Truster Truth Verifier University Evaluation

Truster Evaluation 
By Drs. Guy Van Damme,
Criminologist

July 1998 

An evaluation of Truster was made by myself and colleagues from our Academic Computer Sciences Department. 

1. Procedure followed. 

1.1 Stimulation tests. 
Fifty subjects were tested with the use of the figure stimtest. Each subject was asked to choose a number between one and ten. After the calibration period, the subject was asked to say "No, definitely not" towards each question ("Did you choose number X"?) Forty one subjects were found deceptive towards the number they chose, three subjects were deceptive towards three numbers, four subjects were deceptive towards a wrong number.

Statistically: 
Top
82% success rate
10% inconclusive
8% false 

1.2 Field Test 
Twenty five subjects were asked to tell us briefly what they did during the past day. This interview was us as the calibration period. We asked ten subjects to tell us a few definite lies when asked again to tell us the same story, fifteen subjects were asked to tell the absolute truth. From the ten subjects asked to lie, eight were found deceptive. From the fifteen asked to tell the truth, four were found deceptive.

Statistically: 

76% success rate 

1.3 Truster used during polygraph pre-test interview 
Seventeen subjects who came for polygraph tests were subjected to Truster during their pre-test interview (we used a Screen Ware amplified microphone). Six people
showed an indication of deception using Truster during their pre-test interview. The eleven subjects showing an indication of no-deception went also clean using Truster.

Statistically: 
Top
100% 

2. Summary 
All tests, apart from 1.3 were so called laboratory tests, meaning that the subjects were fully aware of being tested and had nothing to lose. The subjects tested during the pre-test interview were obviously stressed, knowing they were to undergo a polygraph examination. The 100% scoring rate should therefore be regarded as abnormally high. It is however interesting to see the same indications from the polygraph (we used Lafayette LX3000-SW) and from Truster. More extensive tests should be required to formulate an acceptable comparison. 

3. Negative points. 
As an academic exercise, Truster proved to be reasonable accurate. However, the following negative points (let us call it positive criticisms) were raised: 

3.1 Reports 
The reports given by Truster are very vague and do not include a statistic (percentage of deception etc.). It is understood that TrusterPro will include this facility. 

3.2 Calibration Period 
The calibration period is rather long. If the program is used on a subject over the telephone, the average period of twenty seconds needed for calibration will create a certain suspicion from the part of the subject. 
Top
4. Summary 
Truster is a very user friendly, affordable truth verification program. 

Truster should only be used as a certain form of an indication with doubt towards its results. 

However, as said above, it is extremely user friendly, easy to learn, affordable and reasonably accurate.