Rejoinder to commentary on Palmatier and Rovner (2015): Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity

• Together documents in this series show a consensus regarding polygraph's viability.
• A direction for polygraph research is found in Preliminary Process Theory (PPT).
• Ideological belief, and not science, impedes robust theoretical development.
• Comments fail to establish an empirically-based argument against a common construct.
• At a construct level, stimulus significance, and not deception, dictates OR magnitude.

We briefly review comments submitted in response to the target article in this series (Palmatier & Rovner, 2015) arguing that a scientifically defensible construct for the instrumental assessment of credibility (i.e. polygraph) may be found in Barry's Preliminary Process Theory (PPT). Our review of the relevant scientific literature discovered a growing body of converging evidence, particularly from the neurosciences that focus not only on deception, but more broadly on memory, emotion, and the orienting response (OR), leading to this conclusion. After reviewing the submitted comments, we are further convinced, especially as applied scientists, that at this time the most viable direction forward is in the context of the PPT. Concurrently, we candidly acknowledge that research must be conducted to address not only commentator concerns but, if warranted, modification of existing theory. Although disagreement continues to exist regarding the order in which questions are asked, the most significant finding, is perhaps that not a single commentator argues against this growing, and vital applied science (i.e., the instrumental assessment of credibility — polygraph).