question named someone. All 20 of these suspects were later verified as truthful. On the
other hand, of the remaining 21 suspects who did not give a name, 10 were later verified
as truthful and 11 as deceptive. Therefore, although naming a suspect resulted in a 100%
TABLE 11.6 Single-Suspect Case Accuracy with “Inconclusives” Considered as Errors
Ground zero
Truthful assessments
Deceptive assessments
Inconclusives
20 truthful
20 (100% Accuracy)
0 (0% F/P)
0
52 deceptive
50 (96% Accuracy)
0 (0% F/N)
2 (3%)
174
11. THE VALIDATION OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (FAINT)
TABLE 11.7 Evaluators’ Distribution of Scores for Single-Issue Suspect Cases
Prediction of accuracy
Score
Evaluators’ determination
100
22
T
100
19
T
100
15
T
100
14
T
100
13
TT
100
10
TTTT
100
9
TT
100
7
T
Truthful
þ3
100
3
TTT
Deceptive
þ2
96
2
D
96
1
DD
96
0
D
96
1
TD
98
2
TD
100
3
DDD
100
4
DDDDD
100
5
DDDDDDDD
100
6
DDDDDD
100
7
DD
100
8
DDDDDDDD
100
9
DDD
94
10
D
100
11
DDDD
100
12
DD
100
14
D
100
16
DD
100
18
D
11. THE VALIDATION OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (FAINT)
175
correlation to truthful final outcome, not naming a suspect offered no value for predicting
the suspect’s involvement in the crime.
Based on an answer’s predictability, a number was assigned derived from standard
deviations in a reliability test. If the answer predicted a truthful outcome, it received a
positive number, and a negative number if it was predictive of a deceptive outcome,
as follows:
3 standard deviations
3
2 standard deviations
2
1 standard deviation
1
The criterion used to weight the answers was the reliability of the question’s answer in
predicting final ground zero truth or deception. For example, when asked in employee-
related cases, “How do you like working here?” 21 suspects gave positive answers without
hesitation, and without any adaptors or coding of the question. Of these 21 suspects, 19
were verified as truthful and 2 were verified as deceptive. This meant that answering a
question in this manner had a 90% correlation to a truthful outcome. On the other hand,
14 suspects gave negative answers to this question. Of this group, 7 were verified truthful
suspects and 7 were verified deceptive suspects. This meant that answering this question
in a negative manner had a 0% correlation to actual case outcome. In the weighted scoring
system, answering this question in the manner associated with a truthful suspect now
receives a þ3. Answering it in a negative manner is now scored a 0.
Table 11.8 shows each question asked, the criteria used for analysis, their predictability to the final outcome, and the score assigned for the criteria in the weighted scoring system.
A new panel of four independent evaluators who had also completed the FAINT semi-
nar and were taught the new weighted system blindly reassessed the interviews of the same
51 suspects using the new weighted criteria (Appendix B). These four evaluators correctly
solved 90% of the 22 cases they reviewed, with no “inconclusive” assessments (Table 11.9).
Using the weighted method, of the 124 truthful assessments, 120 were correctly assessed
truthful, resulting in a 97% overall accuracy rate of assessments of truthful suspects. Of the
80 deceptive assessments, 72 were correctly assessed to be deceptive, resulting in a 90%
overall accuracy rate of the deceptive suspects. One deceptive assessment was inconclusive.
Thus, overall accuracy for the 204 decisions made was 94%, with the 1 inconclusive counted
as an incorrect decision. Tables 11.10 and 11.11 and the discussion describe the nature and extent of the improvement in accuracy.
The distribution of the evaluator’s numerical scores in the 51 cases assessed using
weighted scores indicated an assessment score of a þ7, or higher, would be 91% accurate
for determinations of truthfulness, and an assessment score of a þ4, or lower, would be
91% accurate for determinations of deception (Table 11.12).
The accuracy in the 15 cases involving the 18 suspects in single-suspect crimes for
this subset of FAINT interviews was 99%, when the one inconclusive was eliminated and
96% when it was included and counted as an error. There were no false positives, and
one false negative. As pointed out previously, the truthful suspect group was small; how-
ever, all 5 of these innocent suspects were assessed truthful by all four evaluators. Two of
the evaluators assessed all 13 of the guilty suspects to be deceptive, one evaluator assessed]
176
TABLE 11.8 Evaluations of Responses and Their Ability to Predict Final Outcome
Predictability
Predictability
QUESTION ASKED:
CRITERIA USED:
Truthful
Deceptive
How do you like
Positive Answer/No Hesitation Adaptors Coding
working there?
(Great/Love It/Good/Like it)
11.
*Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
THE
19
7
2
7
21
90
14
50
þ3
0
VALID
What is this about?
Strong Language (Steal/Theft/Rape)
ATION
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
OF
8
4
1
16
9
88
20
80
þ2
2
THE
Medium Language (Missing)
FORENSIC
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
17
3
20
85
ASSESSM
þ2
Why were you
Includes Self as Suspect
selected to be
ENT
interviewed?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
INTERVIEW
18
12
5
12
23
78
24
50
þ1
0
How do you feel
Positive Answer with No Hesitation/No Adaptors (Fine/Okay/Alright)
about being
(FAINT)
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
interviewed?
16
14
4
15
20
80
29
51
þ2
0
Write in detail what
Explains Crime with Strong Language/Pronouns
this is about
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
28
3
8
12
36
77
15
80
þ1
2
Did you ever think
No Hesitation Adaptors
about doing something
like this?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
26
5
9
9
35
74
14
64
þ1
1
Did you do it?
No Hesitation/No Adaptors
11.
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
THE
27
4
10
8
37
72
12
66
VALID
þ1
1
Who would you
ATION
suspect?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
OF
20
10
11
20
100
21
52
þ
THE
3
0
FORENSIC
Who would you
vouch for?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
21
9
5
6
26
80
15
40
ASSE
þ2
0
SSMENT
What should happen
Strong Punishment (Fired/Prosecution)
to the person?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
INTERVIEW
27
4
5
14
32
84
18
77
þ2
1
Would you give them a
“No” with No Hesitation
(FAINT)
second chance?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
24
7
4
15
28
85
22
68
þ2
1
What will investigation
Positive Answer
show concerning you?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
20
9
3
15
23
87
24
62
177
þ2
1
Continued
178
TABLE 11.8 Evaluations of Responses and Their Ability to Predict Final Outcome Cont’d
Predictability
Predictability
QUESTION ASKED:
CRITERIA USED:
Truthful
Deceptive
Any reason for evidence
“No” with No Hesitation Hedges
against you?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
11.
24
7
5
13
29
83
20
65
THE
þ2
1
VALID
Willing to chip in so
investigation could be
ATION
dropped?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
23
3
2
5
25
92
8
62
þ3
1
OF
THE
Did you tell anyone you
would be interviewed?
FORENSIC
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
10
2
12
2
22
45
4
50
0
0
ASSESSM
Why do you think
Negative/Condescending/I don’t know
someone would do this?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
ENT
18
13
5
10
23
78
23
43
INTERVIEW
þ1
0
Do you think it was
deliberate or accidental?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
(FAINT)
16
7
1
7
17
94
14
50
þ3
0
If you had 3 questions to
Strong Q: Did you do it?
ask what would they be?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
7
3
6
11
72
13
46
þ1
0
Do you know for sure
“No” with No Hesitation
who did it?
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
15
2
3
1
18
83
3
33
þ2
0
Did you lie about
“No” with No Hesitation
whether you did this?
11.
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
THE
20
3
2
6
22
91
9
66
VALID
þ3
1
Should I believe you?
Plus: Didn’t Lie/Told Truth/Didn’t Do It
ATION
Truthful þ
Truthful
Deceptive þ
Deceptive
%
%
OF
13
7
1
4
14
93
11
36
þ
THE
3
0
FORENSIC
Willing to return?
EVERYONE ANSWERED “YES”
*Answers coded in black represent responses generally considered to be indicative of truthfulness, and those color coded gray are considered to be indicative of deception. Numbers on the far right coded in black represent the question’s predictability to ground zero truth, and those color coded in gray represent the question’s predictability to ground zero deception, along with the ASSE
appropriate weighting.
SSMENT
INTERVIEW
(FAINT)
179
180
11. THE VALIDATION OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (FAINT)
TABLE 11.9 Cases Solved by Evaluators Using FAINT Weighted Scoring System
Cases Solved: 90%
Evaluator:
1
2
3
4
86%
91%
86%
95%
TABLE 11.10 Accuracy of Evaluators Using the FAINT Weighted Scoring System
Ground zero
Truthful
Inconclusive
Deceptive
124 truthful
120
0
4 (3% F/P)
80 deceptive
7 (8% F/N)
1
72
TABLE 11.11 Scores and Assessments Made by Evaluators Using the FAINT Weighted
Scoring System
Case
Type
Ground zero
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
1 1
Theft
D
D/0
D/0
D/3
D/1
1 2
T
T/5
T/24
T/30
T/17
1 3
T
T/12
T/26
T/28
T/19
2 1
Theft
T/13
T/29
T/15
T/22
T/14
2 2
T/11
T/16
D/14
T/17
T/7
2 3
T/14
T/20
T/23
T/20
T/16
2 4
D/2
D/ 19
T/18
D/14
D/3
2 5
T/11
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 25