Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[misty]

If another group of handlers and dogs took the same test the results could be completely different.

Does that indicate that the tests or the dog/handler are unreliable?

[Robittybob1]

I do not know
The question was why do YOU think it will be the same or similar?

I gave mine " Basically the same breeds are used, same anatomy, similar training methods I'd imagine (dogs rewarded for successful find".

it happens in the human population too.  If there is frustration a false alert could be raised.  I was thinking of unsolved crime.

[Mr Gray]

 

He says those handlers couldn't get past their expectation that drugs should be there. "I think they 'overworked' the car. Instead of going around once or twice and trusting their dog and watching their dog work, maybe they'd seen something that wasn't there," Helfers do


Could, this be what grime did in Luz....

[G-Unit]

The test has given an indication that handler bias plays a part in the alerts... Itis a significant result

In that test with those handlers and their dogs. It would only be significant if it was repeated with other teams and the same results were obtained.

[Mr Gray]

In that test with those handlers and their dogs. It would only be significant if it was repeated with other teams and the same results were obtained.

It is significant as it stands.... It is one piece of evidence....

[Sunny]

It is significant as it stands.... It is one piece of evidence....

As significant as Eddie's barks in Praia Da Luz. That was one piece of evidence IMO.

[Alice Purjorick]

I gave mine " Basically the same breeds are used, same anatomy, similar training methods I'd imagine (dogs rewarded for successful find".

it happens in the human population too.  If there is frustration a false alert could be raised.  I was thinking of unsolved crime.

So you believe all other variables are irrelevant? and only the dogs and handlers should be taken into consideration?

[G-Unit]

Does that indicate that the tests or the dog/handler are unreliable?

One study of 18 handlers and their dogs cannot be seen as significant when considering all handlers and their dogs.

[Mr Gray]

One study of 18 handlers and their dogs cannot be seen as significant when considering all handlers and their dogs.

It can when the error rate was so high.... And there is no data to contradict it.. It's significant... If it was replicated it would be highly significant.... But dog handlers seem not to want truly scientific  testing

[Robittybob1]

So you believe all other variables are irrelevant? and only the dogs and handlers should be taken into consideration?

No there could be other factors I haven't considered as yet.

[slartibartfast]

As significant as Eddie's barks in Praia Da Luz. That was one piece of evidence IMO.

Single tests are only reliable when they point in the direction of the posters interest.

[Mr Gray]

As significant as Eddie's barks in Praia Da Luz. That was one piece of evidence IMO.

But not in martin Grimes opinion

[Mr Gray]

Single tests are only reliable when they point in the direction of the posters interest.

Your problem is you can't show me a test that contradicts this....

[Mr Gray]

Single tests are only reliable when they point in the direction of the posters interest.

That's your opinion...

[Alice Purjorick]

Does that indicate that the tests or the dog/handler are unreliable?

Has anyone defined reliability in this context?
Or are we conflating reliablity and repeatability?