The Comparison Question Test versus the Concealed Information Test? That was the question in Japan: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015)

Abstract

Palmatier and Rovner (2015) discussed the possible interplay of two major methods of polygraph examination, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). In this comment, we argue that such an attempt overlooks fundamental differences between the two methods. Specifically, both methods differ in their criterion variables; detecting deception versus detecting memory traces. This difference can lead to a different evaluation concerning their outcomes within a forensic context. However, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) attempt may blur the distinction between the two methods. Furthermore, at least for the present, it is difficult to give a unified explanation of physiological responses in the CQT and CIT based on the preliminary process theory of the orienting response. In sum, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) paper may add further confusion to the research and practice of polygraph testing. Additionally, their paper has no relevance to the current practice of Japanese polygraph examination, because Japanese law enforcement uses only the CIT for memory detection in real-life criminal investigations.

Keywords: Comparison Question Test; Concealed Information Test; Physiological responses; Polygraph.