Honts Charles R, Schweinle William
Psychology Department, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1715, USA.
Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2009 Sep;34(3):161-72. doi: 10.1007/s10484-009-9096-z. Epub 2009 Jul 16.
We adapted and applied the Wells and Olson's (2002) Information Gain Analyses to examine the relative usefulness of a common psycho-physiological deception detection (PDD) technique, the Comparison Question Test, in forensic and screening settings as compared to unassisted lay and professional persons. We found that in forensic settings PDD provided substantial improvements in information gain over unassisted laypersons across nearly the complete range of the base rate of guilt. This was true for accuracy estimates based on laboratory and field data. At p(guilt) = 0.9, a benchmark set by critics of PDD, PDD provided 27 times the information gain of credibility decisions made by unassisted lay persons. Analyses of a screening PDD indicated that only deceptive outcomes provide useful information gain at relevant low base rates of guilt. These results strongly support the use of PDD in forensic settings and have implications for how screening PDD results are used.
我们采用并应用了韦尔斯和奥尔森（2002年）的信息增益分析方法，以检验一种常见的心理生理欺骗检测（PDD）技术——比较问题测试，在法医和筛查环境中相对于无辅助的外行和专业人员的相对有用性。我们发现，在法医环境中，几乎在整个有罪概率基础率范围内，PDD在信息增益方面比无辅助的外行人员有显著提高。基于实验室和现场数据的准确性估计也是如此。在有罪概率p = 0.9（这是PDD批评者设定的一个基准）时，PDD提供的信息增益是无辅助外行人员做出的可信度判断的27倍。对筛查PDD的分析表明，只有在相关的低有罪概率基础率下，欺骗性结果才会提供有用的信息增益。这些结果有力地支持了在法医环境中使用PDD，并对筛查PDD结果的使用方式具有启示意义。
