Przeglądaj wg Autor "Shurany, Tuvia"
Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 20 z 23
Wyników na stronę
Opcje sortowania
Pozycja A Field Study on the Validity of the Quadri-track Zone Comparison Technique(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2009) Shurany, Tuvia; Stein, Einat; Brand, Eytan"This field study is the third published piece of field research on the validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique. The Quadri-Track ZCT was initially developed in 1977 by James Allan Matte as a result of field experiments designed to resolve the problem of false positives in psychophysiological veracity (PV) examinations using the polygraph. Its theory and methodology were published in the American Polygraph Association’s journal Polygraph in December 1978 and in several textbooks (Matte 1980, 1996, 2000 and 2002)."(...)Pozycja Anticlimax Dampening Concept: It Does Exist(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2016) Shurany, TuviaPozycja Confirmed Mental Countermeasure Case in Costa Rica(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2010) Shurany, Tuvia"There are mixed opinions in our profession about whether papers concerning deliberate distortions and countermeasures should be published. Whether they better educate those wishing to employ them, or help educate the seekers of truth. Th is paper is written of a confi rmed examination where countermeasures were employed to assist the latter."(...)Pozycja Directed Lie – The Correct or the Easy Way?(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2021) Shurany, Tuvia; Gordon, Nathan J.Lately there had been a huge push in our profession toward the use to use the Directed Lie Comparison question (DLC). The truth verification field is divided into “pro and con” towards this idea, like many things in life. This article will research whether this “new fashion” is really the correct way or the easy or lazy way to conduct psychophysiological truth verification examinations, as well as make comparisons between the advantages and disadvantages between the DLC and the Probable Lie Comparison question (PLC).Pozycja European Polygraph 2021, Volume 15, Number 1 (53)(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2021) Amsel, Tuvya T.; Ginton, Avital; Shurany, Tuvia; Gordon, Nathan J.; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph no. 2 (36), 2016(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2016) Aleskovskiy, Sergey; Shurany, Tuvia; Tarabuła, Marcin; Widacki, Michał; Szuba-Boroń, Anna; Gołaszewski, Marcin; Widacki, Jan; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 1 (11), 2010(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2010) Shurany, Tuvia; Blair, J. Pete; Hom, Patricia A.; Lewandowski, Edward; Lewandowski, Łukasz; Widacki, Jan; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 1 (15), 2011(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2011) Widacki, Jan; Saldžiūnas, Vitas; Kovalenko, Aleksandras; Konieczny, Jerzy; Shurany, Tuvia; Ravid, Israel; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 1 (19), 2012(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2012) Gordon, Nathan J.; Fleisher, William L.; Matte, James Allan; Saldžiūnas, Vitas; Kovalenko, Aleksandras; Knyazev, Vladimir; Wilcox, Daniel T.; Gray, Rosie; Shurany, Tuvia; Konieczny, Jerzy; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 1 (7), 2009(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2009) Shurany, Tuvia; Stein, Einat; Brand, Eytan; Saldžiūnas, Vitas; Kovalenko, Aleksandras; Soshnikov, Aleksandr P.; Pietruszka, Jarosław; Konieczny, Jerzy; Widacki, Jan; Jaworski, Ryszard; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 2 (12), 2010(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2010) Matte, James Allan; Shurany, Tuvia; Chaves, Fabiola; Leśniak, Marek; Zubańska, Magdalena; Mirska, Natalia; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 2 (16), 2011(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2011) Matte, James Allan; Shurany, Tuvia; ; Gołaszewski, Marcin; Wrońska, Małgorzata; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 2 (24), 2013(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2013) Bachhiesl, Christian; Shurany, Tuvia; Chaves, Fabiola; Stempkowski, Monika; Matte, James Allan; Domin-Kuźma, Agnieszka; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 2 (44), 2018(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2018) Amsel, Tuvya T.; Shurany, Tuvia; Gordon, Nathan J.; Widacki, Jan; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 3 (33), 2015(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2015) Shurany, Tuvia; Jaworski, Ryszard; Widacki, Jan; Szuba-Boroń, Anna; Widacki, JanPozycja European Polygraph nr 3-4 (9-10), 2009(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2009) Pollina, Dean A.; Horvath, Frank; Denver, John W.; Dollins, Andrew B.; Brown, Troy E.; Shurany, Tuvia; Matte, James Allan; Stein, Einat; Zanev, Svetoslav; Saldžiūnas, Vitas; Kovalenko, Aleksandras; Gaidarov, Kalin; Lewandowski, Edward; Lewandowski, Łukasz; Wrońska, Małgorzata; Konieczny, Jerzy; Widacki, JanPozycja Indiosyncrasies in Chart Evaluation(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2018) Shurany, Tuvia; Gordon, Nathan J."In the 1970’s and 1980’s, when the authors attended an American Polygraph Association accredited polygraph schools they were taught that the following 33 changes were reaction criteria:"(...)Pozycja Influence of case facts on blind scorers of polygraph tests(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2009) Shurany, Tuvia; Matte, James Allan; Stein, Einat"The first author (Shurany) was asked by a client if the Quality Control Reviewer should be provided with the facts of the case before blind scoring the physiological data recorded on the polygraph charts related to that polygraph examination, and whether it would have an influence on the reviewer’s judgment and evaluation. Th e question generated this research study, which was preceded by a fi eld study by Dror & Rosenthal (2008) that employed meta-analytic procedures to determine the degree of reliability and bias ability of forensic experts."(...)Pozycja Polygraph Verification Test(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2011) Shurany, TuviaIf we as examiners wish to define what is the most problematic part of a polygraph test while conducting a Comparison Question Test (CQT) the answer would be adjusting the correct comparison question for this particular examinee. A few years ago the author asked Cleve Backster how he would define a good comparison question, and his answer was “the one which gives us the correct result.” An examiner from Canada once told the author that development of a Comparison Question is 50% knowledge, and 50% art. Due to the problem of proper selection and introduction of the Comparison Questions (CQ), many examiners finish a test questioning whether or not their result was correct based on their selection and introduction of this question. In 2003, the author learned from Nathan J. Gordon, the Polygraph Validation test (PVT). It was explained that this method could be used to identify false positive results, verify deceptive results, and in the latter case, assist in breaking a deceptive examinee’s objections. Later it was explained that the original idea for this new method came from William L. Fleisher (Gordon’s partner) and that Gordon then modifi ed and applied it. The PVT is administered as a Peak Of Tension Test, or more correctly, a Guilty Knowledge Test after the administration of a CQT, providing the examinee different possible reasons for his failure of the CQT, while monitoring on which of the reasons he is focusing on.Pozycja Testing a Deaf Mute Examinee in Costa Rica(Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2013) Shurany, Tuvia; Chaves, Fabiola"In March 2013, a good friend and client in Costa Rica contacted the first author (Shurany) and told him that he had heard some rumors that two of his employees were involved in theft from his company and one of them was a deaf-mute who had been employed at the company for many years, hence the employer did not want to take action against that employee without being sure of his guilt. Additional information indicated that the subject reads lips, knows sign language and can read and write. None of the examiners had any knowledge of sign language, so this option was not available."(...)