Title

This review aims to evaluate the diagnosticity (i.e. the ability to distinguish truthful from false or deceptive accounts) of contemporary information-gathering models in the current interrogation literature. Because heterogeneous designs and outcome reporting across interrogation studies preclude a single statistical index of diagnosticity that can be uniformly applied to all techniques, this study will be organized into three theory-driven functional clusters, or “levers,” – rapport/motivation, cognitive elicitation, and strategic evidence disclosure – to serve as an analytic framework to evaluate the diagnosticity of each technique. Each lever will be examined with respect to its theoretical mechanisms and empirical support with particular attention to systematic limitations that adversely affect overall diagnosticity. Finally, this study proposes a novel framework, CIRCLE (Case, Interview, Rapport-build, Cognitive/credibility-elicitation, Leverage evidence, and Evaluate) which will integrate components of modern information-gathering models to optimize diagnosticity while addressing current limitations.