Shurany, Tuvia2019-05-292019-05-292011European Polygraph 2011, nr 2, s. 61-67.1898-5238http://hdl.handle.net/11315/24894If 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.enUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polskapolygraph examinationpolygraph verification test (PVT)Bezpieczeństwo narodowe i wewnętrznePrawoPsychologiaArtykuł