I'll be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Computer Voice Stress Analyzers (CVSA). I've been a polygraph examiner for over 20 years now (although I have not administered a polygraph in over 10 years). I did a brief search, finding that most of the data is old and the vast majority did not find the CVSA to be consistently valid or reliable. Many would argue that this isn't much different than what research on polygraphs would show. As an examiner, I always felt like the polygraph was an excellent tool. Would I ever support using it in court? No, I wouldn't. That's not because I felt they weren't valid or reliable though. The instrument itself worked. The issue that I generally saw was with the examiner. Good examiners got valid and reliable results. The vast majority of polygraph examiners aren't good at their craft. They expect the instrument to do all of the work and don't fully understand how the science works, so they don't put the appropriate work in to the process. The best case, and easiest way to demonstrate this point, is with pre-employment polygraph. I've heard a number of examiners say somebody has failed a pre-employment polygraph, whether they were talking to background investigators, administrators, or the prospective candidate. Fact of the matter (unless something has changed in the past 20+ years) is though that the pre-employment test is a relevant-irrelevant test that you can't score, so there is no way to actually fail it. This does a huge disservice as it pushes a false narrative and can work to discredit the polygraph in the minds of somebody who "passes" the test while also knowing they were lying about something they were asked about. Does that mean the problem is with the instrument? My answer is obviously not. There is no issue with the instrument, it's the people who incorrectly administer it. I would think the same may be true with the CVSA. The instrument probably does what it is supposed to do, but it's dangerous in the hands of somebody who isn't skilled to use it properly... just like any tool. Virginia generally does a very good job in making sure practitioners are properly trained and that they pass an extensive examination to verify their skills. Problem is that most states (at least when I practiced regularly) don't have the same standards. I'd argue that this is one of the major issues with validity and reliability of the CVSA... it's the people and the lack of regulations that make it seem like a poor instrument. Whether you all approve it or not, this is a significant step in the right direction to gauge whether this instrument should be approved for use in Virginia. Not sure I've said anything to sway you one way or another, but I hope DPOR continues to bring credibility to our profession through the oversight you all provide.