Palmatier and Rovner (2015) attempt to establish the construct validity of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) by citing extensive research ranging from modern neuroscience to memory and psychophysiology. In this comment we argue that merely citing studies on the preliminary process theory (PPT) of the orienting response (OR) or neuroimaging research on deception without a clear specification of their connection to the CQT is insufficient for construct validity. Moreover, PPT cannot account for observed differential heart rate responses found in both CQT and Concealed Information Test (CIT) research. Furthermore, Palmatier and Rovner ignore the many other deficiencies of the CQT, such as lack of proper control and standardization, which cannot be resolved by any psychological or psychophysiological theory. In sum, we show that Palmatier and Rovner failed in their mission to establish construct validity of the CQT, and their article provides no solution to the many other deficiencies of this test.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2014 Elsevier B.V.
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
- Detection of deception
- Orienting response theory
- Preliminary process theory
- The comparison question test
- The concealed information test