Critiques of the author’s 2006 article were offered by three researchers: Messrs Backster, Gordon, and Matte. The criticism of “Validated Polygraph Techniques” offered by Messrs Backster was not a criticism at all, according to the author, but rather a history of Backster’s “illustrious” career in the area of polygraphy, which the author does not dispute. The primary criticism of “Validated Polygraph Techniques” presented by Gordon focused on the fact that the original article made it appear that only polygraph techniques used by DoDPI or Raskin were validated. The author corrects this misunderstanding by stating that any technique summarized in the original article was summarized because there was more than one published research report on that technique that met the research criteria. The key criticism offered by Matte on the “Validated Polygraph Techniques” article concerned flaws in the selection of cases for the original article. Yet the current author claims that these flaws were already addressed in the original article under the section on selection criteria. Moreover, the author charges that Matte’s other critiques include sweeping statements about laboratory research that are either incomplete or inaccurate. The author argues that both field and laboratory research have inherent weaknesses and, as such, it is important to gather data from both types of methodologies. Indeed, competently conducted laboratory research can produce equivocally accurate results to field research. The author notes that the criticisms offered by Messrs Backster, Gordon, and Matte were insufficient to cause a change in the methodology or conclusions of the original article, “Validated Polygraph Techniques.” References