This technique is highly suspect until there are many verifications. See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin

This technique is highly suspect until there are many verifications. See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... The improvement from 48% (no AIM) to 81% is encouraging, but with a sample size of 104, this is far from the number needed to accept the findings. Especially in cases where you are interviewing one person and you have no prior probability of them lying, a 19% error rate is far too high to be useful.