skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 218417 Find in a Library
Title: Rejoinder to Criticisms by Messrs Backster, Gordon and Matte: A Closer Look at the Evidence
Journal: Polygraph  Volume:36  Issue:1  Dated:2007  Pages:35-44
Author(s): Donald J. Krapohl
Date Published: 2007
Page Count: 10
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article answers peer criticisms on the author’s previous (2006) article titled, “Validated Polygraph Techniques.”
Abstract: 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
Main Term(s): Research and development
Index Term(s): Polygraph techniques; Polygraphs
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.