Validity and reliability of the psychophysiological assessment of paraphilic disorders with the use of a polygraph
Suggested citation:
Kamenskov MYu, Vvedenskiy GE, Rybin PV, et al. [Validity and reliability of the psychophysiological assessment of paraphilic disorders with the use of a polygraph]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2020;(3):48-58. Russian
We have applied the clinical-psychopathological, sexological, and psychophysiological methods to examine 291 men with the objective of assessing reliability and validity of the psychophysiological polygraph diagnostics of paraphilias. According to the results of the study, the reliability of the psychophysiological examination by the stability criterion was 0.56–0.71 (p<0.05), by the criterion of internal and inter-expert consistency – 0.82–0.85 (p<0.05), and the criterion validity – 0.78 (p<0.05). Reliability and validity are significantly influenced by expert's experience, methods of analysis, and mental pathology in question. In general, psychophysiological assessment of paraphilias has high reliability and validity and can be used as an auxiliary diagnostic tool.
Keywords polygraph; assessment; paraphilic disorders; validity; reliability
1. Oganov RG. Osnovy dokazatel'noj mediciny. In: Oganov RG ed. Uchebnoe posobie dlya sistemy poslevuzovskogo i dopolnitel'nogo professional'nogo obrazovaniya vrachej. Moscow; 2010. 136 p. Russian. 2. La Fond JQ, Winick BJ. Sex offender reentry courts: a cost-effective proposal for managing sex offender risk in the community. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2003;300:411–27. 3. Kamenskov M. Validity of the psychophysiological diagnosis of paraphylia. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im SS Korsakova. 2013;113(3):39–44. Russian. 4. Elaad E, Ben-Shakhar G. Effects of item repetitions and variations on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test. Psychophysiology. 1997;34(5):587–96. 5. Crewson PE. A comparative analysis of polygraph with screening and diagnostic tolls. Polygraph. 2003;32(2):57–85. 6. Bersh PJ. A validation study of polygraph examiner judgements. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1969;53:399–403. 7. Lуkken D. Tremor in the blood. Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York; 1981. 318 p. 8. Patrick С, Christopher J, Iacono W, Wiliam G. Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1991;76(2):229–38. 9. Grubin D, Madsen L. Accuracy and utility of post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2006;188:479–83. 10. Khavkin AYu. Kompleksnaya diagnostika narusheniy seksual'nogo predpochteniya (kliniko-psikhopatologicheskiy, psikhofiziologicheskiy I psikhologicheskiy aspekty) [PhD thesis]. [Moscow (Russia)]: Natsional'ny I meditsinskiy issledovatel'skiy tsentr psikhiatrii I narkologii imeni VP Serbskogo [National Medical Research Center of Psychiatry and Narcology named after VP Serbsky];2003. 207 p. Russian. 11. Vvedenskij GE, Safuanov FS, Kamenskov M, et al. [Opros s ispol'zovaniem poligrafa: psihiatricheskie protivopokazaniya]. Russian psychiatric journal [Rossijskij psihiatricheskij zhurnal]. 2011;(5):31–6. Russian. 12. Starovich Z. Sudebnaya seksologiya. Moscow; 1991. 336 p. Russian. 13. Pelenitsin AB, Soshkin AP. Modern technologies of using polygraph. Moscow; 2015. Vol. 4. 408 p. Russian. 14. Nelson RI. Testing the Limits of Evidence Based Polygraph Practices. Polygraph. 2016;45(1):74–85. 15. Ogloblin SI, Molchanov AJu. Instrumental'naja “detekcija lzhi” (proverki na poligrafe): akademicheskij kurs. Jaroslavl'; 2004. 464 p. Russian. 16. Grechenko TN. Psihofiziologiya. Moscow; 1999. 358 p. Russian. 17. Ivanov RS. [Individual'nyj simptomokompleks kak instrument interpretacii rezul'tatov psihofiziologicheskogo issledovaniya s primeneniem poligrafa]. Nacional'nyj psihologicheskij zhurnal [National psychological journal]. 2014;(15):90–7. Russian. 18. Pelenitsin AB, Soshkin AP. Modern technologies of using polygraph. Moscow; 2015. Vol. 1. 224 p. Russian. 19. Pelenitsin AB, Soshkin AP. Modern technologies of using polygraph. Moscow; 2015. Vol. 2. 320 p. Russian. 20. Snezhnevskij AV. Schizophrenia: clinical features and pathogenesis. Moscow; 1969. 464 p. Russian. 21. Mendelevich VD, Zobin ML. Addictive attraction. Moscow; 2012. 263 p. Russian. 22. Ben-Shakhar G. A Critical Review of the Control Questions Test (CQT). In: Kleiner M, ed. Handbook of Polygraph Testing. Israel: Academic Press; 2002. p. 103–26. 23. Tiffany ST, Wray JM. The clinical significance of drug craving. Annals of the NY Academy of sciences. 2012;1248(1):1–17. 24. Matte F. The polygraph and lie detection. 2003. 416 p. 25. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;78:98–104. 26. Mohon'ko AR, Makushkin EV, Muganceva LA. Key performance indicators of the forensic psychiatric expert service of the Russian Federation in 2018. Moscow; 2018. 212 p. Russian.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24411/1560-957X-2020-10306
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM