The Discussion of Comparison Questions Between List Repetitions Is Associated with Increased Test Accuracy

Demonstration that discussing comparison questions between chart presentations significantly improves CQT accuracy.

Experimental study comparing CQT accuracy with and without between-chart discussion of comparison questions.

Honts demonstrated that the procedural step of discussing comparison questions between chart repetitions significantly improved CQT accuracy. This finding refined CQT administration protocols and became standard practice. The mechanism likely involves refreshing and strengthening the psychological impact of comparison questions, maintaining their salience across multiple chart presentations.

This procedural refinement was adopted as standard practice and contributed to improved CQT accuracy in subsequent research and field applications.

Background & Context

By the late 1990s, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) had become the dominant polygraph technique in forensic and screening applications worldwide. While researchers had refined question construction, scoring systems, and physiological measurement, procedural elements—the specific ways examiners conduct tests—remained less systematically studied. A meta-analysis suggests that between chart stimulation offers a positive improvement in CQT accuracy, highlighting the importance of understanding these procedural refinements.

The practice of discussing comparison questions between chart repetitions had become common in some CQT protocols, but its impact on test accuracy lacked rigorous empirical validation. This procedural step involves the examiner reinforcing the psychological salience of comparison questions after the first chart collection and before subsequent charts. The mechanism was theorized to refresh the comparison questions' psychological impact, maintaining their effectiveness as the test progressed through multiple repetitions.

This research filled a critical gap by providing experimental evidence for a procedural element that could significantly enhance CQT validity without requiring new technology or extensive retraining. Understanding which procedural refinements actually improve accuracy was essential for evidence-based polygraph practice.

Research Design & Methodology

Honts conducted an experimental study designed to isolate the effect of between-chart discussion of comparison questions on CQT accuracy. The research compared test outcomes when this procedural step was included versus when it was omitted, allowing direct assessment of its contribution to detection accuracy.

The methodology appears to have used a controlled experimental design with participants randomly assigned to conditions. Key design elements included:

• Comparison of CQT accuracy with and without between-chart discussion of comparison questions
• Multiple chart repetitions to assess the cumulative impact of the procedure
• Standardized testing protocols to isolate the variable of interest
• Ground truth verification to determine actual accuracy rates

The study examined whether actively reviewing and reinforcing comparison questions between charts enhanced their psychological impact compared to simply re-administering the same questions without discussion. This design allowed researchers to quantify the specific contribution of this procedural refinement to overall test validity.

Results & Key Findings

Between-chart discussion of comparison questions significantly improved CQT accuracy. The discussion of questions between test repetitions (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy, providing empirical support for this procedural refinement. The findings demonstrated that this relatively simple intervention enhanced the test's ability to correctly classify examinees.

The research established that maintaining the psychological salience of comparison questions across multiple chart presentations was critical for optimal test performance. Key findings included:

• Significant accuracy improvements when comparison questions were discussed between charts
• Evidence that the psychological impact of comparison questions could diminish without reinforcement
• Support for the theoretical mechanism underlying comparison question effectiveness
• Demonstration that procedural refinements could enhance validity without technological changes

The magnitude of the effect was substantial enough to warrant adoption as standard practice in modern CQT administration, influencing subsequent protocol development and training programs.

Discussion & Significance

This research had immediate practical significance for the polygraph profession. The findings provided empirical justification for a procedural step that could be readily implemented by trained examiners without additional equipment or extensive retraining. A recent experiment by Offe and Offe reported that between chart discussion had a positive effect on accuracy, but only when there was minimal explanation of comparison questions in the pretest. When there was a normal pretest discussion of the comparison questions between chart stimulation produced non-significantly higher accuracy, suggesting the effect may interact with other procedural elements.

The mechanism likely involves cognitive and attentional processes. Comparison questions work by creating competing concerns for the examinee—relevant questions threaten guilty examinees while comparison questions threaten innocent examinees. Over multiple chart repetitions, the psychological impact of comparison questions might habituate or fade. By discussing them between charts, examiners refresh their salience and maintain the differential responding that underlies CQT validity.

This procedural refinement was rapidly adopted as standard practice in major polygraph protocols and training programs. It demonstrated that evidence-based refinement of existing techniques could yield meaningful improvements in accuracy, encouraging systematic evaluation of other procedural elements that had been based primarily on clinical experience rather than empirical research.

Limitations & Considerations

Several methodological and practical considerations should be noted when interpreting these findings. The Offe and Offe study had relatively few subjects and thus had relatively low statistical power to find small effects, highlighting the need for adequately powered replication studies to establish effect sizes reliably.

The specific implementation of between-chart discussion may vary across examiners and protocols, potentially affecting consistency of the benefit. Questions remain about optimal discussion content, duration, and delivery method. Additionally, the effect may interact with other procedural variables such as pretest interview thoroughness, examiner experience, and specific comparison question types used.

The research generated some professional controversy, with Abrams publishing a response to Honts on the issue of the discussion of questions between charts in Polygraph, 29(3), 223-228, and Matte publishing a critical analysis of Honts' study: The discussion (stimulation) of Comparison Questions in Polygraph, 29(2), 146-149. These critiques underscore the importance of continued research and dialogue about optimal CQT procedures.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners, this research provides clear guidance: discussing comparison questions between chart presentations should be a standard element of CQT administration. Examiners should review the comparison questions with examinees after the first chart, reinforcing their significance and ensuring the examinee remembers them clearly. This procedural step requires minimal additional time but may substantially improve test accuracy.

For consumers and decision-makers relying on polygraph results, this research demonstrates that proper procedural adherence matters significantly. Test quality depends not only on equipment and scoring algorithms but on examiner adherence to evidence-based protocols. When evaluating polygraph evidence, stakeholders should verify that tests were conducted using current, validated procedures including between-chart comparison question discussion. This procedural refinement represents one component of the accumulated knowledge base that distinguishes professionally conducted CQTs from outdated or substandard practices.