National security professionals have few scientifically valid methods for detecting deception in people who deny being involved in illicit activities relevant to national security. Numerous detecting ...deception studies have demonstrated that the Modified Cognitive Interviewing (MCI) method is one such method - yielding detecting deception rates (i.e. 80-85%) that are significantly above those achieved by chance (i.e. 50%) or by human judgments (i.e. 54-56%). To date, however, no MCI studies have involved dilemmas of ethological interest to national security professionals. This project begins to address this gap in the scientific literature. In it, we compared the efficacy of MCI to that of human judgments for detecting deception in scientists with expertise in biological materials. Sixty-four scientists were recruited for study; 12 met with a “terrorist” and were paid to make biological materials for illicit purposes. All 64 scientists were interviewed by investigators with law enforcement experience about the bio-threat issue. MCI elicited speech content differences in deceptive, compared to truthful scientists. This resulted in a classification accuracy of 84.4%; Accuracies for Human Judgments (interviewers/raters) were 54% and 46%, respectively. MCI required little time and its efficacy suggests it is reasonable to recommend its use to national security experts.
The goal of this work was to build and pilot-test a user-friendly Lynch syndrome risk assessment tool among individuals presenting for routine screening colonoscopy. Participants included adults ...presenting to a private practice-based, open-access endoscopy unit. Working with health literacy experts and gastroenterologists, and based on established criteria, we developed a simplified tool to assess Lynch syndrome risk, pre-procedure. A pilot-test of the tool assessed its: 1) clinical utility; 2) patient-reported usability; and 3) feasibility. The tool, in paper format, was written at a 9th grade reading level and included instructions for use followed by seven Lynch syndrome risk-related questions, structured such that one “Yes” response signified potential risk. A pilot-test of the tool among 334 patients revealed that 29 met criteria for Lynch syndrome risk. Of these, following telephone review of their responses, risk was confirmed in 9 patients (3% of total). The tool was reported as easy-to-use and was seen as feasible for use. Limitations include: 1) the need for infrastructure to distribute and collect the tool and 2) the availability of knowledgeable staff to review tool responses, confirm risk, and facilitate appropriate referral for genetic counseling. These data suggest that the tool affects assessment of Lynch syndrome risk among the routine colon cancer screening population.
PDF
