Skip to content

A re-analysis that supports our main results: a reply to Levine et al.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

Levine et al. (2017) criticized our meta-analysis, but their conclusion was the same as ours: The cognitive approach to lie detection results in a modest improvement. We address and dismiss Levine et al.'s (2017) three criticisms. Regarding the ‘confound’, in our meta-analysis we averaged the results of two cells on statistical grounds, which does not constitute a confound in statistical terms. Regarding ‘aberrant controls’, that depends entirely on the benchmarks selected and type of statistical test and meta-analysis used. Regarding ‘unreliable data’, the claim that there is a positive relationship between ‘unreliable’ data and total accuracy in the cognitive lie detection conditions is not even supported by their own data (p = .16). We conclude with a request to Levine et al. to focus on our shared aim: to develop interview protocols that enable lie detection.
Original languageEnglish
JournalLegal and Criminological Psychology
Early online date4 Nov 2017
Publication statusEarly online - 4 Nov 2017


  • A re-analysis that support our main results

    Rights statement: This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Vrij, A., Blank, H. and Fisher, R. P. (2017), A re-analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al.. Leg Crim Psychol. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12121, which has been published in final form at This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."

    Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 89.3 KB, PDF document

Related information

Relations Get citation (various referencing formats)

ID: 8077092