Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

HARDBACK
price:\$49.95

## The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences (BBCSS)Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)

### Citation Manager

. "7 Uses of Polygraph Tests." The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

 Page 180

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.

The Polygraph and Lie Detection

Scientific analysis can help policy makers in such choices by making the tradeoffs clearer. Three factors affect the frequency of false negatives and false positives with any diagnostic test procedure: its accuracy (criterion validity), the threshold used for declaring a test result positive, and the base rate of the condition being diagnosed (here, deception about serious security matters). If a diagnostic procedure can be made more accurate, the result is to reduce both false negatives and false positives. With a procedure of any given level of accuracy, however, the only way to reduce the frequency of one kind of error is by adjusting the decision threshold—but doing this always increases the frequency of the other kind of error. Thus, it is possible to increase the proportion of guilty individuals caught by a polygraph test (i.e., to reduce the frequency of false negatives), but only by increasing the proportion of innocent individuals whom the test cannot distinguish from guilty ones (i.e., frequency of false positives). Decisions about how, when, and whether to use the polygraph for screening should consider what is known about these tradeoffs so that the tradeoffs actually made reflect deliberate policy choices.

Tradeoffs between false positives and false negatives can be calculated mathematically, using Bayes’ theorem (Weinstein and Fineberg, 1980; Lindley, 1998). One useful way to characterize the tradeoff in security screening is with a single number that we call the false positive index: the number of false positive cases to be expected for each deceptive individual correctly identified by a test. The index depends on the accuracy of the test; the threshold set for declaring a test positive; and the proportion, or base rate, of individuals in the population with the condition being tested (deception, in this case). The specific mathematical relationship of the index to these factors, and hence the exact value for any combination of accuracy (A), threshold, and base rate, depends on the shape of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at a given level of accuracy, although the character of the relationship is similar across all plausible shapes (Swets, 1986a, 1996:Chapter 3). Hence, for illustrative purposes we assume that the ROC shapes are determined by the simplest common model, the equivariance binormal model.1 Because this model, while not implausible, was chosen for simplicity and convenience, the numerical results below should not be taken literally. However, their orders of magnitude are unlikely to change for any alternative class of ROC curves that would be credible for real-world polygraph test performance, and the basic trends conveyed are inherent to the mathematics of diagnosis and screening.

Although accuracy, detection threshold, and base rate all affect the

 Page 180
 Front Matter (R1-R18) Executive Summary (1-10) 1 Lie Detection and the Polygraph (11-28) 2 Validity and Its Measurement (29-64) 3 The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing (65-105) 4 Evidence from Polygraph Research: Qualitative Assessment (106-120) 5 Evidence from Polygraph Research: Quantitative Assessment (121-153) 6 Alternative Techniques and Technologies (154-177) 7 Uses of Polygraph Tests (178-211) 8 Conclusions and Recommendations (212-231) References (232-252) Appendix A: Polygraph Questioning and Techniques (253-258) Appendix B: Use of Polygraph Screening in the U.S. Department of Energy and Other Federal Agencies (259-279) Appendix C: The Wen Ho Lee Case and the Polygraph (280-285) Appendix D: Physiological Processes Measured by the Polygraph (286-290) Appendix E: Historical Notes on the Modern Polygraph (291-297) Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data (298-322) Appendix G: Process for Systematic Review of Polygraph Validation Studies (323-339) Appendix H: Quantitative Assessment of Polygraph Test Accuracy (340-353) Appendix I: False Positive Index Values for Polygraph Testing (354-357) Appendix J: Decision Analysis of Polygraph Security Screening (358-363) Appendix K: Combining Information Sources in Medical Diagnosis and Security Screening (364-374) Appendix L: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff (375-380) Index (381-398)