Przeglądaj wg Autor "Handler, Mark"
Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 10 z 10
Wyników na stronę
Opcje sortowania
Pozycja European Polygraph 2020, Volume 14, Number 1 (51)(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2020) Widacki, Jan; Larson, John A.; Amsel, Tuvya T.; Barland, Gordon; Fleisher, Bill; Handler, Mark; Horvath, Frank; Krapohl, Donald J.; Matte, James Allan; Slowik, Stanley M.; Shapovalov, VitaliyPozycja European Polygraph 2020, Volume 14, Number 2 (52)(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2020) Krapohl, Donald J.; Wilcox, Daniel T.; Jack, Alexander; Donathy, Marguerite L.; Shuster, Jonathan J.; Handler, Mark; Batyrov, Tamerlan Stanislavovich; Collins, Nikki; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph 2023, Volume 17, Number 2 (58)(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2023) Krapohl, Donald; Handler, Mark; Lynch, Michael; Monge, Carlos; Thiel, Erika; Ribacoff, Lisa; Szuba-Boroń, Anna; Shapovalov, VitaliiPozycja European Polygraph nr 2 (4), 2008(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2008) Kholodny, Yury; Handler, Mark; Nelson, Raymond; Saldžiūnas, Vitas; Kovalenko, Aleksandras; Konieczny, Jerzy; Blair, J. Pete; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 3-4 (5-6), 2008(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2008) Phillips, Michelle C.; Vendemia, Jennifer M.C.; Korovin, Vladimir V.; Soshnikov, Aleksandr P.; Sokolovskis, Stanislav; Handler, Mark; Honts, Charles; Saldžiūnas, Vitas; Kovalenko, Aleksandras; Zagdan, Magdalena; Widacki, Jan; Konieczny, Jerzy; Widacki, JanPozycja My point of view...(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2020) Handler, Mark"The technology has advanced to computers that allow much more reliable processing and storage of the data."(...)Pozycja Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception 4th Edition, 2022(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2023) Krapohl, Donald; Handler, Mark; Lynch, MichaelSince the first edition of this reference was published 25 years ago much has taken place in the polygraph field, progress which has continued in the decade since the last edition of the Terminology Reference. The transition from analog to digital polygraph is now complete, the polygraph profession has accomplished the shift from authority-based practices to those that are evidence-based, concepts and terms adopted by the polygraph field are substantially more mainstream, new credibility assessment technologies have appeared while others have disappeared, and much to the surprise of critics and detractors, predictions of the demise of the polygraph have proven to be premature. In this fourth edition of the Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception we strived to capture these changes. We have updated the references, added new terms, removed others, and included images for some terms to help readers understand them better. We hope readers appreciate these updates. And finally, we sadly report the passing of our friend, colleague and contributor to previous editions of this work, Shirley Sturm in 2020. Shirley was one of the greats in the polygraph field. She was the first woman President of the American Polygraph Association, a teacher, a coveted mentor, and a fiercely independent thinker. We and the rest of the polygraph field will miss Shirley, her sense of humor, her passion for polygraph, her concern for her fellow practitioners, her commitment to the field. There was always only one Shirley Sturm and we were fortunate to have known her. Because of her lasting contribution to our shared field of endeavor we dedicate this edition of the Terminology Reference to Shirley Sturm.Pozycja Test Structure and Administration(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2008) Handler, Mark; Nelson, RaymondIn 1970, a psychologist named Dr. David Raskin, a researcher at the University of Utah, began a study of the probable lie comparison question polygraph technique. Raskin and his colleagues systematically studied and refined the elements of polygraphy by determining what aspects of the technique could be scientifically proven to increase validity and reliability (Raskin & Honts 2002). Their efforts culminated in the creation of what is known today as the Utah approach to the Comparison Question Test (CQT) The Utah-CQT is an empirically consistent and unified approach to polygraphy. The Utah-CQT, traditionally employed as a single issue Zone Comparison Test (ZCT), is amenable to other uses as a multi-facet or multiple-issue (mixed-issue) General Question Technique (GQT) and the related family of Modified General Question Technique (MGQT) examination formats. The Utah-CQT and the corresponding Utah Numerical Scoring System (Bell, Raskin, Honts & Kircher, 1999; Handler, 2006) resulted from over 30 years of scientific research and scientific peer-review. The resulting technique provides some of the highest rates of criterion accuracy and interrater reliability of any polygraph examination protocol (Senter, Dollins & Krapohl, 2004; Krapohl, 2006). The authors discuss the Utah-CQT using the Probable Lie Test (PLT) as well as the lesser known Directed Lie Test (DLT) and review some of the possible benefits offered by each method.Pozycja Trying an Accused Serial Sexual Harasser for Libel in a US Civil Court(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2020) Shuster, Jonathan J.; Handler, MarkThe goal of this article is to provide a class of MeToo# victims of a high-profile serial sexual harasser with a non-invasive method for civil action, when the accused publicly dismisses the victims’ claims as lies. When these libelous claims do occur, the victims can be assembled into a class-action libel/defamation case, which in most US states must be mounted within two years of the claim. Because under current civil methods, the plaintiffs would be subject to intense cross-examination in a civil jury trial, class-action lawsuits with small numbers of plaintiffs (e.g. 5–8) have proven impossible to conduct. This article provides a blueprint to create a collaboration amongst the victims, credibility-assessment (lie-detector) experts, statisticians, and MeToo# attorneys to litigate libel suits, which will likely produce out-of-court settlements. Once the first case is successfully completed, precedent will be set to bring other perpetrators to justice, and act as a deterrent to future exploitation. The evidentiary basis would be based on testing the null hypothesis that all plaintiffs are lying, to compare the inferred lying rates of the plaintiffs to similar population controls, who would be known liars, to a “Yes” answer to “Did X sexually harass you?”Pozycja You Can't Run, But You Can Hide: A Critical Look at the Fight or Flight Response in Psychophysiological Detection of Deception(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2008) Handler, Mark; Honts, Charles"In an earlier paper (Handler & Honts, 2008) we offered a theoretical expla nation of the physiological changes observed in PDD testing. We noted that there were likely emotional and cognitive pathways that were involved in the production of observed PDD phenomena. The emotional pathway could be characterized as generally unconscious and automatic while the processes in the cognitive pathway were relatively more accessible to the conscious ness of the subject. Our earlier work focused on the cognitive pathway. Here we would like to offer some theoretical speculations about the unconscious emotional automatic pathways suggesting conditioning may play a role in generation of arousal in the PDD context."(...)