Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015)
Standard
Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015). / Ben-Shakhar, Gershon; Gamer, Matthias; Iacono, William; Meijer, Ewout; Verschuere, Bruno.
in: INT J PSYCHOPHYSIOL, Jahrgang 95, Nr. 1, 01.2015, S. 16-19.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015)
AU - Ben-Shakhar, Gershon
AU - Gamer, Matthias
AU - Iacono, William
AU - Meijer, Ewout
AU - Verschuere, Bruno
N1 - Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/1
Y1 - 2015/1
N2 - Palmatier and Rovner (2015) attempt to establish the construct validity of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) by citing extensive research ranging from modern neuroscience to memory and psychophysiology. In this comment we argue that merely citing studies on the preliminary process theory (PPT) of the orienting response (OR) or neuroimaging research on deception without a clear specification of their connection to the CQT is insufficient for construct validity. Moreover, PPT cannot account for observed differential heart rate responses found in both CQT and Concealed Information Test (CIT) research. Furthermore, Palmatier and Rovner ignore the many other deficiencies of the CQT, such as lack of proper control and standardization, which cannot be resolved by any psychological or psychophysiological theory. In sum, we show that Palmatier and Rovner failed in their mission to establish construct validity of the CQT, and their article provides no solution to the many other deficiencies of this test.
AB - Palmatier and Rovner (2015) attempt to establish the construct validity of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) by citing extensive research ranging from modern neuroscience to memory and psychophysiology. In this comment we argue that merely citing studies on the preliminary process theory (PPT) of the orienting response (OR) or neuroimaging research on deception without a clear specification of their connection to the CQT is insufficient for construct validity. Moreover, PPT cannot account for observed differential heart rate responses found in both CQT and Concealed Information Test (CIT) research. Furthermore, Palmatier and Rovner ignore the many other deficiencies of the CQT, such as lack of proper control and standardization, which cannot be resolved by any psychological or psychophysiological theory. In sum, we show that Palmatier and Rovner failed in their mission to establish construct validity of the CQT, and their article provides no solution to the many other deficiencies of this test.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.582
DO - 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.582
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 25151652
VL - 95
SP - 16
EP - 19
JO - INT J PSYCHOPHYSIOL
JF - INT J PSYCHOPHYSIOL
SN - 0167-8760
IS - 1
ER -
