Talk:Statement analysis

message: I'm afraid I don't have time to edit this article myself, but I tagged the "Misconceptions" section for POV. It is not only vague and unsourced, but to say that statement analysis is not interpretation is pure linguistic poppycock. David L Rattigan (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged for POV

message: This article is covering the same topic as Statement veracity analysis.  Both articles are, in my view, poor.  Poorly referenced, poorly written, not wikified, etc.  But this article looks more wikified.  I've stuck a merger proposal on both pages. Petemyers (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Merge the articles....I have no experience in this however...And it seems to me the original article is the better of the two. Also, I cannot find any reality-based criticism of SA and nothing on how SA might-be-or-has-been used successfully as evidence in Court. Engr105th (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I removed most of the article as it was nothing more than an advertisement for a procedure being sold to police departments stating all their claims about how awesome it is and using only its proponents as sources for anything. That violated WP:NPOV policy in a major way. I changed some of the wording and listed two sources that call it pseudoscience. If we could find reliable sources about the topic and present more information in a fair way instead of just reciting everything the people who created it say it can do then we can expand the article again. Based upon looking around some, however, I doubt expansion is likely, as there just isn't too many neutral sources paying any attention to this. DreamGuy (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit was most unwelcome.  Do not remove 1000 words and all of the sources from an article.  Some of the sources in this article are indeed commercial but others are scholarly articles and respected NPOV sources like the FBI Journal.  If you would like to add a section on criticism/pseudoscience, please do so.  Note that this criticism must also be sourced.76.24.237.160 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Overt product testimonials and extraordinary claims of efficacy need to be easily accessed for verifiability and independence. Invoking "respected sources like the FBI Journal" isn't enough. (Note: I did manage to locate and add in that reference to an article reprinted in the "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" but originally published in the journal "Polygraph".)- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Thanks for working on statement analysis.  I was the one who originally created the talk page and likened statement analysis to voodoo and criticized that it seemed like a paraphrase of McClish's web site.  I don't have a dog in this race and am neither for nor against statement analysis.  However, I think the article was in pretty good shape as the result of a bunch of edits various users made from the time I started the talk page and I think you and another user have taken too much out of the article.  Over a period of years, those editors added a lot of sourcing and examples and deleted most of the promotional material McClish or one of his boosters added to the article.  I agree that more sourcing for the reliability of statement analysis is necessary and that the article should have more anti-statement analysis sources.  But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Any tool that is widely used in law enforcement and can allow trained investigators to ACCURATELY spot WITHIN SECONDS (for example) that the Jon-Benet ransom note was fraudulent or that Susan Smith knew her kids were dead must have some merit to it.  My main concern is that all of the cases presented on both McClish's web site and Sapir's web site show that people are guilty.  If statement analysis is only used to gather incriminating evidence and never exculpatory evidence then that is a problem with it.  I also question whether that source added recently -- Skeptics -- is a reliable one.  There must be something critical written about statement analysis and CBCA in the scientific literature that would be more worthy.18.171.0.233 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version of the article had a number of problems. It included a section that attempted to "correct misconceptions" about statement analysis, mostly sourced to a primary source, a proponent. Claims need to be sourced to reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Also the lengthy step by step descriptions of statement analysis were verging on WP:NOTAMANUAL, and the material was apparently lifted verbatim from a primary source, which is a WP:COPYVIO copyright violation. We'd need a reliable independent source to address your concern regarding use of the technique to gather incriminating vs. exculpatory evidence. Editors can't editorialize or synthesize their own opinions into articles. Regarding sources in general, I think the Skeptic's Dictionary, Skeptical Inquirer, Leo and Adams sources unquestionably meet WP:RS as independent and reliable. Note that most of the critique comes from Leo, however Skeptic's Dictionary and CSI are generally agreed by consensus to be an appropriate source for this kind of critique as well. If you have specific questions regarding reliable sources, you may want to seek wider opinion at our reliable sources noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is false that SA is a pseudoscience.  It has been studied, tested, and validated very heavily over time.  Calling it a pseudoscience because Sapir and McClish's websites don't cite sources is not right.  You could say the same thing about medicine if the only thing you had read about medicine was Dr. Benjamin Spock's books.  Spock and Sapir are writing for a popular audience, not a scholarly one.  What follows is a partial bibliography of the scholarly examination of SA.  I don't have time to revise the SA article myself but someone who is willing to do it could certainly be informed by these sources:
Cues to Deception and Ability to Detect Lies as a Function of Police Interview Styles
Aldert Vrij, Samantha Mann, Susanne Kristen and Ronald P. Fisher
Law and Human Behavior
Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2007), pp. 499-518 
Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis Distinguish between True and False Statements of African-American Speakers?
Charles L. Ruby, John C. Brigham
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Aug., 1998), pp. 369-388
Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis
David A. Anson, Stephen L. Golding, Kevin J. Gully
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jun., 1993), pp. 331-341
The Language of Deceit: An Investigation of the Verbal Clues to Deception in the Interrogation Context
Stephen Porter, John C. Yuille
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 1996), pp. 443-458
Will the Truth Come out? The Effect of Deception, Age, Status, Coaching, and Social Skills on CBCA Scores
Aldert Vrij, Lucy Akehurst, Stavroula Soukara, Ray Bull
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 261-283
Detecting Deception in Children: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Event Familiarity on CBCA Ratings
Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Kathy Pezdek, Martha Rogers, Laura Brodie
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 187-197
Huffman,M . L. & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis discriminate true and false reports of preschoolers? An exploratory analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 
Murray, J. J. (1983). The detection of interviewers; verbal deception from their accompanying overt nonverbal behavior. Unpublished dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. 
Porter, S ., & Yuille, J . D. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 1-13. 
Raskin, D . C., & Esplin, P . W. (1991). Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291. 
Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J . C. (1997). The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations:A critical review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3, 705-737. 
Steller, M . (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. In J. C. Yuille( Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. 
Steller,M ., Wellershaus, P, & Wolf,T (1988,J une).E mpirical validationo f criteria-basedco ntenta nalysis. Paperp resenteda t the NATOA dvancedS tudyI nstituteo n CredibilityA ssessment,M aratea,I taly. 
Undeutsch,U . (1982). Statementr ealitya nalysis.I n A. Trankell( Ed.), Reconstructingth e past: The role of psychologistsin criminalt rials( pp. 27-56). Stockholm:N orstedta nd Sons. 
Yuille, J. C. (1990). Use of criteria-basedco ntenta nalysis.U npublishedp aper, Universityo f BritishC o-lumbia,V ancouver, BritishC olumbia,C anada.. 
Zapamik,J ., Yuille, J. C., & Taylor,S . (1995). Assessingt he credibilityo f true and false statements. InternationalJo urnalo f Law and Psychiatry,18 , 343-352. 
Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313-329.
Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., & Menon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 287-300.
DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83-86.
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy - confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346-357.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. 
Gddert, H. W., Gamer, M., Rill, H. G., & Vossel, G. (2005). Statement validity assessment: Inter-rater reliability of criteria-based content analysis in the mock-crime paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 225-245. 
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behaviour, 29, 469-484. 
Hernandez-Fernaud, E., & Alonso-Quecuty, M. (1997). The cognitive interview and lie detection: A new magni- fying glass for Sherlock Holmes? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 55-68.
Horvath, F., Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behaviour analysis interviews. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 793-807.
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality Monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85.
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). "I'm innocent!": Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516.
Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the "detection of the truth". In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1992). Linking love and lies: A formal test of the McCornack and Parks model of deception detection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 143-154.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers' ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149.
Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the Reality Monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 99-122.
Moston, S. J., & Engelberg, T. (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society, 6, 61-75.
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. N. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC 2001 manual. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raskin, D. C., & P. W. Esplin (1991). Statement Validity Assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291.
Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less traveled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397.
Vrij, A. (2005b). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41. 
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004b). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and Reality Monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (special issue on Forensic Psychology), 36, 113-126.
76.24.237.160 (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, anonymous IP. Bombarding the Talk page with a huge bibliography isn't necessary, so I've "hatted" the list for readability. The article makes it clear that SCAN in particular "has been called" pseudoscience and this is based on academic criticism of that particular technique's resistance to falsifiability. Are you familiar with Wikipedia policies and how they apply to controversies? If so, what would you like the article to include? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that article you cited says that SA is much more reliable than chance (in the 70s) and that if only recall of falsity needs to be identified, that it is more than 90% accurate.  This tilts the scale more in the direction of science than pseudoscience.  Whether SCAN is pseudoscience is irrelevant.  That's like claiming medicine is pseudoscience because the doctor who advertises most aggressively on TV is only a quack.76.24.237.160 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the analogies. Have you read WP:TRUTH or WP:NPOV? If so, you understand we editors don't decide the status of a subject, we use reliable mainstream sources that do it. Again, what would you like the article to say? Perhaps it's the case that techniques such as SCAN that are heavily marketed as "science" have attracted criticism as pseudoscience, but other more generalized techniques have not? If so, we'd need a reliable source that makes this evaluation for us, we can't do it ourselves. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the made-up example from Sapir should be replaced with an example from a real case.76.24.237.160 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The article ought to be modeled after polygraph.  They have a lot in common, both their use as investigative tools and their alleged pseudoscience.  The first part of polygraph starts by stating what it is and then introducing the scientific controversy.  That article has separate sections for things that are dealt with in a line or two of this article.  I will do some work on the article in the next 30 days (oops... 3 is a liar's number!  I mean 28 days).  I will start by putting it in some categories that will attract more attention to it.18.171.0.233 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent overhaul of the article 

message: This article needs a whole bunch of work.  For one thing, statement analysis and statement validity analysis are two different things, and CBCA is something else different.  I am going to start by adding a criticism section, which is long overdue from the article.  All that is in there right now is a dismissive claim of "pseudoscience" by a magazine.  I am going to add some specific criticism by one of the scientists who's studied these types of analysis most.Shamrockshake (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs work 

message: I don't know where else to request a page, but I would like to see one on the inventor of Statement Analysis. 
Is he related to the famous linguist Edward Sapir?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.133.22 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a page on Avinoam Sapir