We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
A re‐analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine <italic>et al</italic>.
- Authors
Vrij, Aldert; Blank, Hartmut; Fisher, Ronald P.
- Abstract
Levine <italic>et al</italic>. (2018) criticized our meta‐analysis, but their conclusion was the same as ours: The cognitive approach to lie detection results in a modest improvement. We address and dismiss Levine <italic>et al</italic>.'s (2018) three criticisms. Regarding the ‘confound’, in our meta‐analysis we averaged the results of two cells on statistical grounds, which does not constitute a confound in statistical terms. Regarding ‘aberrant controls’, that depends entirely on the benchmarks selected and type of statistical test and meta‐analysis used. Regarding ‘unreliable data’, the claim that there is a positive relationship between ‘unreliable’ data and total accuracy in the cognitive lie detection conditions is not even supported by their own data (<italic>p </italic>=<italic> </italic>.16). We conclude with a request to Levine <italic>et al</italic>. to focus on our shared aim: to develop interview protocols that enable lie detection.
- Subjects
LIE detectors &; detection; CRIMINAL investigation; CRIMINAL psychology; COGNITION; META-analysis
- Publication
Legal & Criminological Psychology, 2018, Vol 23, Issue 1, p20
- ISSN
1355-3259
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1111/lcrp.12121