PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH

​​​CREDIBILITY SCREENING

​​​Cost Effective, Accurate, Lie Detection Testing

​

Studies validating the Ocular-Motor Deception Testing ODT.

There are various scientific articles documenting the validity of ODT. In the
following list, the first 9 articles are peer-reviewed: a review of resources #3 & #11 will give a good summary of the research on ODT. (Source: Converus.com)

1. Potts, A. C. (2020). 1,2,3 Crimes You’re Out: Ocular-Motor Methods for Detecting Deception in a Multiple-Issue Screening Protocol. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.

2. Bovard, P., Kircher, J., Woltz, D., Hacker, D. & Cook, A. (2019). Effects of direct and indirect questions on the ocular-motor deception test. Polygraph and Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practices, 48(1), 40-59.

3. Kircher, J. C., and Raskin, D. (2016) Laboratory and Field Research on the Ocular-motor Deception Test. European Polygraph Journal, Volume 10, Number 4 (38).

4. Cook, A. E., Hacker, D. J., Webb, A. K., Osher, D., Kristjansson, S., Woltz, D. J., & Kircher, J. C. (2012). Lyin’ Eyes: Ocular-motor Measures of Reading Reveal Deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 301-313.

5. Patnaik, P., Woltz, D., Hacker, D., Cooke, A., Francke-Ramm, M., Webb, A., and Kircher, J. (2016) Generalizability of an Ocular-Motor Test for Deception to a Mexican Population. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(1): 1-9.

6. Hacker, D. J., Kuhlman, B., & Kircher, J. C., Cook, A.E., and Woltz, D.J. (2014). Detecting Deception Using Ocular Metrics During Reading. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications. Elsevier, pp 159-216.

7. Kuhlman, B. B., Webb, A. K., Patnaik, P., Cook, A. E., Woltz, D. J., Hacker, D. J., & Kircher, J. C. (2011, September). Evoked Pupil Responses Habituate During an Oculomotor Test for Deception. Poster presented at the Society for Psychophysiological Research convention, Boston, MA. (abstract)

8. Patnaik, P., Woltz, D.J., Cook, A.E., Webb, A.K., Raskin, D.C., and Kircher, J.C. (2015, March). Ocular-motor Detection of Deception in Laboratory Settings. Meeting of the American Psychology and Law Society, San Diego, CA.

9. Webb, A. K., Hacker, D.J., Osher, D., Cook, A.E., Woltz, D. J., Kristjansson, S. K., and Kircher, J. C., (2009). Eye Movements and Pupil Size Reveal Deception in Computer Administered Questionnaires. In D. D. Schmorrow, I. V. Estabrooke, & M. Grootjen (Eds.), Foundations of Augmented Cognition. Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience (553-562). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

10. Webb, A. K, Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., Bernhardt, P.C., and Cook, A. E. (2009). Effectiveness of Pupil Diameter in a Probable-Lie Comparison Question Test for Deception. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 14(2), 279-292.

11. Kircher, J. C. (2018). Ocular-Motor Deception Test. In J. Peter Rosenfeld, Detecting Concealed Information and Deception (pp. 187-212). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.01001-6.

12. Osher, D. (2006). Multimethod Assessment of Deception: Oculomotor Movement, Pupil Size, and Response Time Measures. (Doctoral dissertation),University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.

13. Webb, A.K. (2008). Effects of Motivation, and Item Difficulty on Oculomotor and Behavioral Measures of Deception. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology. (ISBN: 9780549980032)

14. Patnaik, P. (2013). Ocular-motor Methods for Detecting Deception: Direct Versus Indirect Interrogation. (Master’s Thesis), University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.

15. Patnaik, P. (2015). Oculomotor Methods for Detecting Deception: Effects of Practice Feedback and Blocking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.