These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25242502)

  • 1. The Comparison Question Test versus the Concealed Information Test? That was the question in Japan: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015).
    Ogawa T; Matsuda I; Tsuneoka M
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):29-30. PubMed ID: 25242502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015).
    Ben-Shakhar G; Gamer M; Iacono W; Meijer E; Verschuere B
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):16-9. PubMed ID: 25151652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cognitive and emotional aspects of polygraph diagnostic procedures: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015).
    Elaad E
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):14-5. PubMed ID: 25093905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Psychophysiological detection of deception and Preliminary Process Theory: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015).
    Patnaik P; Kircher JC
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):22-4. PubMed ID: 25196828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Good intentions that fail to cope with the main point in CQT: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015).
    Ginton A
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):25-8. PubMed ID: 25264350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The protection of innocent suspects: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015).
    Vrij A
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):20-1. PubMed ID: 25224520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Credibility assessment: preliminary process theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity.
    Palmatier JJ; Rovner L
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):3-13. PubMed ID: 24933412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Rejoinder to commentary on Palmatier and Rovner (2015): credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity.
    Palmatier JJ; Rovner L
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2015 Jan; 95(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 25479540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Polygraph Accuracy of Control Question Test in Criminal Cases.
    Sun ZY; Zhang F; Zhang FX; Luo R; Mao YY; Hu ZQ; Gu Y
    Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Jun; 35(3):295-299. PubMed ID: 31282623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Alice-in-Wonderland terminological usage in, and communicational concerns about, that peculiarly American flight of technological fancy. The CQT polygraph.
    Furedy JJ
    Integr Physiol Behav Sci; 1991; 26(3):241-7. PubMed ID: 1954164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Psychology and the lie detector industry: A fifty-year perspective.
    Iacono WG
    Biol Psychol; 2024 Jul; 190():108808. PubMed ID: 38718884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of field and laboratory polygraphs in the detection of deception.
    Patrick CJ; Iacono WG
    Psychophysiology; 1991 Nov; 28(6):632-8. PubMed ID: 1816590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The North American polygraph and psychophysiology: disinterested, uninterested, and interested perspectives.
    Furedy JJ
    Int J Psychophysiol; 1996; 21(2-3):97-105. PubMed ID: 8792199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The comparison question polygraph test: a contrast of methods and scoring.
    Honts CR; Reavy R
    Physiol Behav; 2015 May; 143():15-26. PubMed ID: 25703188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Science and the CQT polygraph. A theoretical critique.
    Saxe L
    Integr Physiol Behav Sci; 1991; 26(3):223-31. PubMed ID: 1954162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing.
    Iacono WG; Ben-Shakhar G
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Feb; 43(1):86-98. PubMed ID: 30284848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The concealed information test as an instrument of applied differential psychophysiology: methodological considerations.
    Furedy JJ
    Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback; 2009 Sep; 34(3):149-60. PubMed ID: 19626435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Polygraph testing for deception in Australia: effective aid to crime investigation and adjudication?
    McMahon M
    J Law Med; 2003 Aug; 11(1):24-47. PubMed ID: 14526725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. External validity of Concealed Information Test experiment: Comparison of respiration, skin conductance, and heart rate between experimental and field card tests.
    Zaitsu W
    Psychophysiology; 2016 Jul; 53(7):1100-7. PubMed ID: 27031043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Commentary on: Horvath F, Palmatier JJ. Critique of Horvath-Palmatier Laboratory study on effectiveness of exclusive v. non-exclusive control questions in polygraph examination. J Forensic Sci 2008;53(4):889-99.
    Matte JA
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Nov; 56(6):1664-7; author reply 1668-70. PubMed ID: 22040043
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.