Integrity View
COGNITIVE MEMORY DETECTION TEST
Take the test from home today
Higher than 94% accuracy
TAKE A TEST TODAY
IntegrityView© takes about 12 minutes + instructions, and you can take the test from home already today.
​
Fill in the form below, and choose a time you want to take the test. We create the test while you wait, and connect via Skype with you at the agreed time. Before the test is carried out, we ensure that the person to be tested is both tested for what you want the test to reveal, and we ensure that the test is carried out in the correct way.
​
You get the result directly after the test has been completed. Report will be sent after the test via encrypted e-mail.
For ordering other tests and general enquiries:
Order the IntegrityView infidelity test
You can take this test from home today, or when it suits you
In order to carry out a test, we need information to be able to construct the test. Since IntegrityView is a hypothesis test, we need more information than just the questions you/you want answers to. Be thorough and accurate when filling in all fields in the form. If you submit a form with incorrect information, or missing information, we will not be able to make the test for you. If there is a wrong letter in the e-mail address you leave, we may not be able to contact you.
If any of the fields have a red border, you must fill in the field correctly before it is possible to send the form to us.
Select the time (date and time) you want to take the test. (Calculate test 3 hours or more in time from you submit the form, unless otherwise agreed. It takes time to prepare the test , and we're probably busy with other tests. If it's urgent, tick the box below).
Tests are carried out from 10am - 8pm every day.
Select the time period we will test.
Select the time period we will test (FROM - TO)
If you choose the two bottom choices (2 and 3) two tests will cover all forms of physical adultery (including intercourse) and flirting, dating, sexual contact in social media, text messages, etc. If you only want a test that will cover as much as possible, choose option 3.
About IntegrityView
IntegrityView is a commercial and improved variant of the autobiographical Implicit Association (aIAT), Sartori et al., 2008.
aIAT builds on research carried out on, among others Implicit Association Test (IAT), (Greenwald et al., 1998) and research on the method, primarily carried out by_cc781905 -5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_University of Washington, University of Virginia, Harvard and Yale.
The IAT is a hypothesis test that is used, among other things, to determine a person's attitudes or bias (bias / prejudice that is stored in the subconscious part of the brain, of which the person is not aware).
Brian Nosek, Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji. The leading researchers behind IAT and Project Implicit. More than 20 million tests have been conducted in over 26 languages.
IntegrityView is response time (RT)-based and identifies the respondent's (testee's) true autobiographical memories of an event or intention in a cognitively challenging categorization and coordination task. _cc781905- 5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_
​
Experiences we humans have in everyday life are encoded into our brain cells where access to the various memories is routed as associations via neural networks. Med aIAT og IntegrityView er det mulig å identifisere hvilket av to motstridende hypoteser om en hendelse eller intensjon som er the true, imprinted memory in the respondent's brain.
Professor Guiseppe Sartori, University of Padova, Italy demonstrates in the picture a reliable ID test which is based on the same principles as aIAT / IntegrityView.
The IntegrityView method
The method behind IntegrityView / aIAT consists of a computerized categorization task. The test includes stimuli belonging to four categories, two of which are logical categories and are represented by neutral sentences that we know with certainty are always true for the respondent; For example: - "I'm doing a test", or which is always false for the respondent; - for example: "I am now in Greece".
​
The other two categories in the test are represented by two conflicting versions of an autobiographical event (e.g. I was in Paris on Christmas Eve, or I was in Norway on Christmas Eve), where one of the statements must be true , but only one statement can be true for the given case we are going to test. The true autobiographical event about where the person was on Christmas Eve is identified by pairing statements from all four categories in different combinations in the test. Pairing true neutral statements with the true memory of where the respondent was at Christmas is expected to yield faster reaction times than true pairings in the test neutral memories with the false hypothesis (about whereabouts on Christmas Eve).
Accuracy
Accuracy for aIAT / IntegrityView is 92% (all tests in all studies) and 94% for re-tests (same test performed again).
For tests achieving a score of D-aIAT > < 0.6 (ie all tests with scores higher than + 0.6 and - 0.6, aIAT / IntegrityView has achieved the following results:
Higher than 99% accuracy for people who are not trying to cheat.+
Higher than 99% accuracy for people who have tried to cheat but have not been trained in cheating.
93.5% accuracy for people who have been instructed to cheat at D-aIAT > 0.6.
* Note that the version of the test used to detect cheaters that collectively achieves 93.5% accuracy had an open algorithm that accepted extreme values. The version used today in IntegrityView has a closed algorithm that does not allow extreme values, resulting in an expected higher hit rate for trained cheaters than the 93.5% applicable to the open-ended test algorithm.
When the test uses a D-aIAT of 0.6 as a reference value, about 18% of the tests will achieve a score lower than D-aIAT 0.6. This will also depend on how good the instructions are given before the test and what is being tested.
aIAT has been accepted as evidence in the legal system under the Daubert Standard some 20 times. Most of the cases were high-profile murder cases, the aIAT was used to determine whether the accused / convicted had "criminal intent". That is, recalls whether the crime and the murder were planned or based on an impulsive act. One of the cases in which the test was used was a very large money laundering case against an accountant who claimed that he did not know that money he transferred was being laundered. A case was brought against the Anti-Doping Agency WADA in addition to several insurance cases which, among other things, were about alleged whiplash.
​
An early version of the aIAT had a small breakthrough when it was used in the "Spygate" case. The test helped identify who in Ferrari's Formula 1 racing team had handed over company secrets to McLaren. The test was used both on the main character and his wife, as well as to reveal whether several others were involved. In 2007, McLaren was sentenced to pay Ferrari 100 million dollars for industrial espionage. The test is also used by football clubs such as Chelsea, who have used the test to test new player purchases. For example, in relation to whether players hide injuries and age of players from Africa.
​
There is a comprehensive legal review of over 40 pages, as well as a court decision from the Trieste Court of Appeal in Italy stating that the aIAT complies with the Daubert standard of evidence. The test thus meets the strict requirements for evidence in countries that have adopted the new Daubert Standard for evidence, which is a far more scientific and stricter evidence standard than the evidence standard used in Norway. You can read more about the Daubert Standard HERE.
​
The pictures above show the accuracy achieved in a study where IntegrityView is modified as an ID test. The graph shows that the test clearly discriminates between those who provided a false ID and respondents who provided a true ID.
(Image above) Example of achieved accuracy for a 3-minute long portable ID test with IntegrityView ©
To ensure an accurate result, the test consists of 5 subtests (Block 1-5) in which the respondent must complete various pairings of statements as quickly as possible. The test has built-in algorithms to identify attempts on cheating.
There are more than 300 scientifically published articles dealing the theoretical framework on which the test is based, including studies on variants cc78190_cc790_ and IAT_cc790 of IAT 5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_Researchers have conducted over 20 million tests in 27 languages since 1998.
Unlike polygraph tests and EyeDetect which can test several questions in the same test, IntegrityView (aIAT) can only test one thematic, or one autobiographical memory per test. It is rarely possible to carry out more than 2-3 tests per person.
Studies have also documented that aIAT / IntegrityView is able to identify true autobiographical memories in people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's / demented people, even if the people themselves are not aware of or able to retrieve these memories themselves. These and other similar studies show that the IntegrityView test taps deeper into our brain than memories that we feel we have in waking consciousness.
​
This is because we believe the test is better suited than other known methods used to assess a person's credibility when, for example, testing questions about sleep rape. In those cases it often happens that the person accused of rape (correctly or incorrectly) claims that he cannot remember anything sexual happening, or claims that he woke up to having sex with the victim. The test will be able to show with greater accuracy than other methods whether the respondent had physical sexual contact with the victim, and whether sexual handlinger were voluntary. The most optimal thing in such cases is to combine polygraph tests with IntegrityView, where we can test both the suspect and the victim.
In the research studies on aIAT / IntegrityView, several studies have been carried out to test the limits of when the tests can/should be used, and in which situations the tests cannot/should not be used. When testing the limits of a test, some studies will naturally show lower accuracy, because the researchers test the limit - or above the limit - of what the test can give accurate answers about. The average accuracy given here also includes such studies. When the tests are only used on problems for which we know that the tests deliver high accuracy, one can also expect a higher average accuracy than is stated here.