[
Backster C. (1962), Methods of strengthening our polygraph technique. Police, 6, 61–68.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (1963), Polygraph professionalization through technique standardization. Law and Order, 11, 63–64.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Elaad E. (1985), Decision Rules in Polygraph Examination. In: Anti-terrorism, Forensic Science, Psychology in Police Investigations (pp. 167–179). A Book of proceeding. First Published, 1985; Imprint Routledge. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429036590.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Elaad E. (1999), The Control Question Technique: A search for improved decision rules. Polygraph, 28, 65–73.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ginton A. (2009), Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength – a new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of psychological set and the role of attention in CQT polygraph examinations. Polygraph, 38 (3), 204–201.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ginton A. (2012), A non-standard method for estimating the accuracy of lie detection techniques demonstrated on a self-validating set of field polygraph examinations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.76513710.1080/1068316X.2013.765137
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ginton A. (2013), The Importance of the Consistency Factor in CQT and Other Polygraph Tests. Polygraph. 2013, 42, 146–162.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. (2014), Countermeasures and credibility assessment. In: D.C. Raskin, C.R. Honts & J.C. Kircher (eds), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 131–158). Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-394433-7.00004-X
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (2005), Polygraph decision rules for evidentiary and paired-testing (Marin Protocol) applications. Polygraph, 34, 184–192.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & McManus B. (1999), An objective method for manually scoring poly-graph data. Polygraph, 29, 209–222.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & Shaw P.K. (2015), Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-802924-4.00005-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lord F.M., Novick M.R. & Birnbaum A. (1968), Statistical theories of mental Test scores. Addison-Wesely, Oxford, England.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology using the polygraph. JAM Publications, Williamsville N.Y.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Palmatier J.J. & Rovner L. (2015), Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Th eory, the polygraph process and construct validity. International, Journal of Psychophysiology, 95 (1), 3–13.10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.00124933412
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (2002), The comparison question test. In: M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 1–48). Academic Press, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Reid J.E.& Inbau F.B. (1977), Truth and deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detector”) Technique. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Senter S.M., Weatherman D., Krapohl D.J. & Horvath F.S. (2010), Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing. Polygraph, 39(2), 109–117.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Trochim W.M. (2000), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
