Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Decision Accuracy for the Relevant-Irrelevant Screening Test: Influence of an Algorithm on Human Decision-Making Cover

Decision Accuracy for the Relevant-Irrelevant Screening Test: Influence of an Algorithm on Human Decision-Making

Open Access
|Feb 2016

References

  1. Ansley N., Weir R. (1976): a numerical scoring system for Relevant-Irrelevant polygraph tests. Paper presented at the 1976 Annual Seminar of the American Polygraph Association.
  2. Barland G.H. (1988): Th e polygraph test in the USA and elsewhere. In A. Gale (Ed.) Th e polygraph test: Lies, truth and science. Sage Publications, London.
  3. Blackwell N.J. (1999): Polyscore 3.3 and psychophysiological detection of deception examiner rates of accuracy when scoring examinations from actual criminal investigations. Polygraph 28 (2), 149-175.
  4. Carter G., Polger P. (1986): a 20-year summary of National Weather Service verifi cation results for temperature and precipitation. Technical Memorandum NWS FCST 31. Washington DC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  5. Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1994): Th e eff ects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7 (4), 279-292.10.1002/bdm.3960070405
  6. Harris J.C., McQuarrie A.D. (ca 2001): Th e Relevant/Irrelevant Algorithm Description and Validation Results. Th e Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
  7. Krapohl D., McManus B. (1999): An objective method for manually scoring polygraph data. Polygraph, 28 (3), 209-222.
  8. Krapohl D., Rosales T. (2014): Decision accuracy for the Relevant-Irrelevant Screening Test: a partial replication. Polygraph, 41 (1), 20-29.
  9. Krapohl D., Senter S., Stern B. (2005): An exploration of methods for the analysis of multiple-issue relevant/irrelevant screening data. Polygraph, 34 (1), 47-61.
  10. Krapohl D.J., Shaw P.K. (2015): Polygraph Screening. In Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.10.1016/B978-0-12-802924-4.00006-2
  11. Silver N. (2012): Th e Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail - but Some Don’t. Penguin Books, New York.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ep-2015-0007 | Journal eISSN: 2380-0550 | Journal ISSN: 1898-5238
Language: English
Page range: 189 - 208
Published on: Feb 12, 2016
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2016 Donald J. Krapohl, Walt Goodson, published by Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.