Question
The 3 article reviews address professional issues in forensic psychology which are not extensively covered in the text, so the articles cover issues beyond those in the text.
The reviews should be a minimum of 2 full and a maximum of 4 full double spaced, type-written or word-processed pages (10-12 point font size, and maximum 1 inch margins), and should follow a format wherein you summarize the article(s), which MUST be no more than 1/2 of the review, and provide your analysis and comments. A good rule of thumb is keep your review of the article(s) to one page (which means that the summary will be very general), and make the remainder of the review your comments, reactions, and analyses.
The second article review, on the polygraph, . You can access Cuppari & Lewis (2009). The polygraph: The truth lies within.
In your summaries of the articles, focus on the general points and logic of the articles. In your analysis and comments, mention a couple of things that you specifically learned from each chapter, as well as your brief personal reactions and analysis. Keep in mind that I have read all the material in the course (several times); your job is to convince me that you have read (AND have thought about) the material. Do NOT say that you thought an article was interesting, boring, or that you learned something, or, for that matter, that you thought an article was complicated, and you didn’t understand it. You are expected to learn things from article; if you learned something from an article, clearly and succinctly say what you learned, and relate your knowledge to other knowledge you already have. I want to see evidence that you worked to understand it. Ask me questions about the articles through the Ask a Question discussion.
Again, keep your summary of a article to no more than 1/2 of your review (failure to include comments and analysis will automatically make your review inadequate – 4 points out of 8 (or less)). For grading, I will pay attention to the following dimensions: 1) content and analysis: effective summary of the material, and an effective analysis of, or reaction to the material, including relating it to material outside of the article. And 2) organization and grammar; your writing should flow smoothly, and without awkward or ungrammatical sentences, or spelling errors. See the grading rubric provided in Appendix C. Article reviews should be submitted in MS Word (.doc or .docx) format.
Rubric
Article Review Grading Rubric
Article Review Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArticle Summary
Summary of session material
5.0 pts
The summary of the article is original, focused, unambiguous, and concise. The summary could serve as superior guide to the material, not only explaining the material, but providing a clear context for the material and highlighting points of connection among the material.
4.0 pts
The summary of the article is clear, and reasonably well focused. The summary could serve as accurate, basic guide to the course material, but does not provide any substantive insight into the context or make connections between the materials. A usual summary.
3.0 pts
The summary of the article is limited and not well focused. The summary contains a majority of the basic ideas expressed in the material but the ideas are not expressed well enough to be a safe guide for someone else to use.
1.0 pts
The summary of the article contains only a small fraction of the ideas expressed in the material, with noticeable omissions or errors, or the ideas are not presented clearly. It is difficult to tell from the summary that the course material has been read/viewed.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis, comments, and reactions
5.0 pts
The analysis of the article is original, focused, and concise, and goes beyond to analyze the underlying nature of the topic in an even-handed, skillful fashion. The article is well connected to other course material and student experience.
4.0 pts
The analysis of the article is clear and reasonably focused. The analysis accurately explains the topic/problem, but does not provide any substantive analysis of the topic/problem or any connections to other material or student experience. A typical analysis/reaction.
3.0 pts
The analysis of the article is limited and not well focused. The analysis and reactions are not expressed well enough to be a safe guide for someone else to use.
1.0 pts
Analysis of the article does not meaningfully exist. The analysis and reactions contain only a small fraction of the ideas appropriate to the topic, with noticeable omissions or errors, or the ideas are not presented clearly.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics and style
5.0 pts
The prose and focus of the writing flow smoothly. The writing contains clear and effective transitional and linking material. There are no errors in grammar, mechanics, and no significant APA style errors.
4.0 pts
The prose is clear with no awkward or incorrect constructions. There are minor errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA style that do not hinder comprehension.
3.0 pts
The writing is understandable and clear, although with some errors or ambiguities of expression, or awkward phrases which obscure the meaning of the material. There are errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA style that hinder comprehension.
1.0 pts
The writing is garbled and/or awkward to such an extent that it significantly interferes with comprehension of the material. There are many errors in grammar/mechanics/APA format that seriously hinder comprehension.
5.0 pts
Total Points: 15.0
Solution
Article Review 2 On The Polygraph
Summary
In the article, “The polygraph: The truth lies within”, Cuppari and Lewis (2009) analyze the use of polygraphs in law enforcement for determining the truthfulness of suspects, victims and informants. At the start of the article, Cuppari and Lewis discuss the evolution of different forms of lie detectors. These forms include; licking of hot iron, placing rice powder in the accused person’s mouth and sticking the accused’s hand in boiling water to the current use of polygraphs in determining whether or not an individual is lying. The authors argue that although the polygraph is structured to detect lies, its outcomes may be influenced by factors such as the techniques used by the examiner and population tested.
The primary argument in the article is that the accuracy of polygraph results relies on multiple factors such as the techniques used during the examination. For example, Cuppari and Lewis (2009) opine that assurance of the reliance of the test influences the accuracy of the results. The authors believe that if the polygraph examiner convinces the suspect that the test works, primarily through a pre-trial, then the outcomes of the test results can significantly be influenced.
Furthermore, the authors opine that the results of the polygraph are highly dependent on the population tested. Notably, Cuppari and Lewis (2009) echo the claims of Barto and Bartol that often, the polygraph tends to be accurate when used among suspects rather than victims, and in cases involving assault, robber, and rape crimes as opposed to property crimes. Therefore, the level of accuracy of the outcomes depends on the targeted population.
Analysis
Information from the article is highly informative and has significantly fostered my understanding of the limitations of the polygraph. As mentioned by Cuppari and Lewis (2009), the test may not entirely be accurate in all scenarios; there are instances when a polygraph may fail and lead to the conviction of the wrong individual as was the case of the Green River Killer in 1982. Notably, an innocent individual may fail the test, whereas the guilty party may pass a similar test. Analysis of such a scenario reveals that other factors such as mental processes and use of physical means by examinees may significantly affect and limit the accuracy of the test.
The highlighted information from the article conforms with prior research which suggests that the patterns analyzed in a polygraph may not necessarily signify deceptiveness among individuals, an aspect that limits the accuracy of the test. As observed by Synnott et al. (2015), polygraph practitioners often assume specific patterns of cardiovascular activity to be characteristics of psychological states such as deceptiveness, which may not always be the case. The authors emphasize that other factors, such as mental health and anxiety disorders may affect a person’s heart rate and the consequent polygraph results. As such, different circumstances, such as a person’s mental health may yield similar results as those of a guilty party, thus compromising the accuracy of a polygraph.
Based on information from the article and other literature, I opine that despite the polygraph being an ideal test in law enforcement, it cannot be used solely to determine the truthfulness of an individual. The tool should be supplemented with further investigation to establish whether or not a party if guilty. This opinion also implies that polygraph examiners and investigators must cooperate to determine the accuracy of the polygraph results.
References
Cuppari, M., & Lewis, J. (2009). The polygraph: the truth lies within. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 37(1), 85-92. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1177%2F009318530903700107
Synnott, J., Dietzel, D., & Ioannou, M. (2015). A review of the polygraph: history, methodology and current status. Crime Psychology Review, 1(1), 59-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
