Title of Poster / Presentation

Deception Detection in Clinical Interview

Location

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

Start Date

12-5-2015 1:00 PM

End Date

12-5-2015 2:30 PM

Subjects

Forensic psychology, Deception, Truthfulness and falsehood

Description

The objective of Forensic Assessment of Client Truthfulness (FACT) measure is to detect deception in forensic psychology consultations. A statistically significant tool using verbal content analysis was created, based a synthesis of previous research in the field. This presentation reviews the research project and highlights one phase of the study where ratings true and deceptive statements in cases of accused sex offenders or insanity defense claimants were compared. Multiple ANOVAs, t-tests, and factor analyses were conducted. When FACT scores were dichotomized, 86% of the ratings characterized the true statements as true, and 81% of the ratings categorized the false statements as deceptive. The results also suggest that indirect assessment is superior to direct assessment, that the FACT items cluster into two subscales (i.e. statement details and statement quality), and, ultimately, that the FACT significantly differentiates between true and deceptive statements. The FACT is offered as an adjunct tool for a psychologist or practitioner to reliably judge client veracity in forensic and clinical evaluations.

Persistent Identifier

http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/19810

Share

COinS
 
May 12th, 1:00 PM May 12th, 2:30 PM

Deception Detection in Clinical Interview

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

The objective of Forensic Assessment of Client Truthfulness (FACT) measure is to detect deception in forensic psychology consultations. A statistically significant tool using verbal content analysis was created, based a synthesis of previous research in the field. This presentation reviews the research project and highlights one phase of the study where ratings true and deceptive statements in cases of accused sex offenders or insanity defense claimants were compared. Multiple ANOVAs, t-tests, and factor analyses were conducted. When FACT scores were dichotomized, 86% of the ratings characterized the true statements as true, and 81% of the ratings categorized the false statements as deceptive. The results also suggest that indirect assessment is superior to direct assessment, that the FACT items cluster into two subscales (i.e. statement details and statement quality), and, ultimately, that the FACT significantly differentiates between true and deceptive statements. The FACT is offered as an adjunct tool for a psychologist or practitioner to reliably judge client veracity in forensic and clinical evaluations.