|
|
The Internet is replete with web sites offering voice
stress examinations. Some offer such testing "over the phone." They maintain that voice stress, CVSA, testing is
more accurate that polygraph testing. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. To be more specific, voice stress testing (CVSA) is not polygraph
testing. The accuracy of the CVSA has been
studied ad nauseam since it's inception in the mid 1980's. Each study has shown that the CVSA is about as accurate as the
flip of a coin. It has been rejected as "junk science" by every agency that has looked into using it. Some of the
studies are printed below for your review. The Computer
Voice Stress Analyzer, designed by a former Indianapolis Police Department officer, claims to assess truthfulness by measuring
changes in one's voice. The designer, Charles Humble, is now the chairman and CEO of the National Institute for Truth Verification,
which makes the machines. But several scientific experiments have shown the machine, which went on the market in 1988,
is no more than 50 percent reliable -- in other words, a coin toss. But, you don't have to take my word for it. The manufacturer conceded in a product liability lawsuit in California that the machine can't measure whether
someone is lying. In San Diego, murder charges were dropped against two teenagers after it was
determined their confessions were coerced after they flunked voice stress tests. One of the boys sued the National Institute
for Truth Verification, and Charles Humble, claiming the analyzer was used to get the false confession. In a court filing,
the Charles Humble: "NITV acknowledges that the CVSA is not capable of lie detection" Humble, a trained polygraph
examiner, said his company doesn't claim the machine detects lies. Accuracy: Polygraph vs. Voice Stress (CVSA)
SOURCE | ACCURACY OF
POLYGRAPH | SOURCE | ACCURACY OF VOICE STRESS | Barland, Gordon H. University
of Utah | 89.7% | Brenner, Malcolm, Branscomb, Harvie,
& Shwartz, Gary E. Oregon, MIT and Yale | "Inappropriate for lie detection" | Bersh, Philip J. Temple University, Study for US Army | 92.4% | Commonwealth of Virginia, Report of the Dept.of Commerce | "Not
an effective method for the determination of deception" | Blum, Richard H. & Osterioh,
William Stanford University | 96.2% | Horvath, Frank Michigan State University | "at chance level" | Edel, Eugene
C. & Jacoby, Jacob Study for
U.S. Government | 95.0% | Kubis, Joseph F., Fordham University, Study for U.S. Army | "identical with chance" | Horvath, Frank S. & Reid, John E. | 87.8% | Link, Frederick C. U.S. Army | "not used in military law enforcement" | Lahri, S.K. & Ganguly, A.K. Government of India | 90.0% | Lynch,
Brian E. & Henry, Donald R., Royal Ottawa Hospital, Canada | "approximately chance" |
Podlesny, John A. & Raskin, David C. University of Utah | 94.0% | Nacheson, Israel, Bar I Ian University, Study for Israel Police | "unreliable and invalid" | Raskin, David C. & Hare, Robert H. University of British Columbia | 96.0% | National Security Agency, U.S. Dept. of Defence See "Use of polygraphs …" | "insufficiently reliable" |
Slowik, Stanley & Buckley, Joseph P. | 87.2% | Suzuki, A., Watanabe, S., Takono, Y. , Kosugi, T. & Kosugi,
T. National Inst. Of Police Science, Tokyo, Japan | "not above chance, not reliable or useful" | Wicklander, D. &
Hunter, F. | 92.5%
| U.S. Air Force See "Use
of polygraphs …" | "not useful" | Widacki, Jan & Horvath, Frank Jagolian University, Poland | 95.0% | Vandercar, D.H., Greaner, J., Hibler, N.S., Spielberger, C.D., &
Boch, S., University of South Florida | "analysis
is subjective and poorly understood
… primitive" |
Lie Detection Testing Over the Phone? This latest wave in the CVSA farse is to offer testing over the
phone. Lie detection testing over the phone? An utterly absurd idea. Yet each day, people are scammed by their promises. Don't
allow yourself to be cheated by these scamsters.
|