Mr. M.,

Thanks, I'm heading there as soon as I hit post.

Batman

Batman,

Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector covers both probable- and directed-lie versions of the CQT, the Relevant/Irrelevant technique, and provides a brief discussion of the GKT.

For further reading on the GKT, I recommend David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade: 1998). Chapter 20 covers the GKT.

PolyDop, Mr. R., Mr M.:

I've been following your discussion regarding this GQT testing format and I find it interesting, however I am somewhat ignorant as to how it is actually applied.  It seems there is  agreement that it is very useful in polygraph testing in the criminal investigative arena.  Since law enforcement is my profession, and I do utilize polygraph support, I would like to know more about the GQT.  I have found the better educated I am about the various investigative support techniques available to me the better assistance I can offer to those giving that support.  Where can I go to find out more specific information as to how the GQT is actually applied, or if one of you wouldn't mind, please explain how it works as compared to the Probable Lie Comparison Question techniques most examiners use.  If it is less suseptable to the use of countermeasures then I would like to be able to speak knowledgably about it when talking to the examiners I have occasion to work with, and maybe get them to attempt to use it.

Mr. M., I have downloaded the Lie Behind the Lie Detector and am reading it.  Just wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring your request that I do so from a previous posting.

Batman

Drew, Polycop,

Based on a review of chapter titles, the Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook, which sets forth the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's standardized techniques and procedures for conducting polygraph examinations, appears not to include the GKT among those standardized techniques.

Polycop,

Thank you for your reply.  I am glad to know that you are using the GKT and with some success.  Although I am preparing to leave town for a few days, I thought I'd comment on a couple of the issues you raise.  With regard to the 75 to 90 percent applicability that I referred to in my last post within this thread, that degree of applicability is (with the present division of labor) largely a function of your investigator's pre-test efforts, and unfortunately largely not affected by your creativity in the polygraph suite on the day of the exam.  That which will increase the percentage of cases for which you can apply this technique is a close working relationship with your investigator(s), he/they being aware and mindful of your needs in conducting this type of exam and your early involvement in the investigatory phase of the case.  

With regard to your hypothesis about only guilty examinees having a reason to countermeasure this type of exam, I believe you to be largely correct.  This, of course, is a function of there being a considerably smaller percentage of false positive results (can be made vanishingly small with a sufficient number of available GKT subject items) than exists say with a CQT exam used in a screening application.  Because you have the ability to protect an examinee from a false positive result with the GKT and not with the latter, an examinee and those who contribute to this site have less reason to be concerned with providing their own solution (countermeasures) to a concealed information test than with a CQT screening exam.  In essence, the solution (to countermeasure or not to countermeasure) is a function of the perceived need.  I don’t believe there is a need for an innocent examinee to utilize countermeasures with a properly administered concealed information test, and I don't recall having seen a discussion about such on this message board.  Have you?  Best till next week and have a pleasant holiday weekend,


Drew Richardson

Drew,

I have had good success with the GKT/CIT.  I do use that format as much as I can (a criminal investigation with at least three possible key questions).  However, due its lack of flexability, I also use ZCT and the AFMGQT (even R&I, mostly as a counter-countermeasure).  I admit that I prefer the GKT for all the expected reasons.  I can't say that I have used it in "80-90% of the cases" as you have posted, but I utilize that format enough to know that it is very viable and should be in much wider use.

As a sidelight, I have only run into one case of countermeasures on the GKT so far.  Additionally, my personal position is that on the GKT, more so than any other procedure, only the guilty would attempt point countermeasures.  After all, an innocent person SHOULD not know the key questions on a GKT and therefore would have no knowledge as where to apply the countermeasures.  Am I wrong?  If I am not wrong, then I would argue that if the administrators of this site were to attempt to school the prospective recipient of a GKT on physical countermeasures, they would be knowingly assisting a criminal in avoiding identification and capture.

What are your thoughts on this?

Polycop...

Polycop,

I am not quite sure how this thread has evolved from Nicole's original question to guilty knowledge tests, but since we have arrived here, I am happy to comment on a favorite topic—concealed information tests.  I'm glad to see your list of references--I hope that implies that you are amenable to and using concealed information tests.  Unfortunately most of your colleagues are only familiar (at best) with a Peak of Tension (POT) test used as a secondary test following some form of lie detection, usually a control question test.   There are several problems with this modus operandi.   

Although I prefer a standard Guilty Knowledge Test (and other formats when collecting CNS data) to a POT (the latter being unnecessarily confounded with the effects stemming from a known order sequence), a POT will work perfectly well following the necessary preparation.   The problems with the aforementioned scenario are as follows:  (1) The CQT is severely lacking in validity (a subject of countless previous threads) as a diagnostic tool, (2) that which is done to perform a CQT (interview, in-test, post test interrogation if done before the POT) may well reveal concealed information making it public information and unusable in a subsequent information-based exam, (3) If one is counting on a CQT as a primary format, one (the polygrapher/investigator team) will undoubtedly have not done the necessary upfront work to conduct an information-based examination.  It is likely that most investigators will need some additional training to properly recognize, record, and protect concealed information that is the basis for GKT/POT subject matter.  It is not enough to simply record that which tends to prove or disprove the elements of the crime.  Much valuable information would be lost with this limited approach.  In terms of protecting that which has been properly recognized and memorialized, obviously a press conference discussing the details of the investigation can't be given to announce an arrest (yes, I know, some of my former colleagues in the executive ranks of the FBI are the worst offenders).   And these are just the basics of the many considerations that would go into preparing the stage for a guilty knowledge test examination.   

I believe there are tremendous benefits to using concealed information tests (a subject for another lengthy post).  If the necessary and unquestionably worthwhile upfront work is done, I believe these types of exams can be used in 75 to 90 percent of all criminal matters investigated by law enforcement.   I hope that you are using the format and further hope that I have not insulted you by pointing out the above basic considerations.  I presume from your familiarity with the literature that you are more likely than most to be aware of these issues, but clearly many of your colleagues are not.  If you have used or are using concealed information tests, I would like to hear of your experiences.   

Drew Richardson

Polycop,

Your list of references, while perhaps useful to some readers, doesn't really speak to the opinion of the majority of the scientific community regarding the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). A more useful measure is Iacono & Lykken's survey (published in 1997) of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) and fellows of Division One (General Psychology) of the American Psychological Association (APA). Of 214 SPR members who received survey forms, 91% returned them. As for the APA fellows, 226 were sent survey forms and 74% returned them.

When asked "Would you say that the GKT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" 77% of the SPR members and 72% of the APA fellows replied, "Yes."

It should be borne in mind that the GKT technique is little used in North America. Instead, the mainstay of American (and Canadian) polygraph operators is the so-called "Control" Question "Test" (CQT). When asked "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" only 36% of SPR members and 30% of APA fellows replied, "Yes."

And again, with regard to the CQT, 99% of the SPR members agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's responses to the control questions" and 92% of the APA fellows replied "Yes" when asked, "Are criminals and spies likely to beat the CQT?"

For further reading on this survey, see:

Iacono, W.G. and D.T. Lykken, "The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82, 426-33.

Lykken, D.T. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998. Chapter 12: "Surveys of Scientific Opinion of the 'Lie Detector,'" pp. 175-88.

I'm sorry to have been out of commision for so long, boys and girls. It took 3 weeks to get a new modem and I've had a lot of catching up to do. I don't have much to contribute at the moment due to time constraints, but I felt compelled to add two items to this thread.

First, to Nicole (who authored the first post of the thread): You may find it interesting that the website www.voicestress.org exists to bash the threatening "pseudo-science" of Voice Stress Analysis testing. The bashers? Why, the fine people engaged in the pseudo-science of polygraphy. 

Second and lastly, that is an impressive list of periodicals and publications "supporting" the validity of polygraphy. Are there no writings to be found that are less than eleven years old? And since I have no access to the content of these articles, I can only assume from titles such as " Replacing the CQT by the GKT" that there would be little content regarding any validity of the test whatsoever...or at the very least that the GKT had a slightly better chance of "lie detection" than the CQT. To be fair, try visiting this link: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0900/091100nj.htm. I don't want to plagiarize so I'll leave the reading to you. In a nutshell, the AMA states that, regarding polygraphy, "more research is needed, and until additional studies are completed, testing "shouldn't be undertaken in the private or public sector." Also, the Polygraph Validity Advisory Panel found that the polygraphs' ability to detect lies was only slightly better than random chance, and that errors were possible. 

Be back soon!

Quote:


A VALID and SCIENTIFIC use of the polygraph...

REFERENCES:

Barland, G.H., and Raskin, D.C., (1975), An evaluation of field techniques in detection of deception.  Psychophysiology, 12, 321-330.  
 

Ben-Shakhar, G (1991).  Future Prospects of Psychophysiological Detection: Replacing the CQT by the GKT.  Advances in Psychophysiology, In P.K. Ackles, J.R. Jennings and M.G.H. Coles (eds), (Vol.4), London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd. 194.

Forman, R.F., and McCauley, C., (1986).  Validity of the Positive Control Test using the field practice model.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136.

Furedy, J. J. and Heslegrave, R. J. (1991).  The Forensic Use of the Polygraph: A Psychophysiological Analysis of Current Trends and Future Prospects.  In P.K. Ackles, J.R. Jennings and M.G.H. Coles (eds), Advances in Psychophysiology, (Vol.4), London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers LTD. 157-186.   

Honts, C.R., and Hodes, R.L., (1982).  The effects of multiple physical countermeasures on the detection of deception.  Psychophysiology, 19, 564 (abstract).

Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., and Hodes, R.L., (1988).  Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception.  Journal of Police Science and Administration, 2, 91-94.

Iacono, W. G., and Patrick, C.J. (1988). Assessing Deception: Polygraph Techniques. In R. Rogers (Ed), Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception,  New York: Guilford Press, 206-227.

Lykken, D. T. (1959).  The GSR in the detection of guilty.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385-388

Lykken, D. T. (1974).  Psychology and the Lie Detector Industry, American Psychologist, October 1974, 728.

Lykken, D. T. (1985).  The Probity of Polygraph.  S.M. Kassin & L.S. Wrightsman (ed), The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, Beverly Hills, Ca:  Sage Publications Inc. 95-98 

Lykken, D.T. (1988).  Detection of Guilty Knowledge: A Comment on Forman and McCauley.  Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (2), 303-304.  

Office of Technology Assessment (1983).  Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A research review and evaluation -- a technical memorandum (OTA-TM-H-15).  Washington D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.

Raskin, D.C. (1986).  The Polygraph in 1986: Scientific, Professional and Legal Issues Surrounding Application and acceptance of Polygraph Evidence, Utah Law Review, University of Utah College of Law. No. 1, 50.

Raskin, D.C., & Kircher, J.C., (1991).  Comments on Furedy and Hesslegrave:  Misconceptions, Misdescription, and Misdirections.  Advances in Psychophysiology, In P.K. Ackles, J.R. Jennings and M.G.H. Coles (eds), London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers LTD.  216-219.  

Polycop...

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Jul 1^st, 2002 at 8:09am:


JB, the tone of my last post was somewhat harsh, but here I must sincerely ask you what the above sentence means. 

Quote:


False. For the majority of law enforcement candidates, the polygraph is an insurmountable obstable that lies between them and their chosen career. 'PDD Fed' himself proudly used words to that effect in one of his most recent posts. [paraphrasing] "I have something they want-- a job. If they're going to have it, they have to get through me..." THAT is the power-- playing tin god over the lives of people who only wish to serve the public in the career of their choosing. I think any reasonable person could read the hubris in 'PDD Fed's posting. They think themselves final arbiters, judge, jury, and executioner over the applicant's employment-- unfortunately rightfully so.

From the tone set on this board, as well as interviews and commentary one sees with regularity on the televised news with regard to the flurry of polygraphs being given in the Elizabeth Smart case, the recent Frank Horvath debacle, the Las Vegas terrorist story, etc., the polygraphers are working furiously-- to the point of flat out lying about the application and accuracy of polygraphs in criminal investigations-- to promote the lie behind the lie detector. The are desperate to maintain power. Yes, many polygraphers in the public sector are also investigators/detectives. I have no first-hand knowledge but I would suspect being qualified as both a detective *and* as a polygrapher would warrant a higher pay grade. Wouldn't you think that's a reasonable assumption? So, if the polygraph was abolished tomorrow those persons would lose a part of their income. They might return to their various investigative tasks and be excluded from high-profile murder, arson, rape, and other shocking crime investigations in which the polygraph is regularly used. That would be a reduction of the person's prestige and power, wouldn't it?

Quote:


If I make an observation (and as long as others see fit to ridicule/comment upon/be insulted by my writing style), your imperious, dispassionate tone is used to force a sense of neutrality in the argument but lacks verisimilitude.

Quote:


In which of these settings is the polygraph as it is currently used acceptable, JB? You accuse me of inductive reasoning because:

1. I suffered at the hands of two polygraphers
2. I read and was outraged by the personal statements on this website
3. I read, observed, and was outraged by the falsehoods the polygraph community puts forth concerning their profession
4. I recognized the clash between Constitutionally-protected civil liberties and the way the judicial system has been seduced to use the polygraph as a 'monitoring' device as well as a clearing-house type tool in including/excluding suspects in criminal investigations*

From these experiences, as well as my discussions with Dr. Richardson, the reading of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector as well as several of the texts cited in the bibliography, I draw the conclusion that polygraphy as it is known by and large in the United States is an abomination and deserves my contempt.

Quote:


Regardless of the accuracy of any of the testing formats noted above, it is my understanding that they al ALL vulnerable to countermeasures. 

Quote:


The polygraph is not science, JB.

Quote:


'Sound theory' of the GKT and how the polygraph is currently used are vastly different topics.

Quote:


The majority of the scientific community supports the theory that the GKT is what?

Quote:


Is this your supporting argument that polygraphy is a true science?

beech trees,

My words are not meant to convey a demand for compromise.  I simply was pointing to the majority of differing, or lack there of, opinions on both sides. 

For many examiners in the public sector, polygraph has no such money and/or power.  In fact, if polygraph were gone tomorrow, most public examiners would still have a job absent polygraph.

I did not convey any ill feelings specifically toward one or the other sides’ tone.  Some of the pro-polygraph tone is disheartening to me as much as the anti.  Not all of the dialog on either side but some.  I find no meaningful discourse in the batting of words back and forth.  It is rather nothing more then a non-productive school yard taunting type of an atmosphere when such a dialogue continues.  

You seem to want to categorize polygraph into one issue.  Polygraph has many facets.  It may be used in a specific issue criminal, administrative, and/or pre-employment type setting.  Polygraph has many different available testing formats.  It may be conducted in a Relevant/Irrelevant, Probable Lie, Directed Lie, Hybrid, Guilty Knowledge, Peak of Tension, Searching and/or Peak of Tension type format.  You speak of polygraph being unscientific as a whole.  This is simply not a true statement at all.  In fact, Drew has even talked about the sound theory that the GKT is based on.  The majority of the scientific community also supports this theory.  You speak of the basis of true science.  What science is that?  There again are many different facets of science and I know of no absolutes.  

You speak against pro polygraph posters and again use an all encompassing tone.  There has been much open dialogue on this site.  There has not always been personal attacks against one or the other side by everyone.  Your distaste for the argument of authority is echoed repeatedly and I concur.  I agree that this argument is quite poor in the face of facts presented.  Ones authority has nothing to do with a documented fact or study that (s)he puts forth.  However, when one asserts an opinion on various topics not supported by documented facts, some arguments that would otherwise be meaningless do present themselves to be logically used.

I strongly believe that when one has reached a point that his/her view is despotic to all others, regardless of what the facts and/or reasonable information presented, (s)he has ceased to be able to further grow in the knowledge of life.

Drew,

Sorry for the delay in answering on this thread.  My last post was merely to suggest, as you eluded to, one should look at all the differing views.  I think the one sided perspectives can be seen in some form on both the anti and pro sites.  I do not question the implications that some pro and possibly anti sites monitor and/or censor posts and/or various other information.  I think interested readers should decide how much weight they give any information provided.  They might look to that which is supported by referenced material.  In addition, one might look at the referenced material in its entirety to ensuring that the entire portion of that material referenced is factually asserted with that portion purported. 

As for the wealth of both provided and interactive information about polygraph, I must admit that this is hands down the best site to visit for such information.  I have not heard a pro or anti polygraph person who has not agreed with the prior statement.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 30^th, 2002 at 12:16am:


Priceless! Do continue posting Eastwood-- sometimes the discussions here become quite complex; your rapier wit and simple[ton] sense of humour really brighten my day. I hope you won't think me too bold but as a courtesy, I have already prepared your retort for you below. Merely choose which one you think is best and quote it:

A. Your momma
B. Polygraphs rule!
C. You guys suck
D. Oh man when these polygraph guys I know get you in their chairs *then* you'll be in big b i g BIG trouble!

bleech trees (another alternate spelling for your consideration)

God what a bunch of losers.

Eastwood,

A number of years ago, David Lykken shared a bit of wisdom with me that he had come to realize over many years.  He told me that as a critic of polygraphy and one who neither sought clientele (victims of polygraph abuse and error) and one who did not receive recompense for any services provided, that I would only be able to measure any degree of short term success from two sources: the thanks received from those whom I have helped and the bluster of those I oppose.  I do thank you for contributing in a small way to my sense of self worth.   Although probability would indicate that my general academic and specific scientific background (basis for examining the diagnostic value of various polygraph applications and formats) would match or exceed yours, for a variety of reasons to include poor taste and a lack of relevance, I have not insisted upon you revealing your identity or providing a curriculum vitae in order to merit further discussion with me.  The overriding consideration is that any of the dozen or so topics that I have discussed in my roughly forty posts can be further discussed or debated based on the merits of the topics themselves independent of our individual pedigrees.  I would appreciate the same consideration and courtesy from you and be quite happy to continue to engage you and others on such terms.  Perhaps you might care to begin with one of the posts I made yesterday.  Regards,

Drew Richardson

Eastwood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2002 at 7:31pm:


A correction, "eestwood": Dr. Richardson has never claimed to be an 'expert'. When asked, he has given a brief overview of his CV and then simply answers whatever question is posed to him in a factual, unassailable manner. Had you taken even a moment to read Dr. Richardson's credentials you would realize just how moronic your attacks are. Take a look at my personal quote below, you could learn a great deal from the message.

Quote:


At least it's a polite request, but for the moment I decline. 

Kisses,

dave

Eastwood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2002 at 7:31pm:


Eastwood,

Beech Trees merely pointed out that Dr. Richardson has already answered your question (whether he had ever administered a polygraph examination) elsewhere on this message board, and he pointed you to that response. What more do you expect to hear from Dr. Richardson?

If you're curious about his credentials, you might take a look at his 1997 opening statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts and his 2001 presentation before the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee. Dr. Richardson's credentials as a polygraph expert are unassailable.

As a group, the malcontents all answer for each other - I ask Drew Richardson to give us some info about his background, and what makes him the "expert" he claims to be, and "beachtrees" answers for him.  He's a big boy, BT, sit down and be quiet please.

Anonymous_Observer wrote on Jun 28^th, 2002 at 9:07pm:


Dear Anonymous (but apparently not disinterested) Observer,

If you truly believe that the information being provided here doesn't help, but can only hurt, individuals who read it and employ countermeasures, then why don't you accept Dr. Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge?

What are you polygraph chart rollers afraid of? Your reluctance to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge is strong evidence that:

1) Despite your public representations to the contrary, you privately believe that countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector do work, and...

2) You do not truly believe that you can detect these countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2002 at 5:40am:


Dr. Richardson has already responded to the above repeated lie in another thread, but I will briefly quote it in part here for those with short attention spans:

Although not so, I truly do wish that what you have stated were correct.  To my chagrin, I must shamefully admit that I did conduct a handful of CQT polygraph exams in connection with Bureau field cases following the completion of DoDPI's basic examiner course.   I must further admit that I did this knowingly and willingly and did so fully aware (as a result of my DoDPI training and experience) of polygraphy’s theoretical shortcomings...

More lies, damnable lies..... have you no sense of decency, polygraphers?

Wow, quite a statement to make about Drew Richardson.  The resident "expert" in the FBI and he never conducted a test?  Is that really true?  Even I find this difficult to believe, after all, he's frequently quoted as the "chief of the FBI research program".
I'll be fair and let Drew respond.

Anonymous_Observer,

I’m glad to see we can rely on the polygraph community to continue the litany of grammatically deficient and substantively vacuous posts.

Newbie, what I see is that the information being provided does't help anyone, it can only hurt those who try to beat an exam, particularly if they get caught trying, which makes wonder what they did they want to hide from.  I sure see people who have failed their tests for whatever reason and are trying to make themselves self proclaimed experts in a profession that the only experience they seem to have in it is failing their test.  Then I see this guy Richardson proclaimed to be the FBI's top examiner but every FBI Examiner I know and I know them all claim he never even ran an exam for the FBI cause they wouldn't let him.  I must question the credibility of this entire web site.  The poor folks who ask these guys are getting really bad advice.  It is amusing to watch this though.

JB,

Your post reeks of 'compromise'. The gist of it seems to say that because of the stance many of us take here (simply put, that polygraphy is a psuedo-scientific fraud with no more validity than phrenology, tarot-card reading, or the gazing at entrails), we are somehow allowing our emotions to carry us away, leaving us immovable or closed to reasonable debate from the other side (of which they, curiously, have a two-pronged interest in furthering their own agenda-- money and power). 

My stance, as noted above, is grounded in the LACK of scientific evidence coming from your side as well as a knowledge of the basis of true sciences. When asked to produce scientific evidence, your side castigates the questioner, invokes specious, crass retorts, employs character assasination, simply clams up and says words to the effect, "I can't tell you, it's a secret", or perhaps worst of all, wrap themselves in a mantle of self-righteous piety because they are involved in the enforcement of laws-- as if such an occupation makes them above reproach and unanswerable to the rest of the populace.

Open debate has yet to occur here, but should it somehow begin one day, it could continue from that point until our Sun becomes a Red Giant and envelopes our planet in its Chromosphere. Such debates will never alter the incontravertible fact that polygraphy is not science, is not based on sound scientific principles, and will never be so. Even the suggestion that an astoundingly complex human being could be mind-read through the monitoring of four physiological output (three of which are trifling easy to control) is outrageous in premise. The fact that such suggestions have evolved into a lucrative, powerful industry-within-an-industry resulting in the ruination of careers, families, reputations, and the waste of millions of dollars should anger and motivate anyone with a brain and a heart to speak out against such a travesty. 

Your soothing tones of compromise, acquiescence, and moderation strike me as sophmoric. Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.-- Barry Goldwater

If you don't like the tone of the discourse here, speak to the likes of 'PDD Fed', 'Batman', Polycop', et.al.