Accuracy is the first question almost everyone asks, and it deserves a straight answer rather than a sales pitch. EyeDetect® is 86-88% accurate on validated question sets. Well-administered polygraph testing reports figures in a similar range. Nothing available to a private client in the UK is 100% accurate.
What matters just as much is what that percentage means, and what makes a real-world test more or less reliable than the number on a brochure.
An accuracy figure of 86-88% describes how often the method reaches the correct conclusion across a large number of validated examinations. It is not a confidence score for your individual result, and it does not mean 12-14% of results are random.
It also means errors run in both directions. A truthful person can occasionally be scored as deceptive, and a deceptive person can occasionally pass. That is precisely why a result should be treated as strong evidence rather than proof, and why we put the accuracy figure in every report.
The single biggest factor is the questions. Specific, factual, single-issue questions produce reliable data; vague or compound questions produce noise. A test asking "since January, have you had sexual contact with anyone other than your partner" is answerable. "Have you ever been unfaithful in any way" is not.
Beyond that: the person should be rested, sober and not in acute crisis; the environment should be quiet and free of interruptions; and the examination should be a properly validated format rather than an improvised question list.
Severe sleep deprivation, intoxication, some medications, certain eye conditions, acute mental health crisis, and testing someone under real pressure from a partner or employer all degrade the result. So does asking too many unrelated questions in one sitting.
We run a short suitability check before every appointment for this reason. If a test is unlikely to produce a reliable result, we would rather tell you on the phone than take a booking.
Sometimes the data does not support a clear conclusion — poor concentration, insufficient valid responses, or a question that did not work as intended. That is reported honestly as inconclusive rather than dressed up as a pass or a fail.
Where an inconclusive result is caused by something fixable, your examiner will discuss retesting with you and explain what would need to change.
The most useful way to treat a result is as strong independent evidence to weigh alongside everything else you know, not as a verdict that ends all thought. Decide before the test what a truthful and a deceptive result would each mean for you, and you will get far more out of the day.
No. EyeDetect® is 86-88% accurate and no credibility test available anywhere is perfect. Any provider claiming 100% is misleading you.
It is possible but uncommon. Errors in both directions are what the accuracy figure describes. Good question design, a rested participant and a quiet environment all reduce the risk.
Ordinary nerves do not. EyeDetect® measures involuntary eye behaviour linked to the mental effort of deception rather than general physical arousal, which makes it less sensitive to nervousness than a polygraph.
We report it as inconclusive and explain why. Where the cause is fixable, your examiner will talk you through retesting.
Some can. Tell your examiner about any medication during the suitability check and they will advise before you book.
Neither method is automatically admissible in UK courts, so accuracy alone does not decide the question. Take legal advice on how a report might be used in your case.
Services · Pricing · How it works · Book a test · Contact