Related Experiment Videos
Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015)
Gershon Ben-Shakhar1, Matthias Gamer2, William Iacono3
1The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Summary
This comment argues that citing unrelated neuroscience and psychophysiology research is insufficient to establish the construct validity of the Comparison Question Test (CQT). The authors demonstrate that the CQT has fundamental flaws unrelated to psychological theory.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Forensic Science
- Neuroscience
Background:
- The construct validity of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) is debated.
- Previous research has attempted to link CQT validity to neuroscience and psychophysiology.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critique the methodology used to establish the construct validity of the CQT.
- To argue that cited research does not adequately support CQT construct validity.
Main Methods:
- Critical analysis of Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) claims regarding CQT construct validity.
- Examination of the relevance of preliminary process theory (PPT) and neuroimaging research to CQT.
Main Results:
- Citing preliminary process theory (PPT) and neuroimaging research is insufficient to establish CQT construct validity.
- PPT cannot explain differential heart rate responses observed in CQT and Concealed Information Test (CIT) research.
- The CQT has inherent deficiencies, including lack of control and standardization, that are independent of psychological or psychophysiological theories.
Conclusions:
- Palmatier and Rovner (2015) failed to establish the construct validity of the CQT.
- The article by Palmatier and Rovner offers no solutions to the CQT's fundamental flaws.