↓ Skip to main content

Polygraph Testing and Sexual Abuse: The Lure of the Magic Lasso

Overview of attention for article published in Child Maltreatment, August 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Polygraph Testing and Sexual Abuse: The Lure of the Magic Lasso
Published in
Child Maltreatment, August 2001
DOI 10.1177/1077559501006003001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Polygraph tests to assess veracity are widely promoted for application in sexual abuse matters. The use of polygraph tests is advocated despite substantial differences in professional and scientific opinion about the validity of such techniques. Polygraph diagnoses of an individual's deception are inferences made by an examiner who compares physiological reactions to a set of questions. The test situation, however, is also used to induce examinees to admit crimes. In addition to their use in investigations, polygraph tests are used by defendants seeking exculpatory evidence and by treatment and probation programs to assess and monitor sexual offenders. Although there are dissenters, most knowledgeable scientists consider polygraph testing as unvalidated. Professionals need to access the literature on polygraph testing, evaluate the efficacy and ethics of polygraph tests in their community, and further develop standards for their use.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Romania 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 36%
Social Sciences 6 17%
Computer Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,859,737
of 27,658,632 outputs
Outputs from Child Maltreatment
#527
of 742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,017
of 45,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Maltreatment
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,658,632 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 45,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them