for reanalysis by qualified scientists. On March 10, 1997,
and again on April 29, 1997, Drs. Amato and Honts
wrote to, first Dr. Iacono, and then to Dr. Lykken requesting the data
from their survey for the purpose of reanalysis. To
date, Iacono and Lykken have refused to make their data freely
available for reanalysis. Given the controversial nature
of their survey, and the dramatically different results from the two
previous surveys, it would be unwise to use the Iacono
and Lykken data for any substantive purpose at this time.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
