FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Anyone familiar with this software? Researchers with the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (including this author) used these VSA programs while questioning more than 300 arrestees about their recent drug use. The results of the VSA output—which ostensibly indicated whether the arrestees were lying or telling the truth—were then compared to their urine drug test results. The findings of our study revealed:• Deceptive respondents. Fifteen percent who said they had not used drugs—but who, according to their urine tests, had—were correctly identified by the VSA programs as being deceptive. • Nondeceptive respondents. Eight and a half percent who were telling the truth—that is, their urine tests were consistent with their statements that they had or had not used drugs—were incorrectly classified by the VSA programs as being deceptive. Using these percentages to determine the overall accuracy rates of the two VSA programs, we found that their ability to accurately detect deception about recent drug use was about 50 percent. Reference: NIJ Journal No. 259, March 2008 Thanks K. I read the entire article and tried to determine which type and manufacturer of the particular software was being used by the PI in the article. I've not yet been able to determine whose software (and therefore which algorithm) is being used. Some notes: 1. The software reviewed in the article was written in 1997. 2. The article was published in 2008. 3. They did not publish their study design in detail. Not denying the results, but I tend to be a "detailed how was it done" kinda of guy. I specifically wanted a better understanding of this paragraph from the article: The specificity rates—the percentage of nondeceptive respondents who, based on their urine tests, were correctly classified as nondeceptive—were much higher, with an average of 91.5-percent accuracy for the five drugs. Again, LVA performed better, correctly identifying 95 percent of the nondeceptive respondents; CVSA® correctly identified 90 percent of the nondeceptive respondents. This appears to say that both types of VSA programs were fairly accurate in identifying subjects who told the truth. If this is true, then it's more of a "truth detector" than a "lie detector". As I get time, I'll try to see if I can identify the specific software used by PI and if there is more research on it's effectiveness. Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|