Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 23 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2005 at 7:53pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
DarkCobra2005,

Links to, and excerpts from, the relevant articles are provided in the first two posts of the message thread, FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%.
Posted by: polyfool
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2005 at 6:13pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George, 

Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2005 at 8:20am
  Mark & Quote
Polyfool,

The 20% FBI pre-employment polygraph failure rate dates back to 1997, and is documented in a letter by then Laboratory Division director Donald M. Kerr. This letter may be reviewed in HTML and PDF formats, respectively, here:

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/kerr-letter.shtml

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/kerr-letter.pdf

Post 9-11, it seems clear that the failure rate increased dramatically. As I mentioned earlier, the 50% figure is taken from on-the-record remarks by senior FBI officials. DarkCobra2005 chooses to disbelieve these officials because the FBI hasn't published any "research" on its polygraph failure rate. But I don't see any compelling reason to discount their word, as they were in positions to know and had little conceivable motive to lie. Moreover, "research" is not required to calculate an agency's polygraph failure rate: it's an elementary school-level math problem.
Posted by: polyfool
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2005 at 2:50am
  Mark & Quote
darkcobra2005 wrote on Sep 4th, 2005 at 2:35am:
My only comment would be, there is no "research" that indicates 50% are disqualifed by polygraph.  There may be a Computer Criminal History check or a Computer Credit Check and some may be disqualifed prior to a polygraph.  I don't know, so I may really be in error here, it just does not sound correct to me that 50% fail polygraph examinations.  I may just be ignorant and if so please forgive. 


I would agree there is no research that indicates the percentage of FBI applicants who fail the poly, but there should be, it's obviously a problem. I don't know what kind of checks the FBI conducts on applicants before the poly or if all of that is done afterwards, assuming of course, the applicant passes? I would think it would at least look at the background forms the applicant fills out for any possible problems before the applicant is extended a conditonal job offer--at least that was the case for me. 
Posted by: polyfool
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2005 at 2:17am
  Mark & Quote
darkcobra2005 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2005 at 9:21pm:
50% of applicants for the FBI are disqualified by polygraph?  I believe that about 50% of applicants are disqualifed because of indescresions in their backgrounds, not on the basis of polygraph only.  These figures are being pulled out of thin air, not being researched totally.  Yes people are diqualifed from law enforcement jobs based on polygraph findings, however the polygraph findings are not the only reason for the disqualification in all cases. 



Dark Cobra: 

The FBI doesn't conduct background investigations until the applicant passes a polygraph. Half of FBI applicants who receive conditional job offers don't receive official hire dates, that's why the FBI extends offers to two applicants for every job opening--primary and alternate-- AND THE JOB MAY STILL GO UNFILLED. 

If the agency doesn't give the go ahead for the background until the applicant passes the poly, then it would seem quite feasible based on the FBI's on hiring practices, that indeed, 50 percent are being disqualified based on the poly alone. The FBI admits to a 20 percent failure rate. The agency should be ashamed to screen applicants using a procedure with a 20 percent failure rate--that's atrocious. It's obvious there's a problem with poly screening, as you wouldn't expect 20 percent of the "best and the brightest" to be drug addicts and dope peddlers. It's complete nonsense. Whether it's 20 or 50 percent, either one is unacceptable.

Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 3rd, 2005 at 10:38pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
darkcobra2005 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2005 at 9:21pm:
50% of applicants for the FBI are disqualified by polygraph?  I believe that about 50% of applicants are disqualifed because of indescresions in their backgrounds, not on the basis of polygraph only.  These figures are being pulled out of thin air, not being researched totally....


The 50% FBI polygraph failure rate is pulled not from thin air, but from the mouths of senior FBI officials who are in a position to know. See FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%.
Posted by: Mercible
Posted on: Aug 2nd, 2005 at 4:44pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Thanks for the clarification.  Cheesy
Posted by: Fair Chance
Posted on: Aug 2nd, 2005 at 1:37am
  Mark & Quote
Dear Mercible,

I have often mentioned the pre-screening use of polygraph without any specific incident knowledge or testing as a 50/50 coin toss.  The NAS did specify that specific incident polygraph testing was far better than chance but far from perfect. 

The NAS was very critical in the current usage of polygraph in pre-screening employment with no specific incident known or researched.  They did say that such usage was far from perfect and not much above a 50/50 coin toss.

I am probably one of the most realistic posters here who has consistantly admitted that the government has only tried to increase polygraph usage in pre-employment since the NAS study.

The FBI pre-screening polygraph was given in my case, prior to any background information being gathered.  There was no specific incident information available to even be questioned.  Roughly 50% of all FBI applicants who make it to the polygraph phase are disqualified on the polygraph alone with no background check.  If you see me quote the 50/50 coin toss, I am relating it to the polygraph pre-prescreening exam as the FBI uses it.

Regards.
Posted by: Mercible
Posted on: Aug 1st, 2005 at 11:37pm
  Mark & Quote
I keep seeing the term "Coin Toss" mentioned on the postings time and time again.  I think this is an exaggeration you might want to consider not using in the future as it is not supported by the known facts.  Saying polygraph isn't scientifically valid is strong enough and not an exaggeration of the known facts.

The National Academy of Sciences Committee to Review Scientific Evidence of Polygraph report titled, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" states the following:

Quote:
...can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
  This specific quote is taken right from "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" page 27.

The "well above chance" statement tells me that it is better than a "coin toss."

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this validates polygraph for use in determining the hiring/termination of employees in the private sector or government.  But, if you wish to be as accurate as possible when discussing these issues with the public, then you cannot be found inconsistent on your statements in this forum.  Even a small over exaggeration can give your enemies a footing with which to rightly criticize you.   

Personally, I think the work of George Maschke and others are a valiant and noble effort to make the hiring practices of our government agencies fair and to prevent people from facing the same situation he did when applying at the FBI.  I would hate to see that work and effort undermined by a few who are a bit too eager to criticize the use of polygraph with exaggeration, no matter how well-intentioned you are.

(jmho)
Posted by: Bill Crider
Posted on: Aug 1st, 2005 at 6:53pm
  Mark & Quote
another point on the oft-mentioned issue of comparing personality test inaccuracy to polygraph test inaccuracy. If someone is disqualified for the results of a personality test, that is a subjective opinion that cannot be objectively debated. If an agency decides that someone has a score on a personality test that says they are too trusting or passive or whatever and the agency decides that trait is not a good fit for their organization, one can arugue the merits of such a decision but that is a judgement call. No one disputes the right of an employer to make a judgement call on personality points. 
On the other hand, when one fails a polygraph, employment is denied on a point of fact that is either true or false. For example, either a person meets the drug usage guidleines or they dont, and frequently the polygraph is getting it wrong. It's not subjective. You wont find an internet site full of people who are upset about being denied employment because they just didnt click with the employer during the interview. But people get very upset about being called drug dealers or spies and having their careers ruined because of it. That is the chief difference in my opinion.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Aug 1st, 2005 at 7:35am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Nonombre,

Although I may disagree with you on certain levels, I must say that you do make a bit of sense.  One portion in particular has to do with Mr. Maschke.  Although, I do not know him personally and have not been afforded the opportunity to meet him face to face, from private converstations I believe him to be genuine.  Our country would, in my opinion be better off, with his services given his Arabiac language skills.  However, we shall never know given the polygraph judgement.

A point system would be an advance with regard to false positive results.  I agree that polygraph, unfortunately in my view, is proliferating rather than declining in law enforcement screening.  I believe it to be a true detriment to our nationwide law enforcement community.
Posted by: nonombre
Posted on: Aug 1st, 2005 at 5:12am
  Mark & Quote
polyfool wrote on Aug 1st, 2005 at 4:04am:


Nonombre:

l agree that your points system idea has a certain degree of merit. Under your system, I would have scored a job because I would have aced all other portions of my application process, except for the  polygraph. However, how would your proposal handle failed polygraphs in regards to the results being made a part of the applicant's permanent file, subject to disclosure to other agencies?


That is one of the beauties of the system.  After all, if each stage of the employment process were evaluated based on the weight of that particular portion, then the "failed" polygraph would have the same affect on a different agency as let's say a failed written exam, or a failed physical agility test.  The weight given any failed polygraph exam would be given the pre-decided weighted "credit" normally given by that agency.

I realize that I am bringing up issues of standardization in hiring practices better handled by federal/state law makers than anyone (including me) on this site.  However, I think it could be a start.

The bottom line is in spite of any efforts made by the people on this site, polygraph testing in screening in getting bigger and bigger in federal, stae, and local government.  We all know that.  The reasons are many (utility is one significant reason).  However, that does not mean that false positives are not an issue.  I know they are.

My proposed system is a way that negative polygraph results can be mitigated in an otherwise outstanding applicant package.  If a system like the one I have mentioned on this site was in place when people like George Mashke had applied to the FBI, chances are he would be a senior special agent today and web sites like this one would probably not exist.

Your thoughts?

Nonombre
              
Posted by: polyfool
Posted on: Aug 1st, 2005 at 4:04am
  Mark & Quote
nonombre wrote on Jul 31st, 2005 at 9:46pm:


Bill,

Regarding point #1.  You are exactly correct!  If I were on a jury, I would never accept the result of ANY one test as definitely proof of guilt.  That is why our legal justice system has always demanded cooberative evidence.

Regarding point #2.  You are again correct.  That is why if I were in charge, I would put in place a weighted point system in which a candidate could blow any one part of the multifaceted hiring process (including the pre-employment polygraph) and still be hired to serve.


Nonombre
  
Smiley


Nonombre:

I think you meant that our legal justice system demands corroborative evidence. Having served on a jury, I agree is it important to consider all the evidence. However, surely you must concede that all evidence is not equal and should not be equally weighted. Take DNA or ballistics testing, both highly reliable as opposed to a witness account, which can be inaccurate or flawed. I hope you are not implying that the polygraph should be admitted as evidence in a court of law. 

l agree that your points system idea has a certain degree of merit. Under your system, I would have scored a job because I would have aced all other portions of my application process, except for the  polygraph. However, how would your proposal handle failed polygraphs in regards to the results being made a part of the applicant's permanent file, subject to disclosure to other agencies?
Posted by: nonombre
Posted on: Jul 31st, 2005 at 9:46pm
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
1:  ...accepting your stats are accurate about the reliability of other forms of evidence such as handwriting analysis, isn't this why our criminal justice systems relies on a standard of proof beyond 1 single test of dubious accuracy?

2:  Yet our federal hiring in marlge part for 1811 positions will take the result of 1 test as gospel.


Bill,

Regarding point #1.  You are exactly correct!  If I were on a jury, I would never accept the result of ANY one test as definitely proof of guilt.  That is why our legal justice system has always demanded cooberative evidence.

Regarding point #2.  You are again correct.  That is why if I were in charge, I would put in place a weighted point system in which a candidate could blow any one part of the multifaceted hiring process (including the pre-employment polygraph) and still be hired to serve.


Nonombre
   
Smiley
Posted by: Bill Crider
Posted on: Jul 20th, 2005 at 4:00pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
#1- Which studies are you referring to that assign 85%+ accuracy to the polygraph? Some of the studies have serious flaws for extrapolating accuracy about real investigations or employee screening from a test given to college kids committting mock crimes.

#2-accepting your stats are accurate about the reliability of other forms of evidence such as handwriting analysis, isn't this why our criminal justice systems relies on a standard of proof beyond 1 single test of dubious accuracy? Yet our federal hiring in marlge part for 1811 positions will take the result of 1 test as gospel.
Posted by: Drew Richardson
Posted on: Jul 20th, 2005 at 2:28pm
  Mark & Quote
Tasercop,

Although not a proponent of the use of the MMPI in hiring practices, at least I can say this much for it:  No one answer (to any of the hundreds of questions posed) is viewed as a disqualifying answer in and of itself.  This is in contrast to polygraphy, where being deemed deceptive to a particular question will completely stop (for many agencies) the applicant process in its tracks.  And for reasons beyond the scope of this post, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the accuracy of the polygraph for determining the veracity of a given question response in a screening application is any better than chance.  Although I'm not convinced that the application of the MMPI is relevant and appropriate for many of its current uses, it doesn't begin to be the outlandish, dangerous, and altogether irresponsible behavior that polygraph screening represents in the processing of job applicants.

Nonombre,

Only a non-scientist could possibly confuse the theoretical basis and validity of DNA testing for the foolishness that we know as polygraph screening.  My apologies if I have misjudged you, and if you believe you have the background for meaningful discussion of both and would seriously like to discuss the relative merits of both practices, please correct me and let the discussion begin.
Posted by: tasercop
Posted on: Jul 20th, 2005 at 8:08am
  Mark & Quote
Lets not forget the various psychological tests, such as the MMPI and MMPI-2.  The MMPI consists of 567 true/false questions and originally had 10 clinical diagnostic scales and 3 validity scales.  It has evolved to 100 scales for a variety of psychopathological and personality characteristics.  Depending on what you are using it for, it has an accuracy rate of somewhere between 70 - 85%.   It is regularly used to screen police applicants and probably disqualifies as many  people as the polygraph.  It is considered a scientifically valid test and widely used.  The psychiatric profession does not consider these rates "laughable". 

Then there is the Wonderlic Personnel Test that is gaining wide spread usage.  It is a 12 minute IQ test consisting of verbal numerical, analytical and spatial relations questions.  Police officers average a score of 21 on the test, so departments often disqualify an applicant if they score below 17.  The cutoff score is arbitrary and they can use whatever they want.  The accuracy of this test has not really been established, but it is considered a valid screening test. 

Just thought I would pop in and put in my two cents worth.  Wouldn't want nonombre to be left here all alone!

Cheers!
Posted by: nonombre
Posted on: Jul 20th, 2005 at 2:09am
  Mark & Quote
Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 19th, 2005 at 5:54pm:

An 85% accuracy rate is laughably low for a supposedly scientific “test” used for such things as pre-employment screening of law enforcement officers and routine screening of intelligence analysts to detect espionage.  Testing of DNA is approximately 99.99999999% accurate (one in a billion), which is why it is widely accepted for such important matters as criminal cases.


Actually Sergeant, most of the studies out there (yes, the ones that Mashke and friends summarily dismiss) place various forms of polygraph testing at 85%-95% accuracy, which if it were anything other than lie detection, the scientific community would immediately embrace as being clearly "Statistically significant" and highly valid.

BTW, Before you dismiss these figures as "laughable," you had better check out the validity figures for many other forms of forensic evidence:

Forensic Odentology:  80% to 85% 
Tool marks and ballistics:  80%
Handwriting Analysis:  75% with an alarming inconclusive rate.
Eyewitness testimony:  50% at best.

Are these forms of evidence "Laughable?"  The courts clearly don't think so.  for all these forms of testimony are generally admissible, hmmmm.

By the way, I have seen figures for DNA analysis as low as 95%.  In fact, there have been several criminal justice journal articles questioning our newfound reliance on this science.

More food for thought.

Nonombre





Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Jul 19th, 2005 at 5:54pm
  Mark & Quote
cavhan7 wrote on Jul 19th, 2005 at 9:47am:
Thats pretty much my point. There is probably nothing else that could "insure"(depends on where you stand but for most its not) that a person may be telling the truth. Polygraph is as far as our "science"(wheter you belive it or not, again for most you dont) and technology will take us to the deceptive patterns of human beings.

I think you missed my point.  You seem to be assuming that using the polygraph ensures that a person may be telling the truth.  In fact the polygraph is as useful as a coin toss in determining truth or deception.

If you agree that polygraphy is as random as a coin toss then it makes little sense to continue using it, regardless of whether there is any valid method of detecting deception which can replace it.  Even if you are a believer in polygraphy and go by the numbers they provide (I’ve seen their accuracy figures at 85%, with suggestions that a skilled examiner can be even more accurate) you still have to contend with the percentage of exams in which truthful people “fail”, and deceptive people “pass.”

An 85% accuracy rate is laughably low for a supposedly scientific “test” used for such things as pre-employment screening of law enforcement officers and routine screening of intelligence analysts to detect espionage.  Testing of DNA is approximately 99.99999999% accurate (one in a billion), which is why it is widely accepted for such important matters as criminal cases.  If DNA testing was 85% accurate no one would be using it for anything of any importance – it would simply be too vague to be of any utility.  And that’s using the polygraph community’s figure of 85%!  In fact the accuracy of the polygraph is probably closer to 50%, since it really doesn’t detect deception at all, and is more of a random, hit-or-miss diagnostician of liars.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Jul 19th, 2005 at 10:52am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The simple-minded reasoning of "its the best we got let's keep using it" is without merit.  You may not have noticed, but the vast majority of posters here are in fact not scientists.  So your suggestion that we come up with or suggest a better means of deception detection is much the same as an auto mechanic readying the space shuttle for launch - "well he's the best we got, let's use him."  Because polygraph is widely used does not make it valid.  In fact why change anything at all if "it's the best we got?"
Posted by: cavhan7
Posted on: Jul 19th, 2005 at 9:47am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Thats pretty much my point. There is probably nothing else that could "insure"(depends on where you stand but for most its not) that a person may be telling the truth. Polygraph is as far as our "science"(wheter you belive it or not, again for most you dont) and technology will take us to the deceptive patterns of human beings.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2005 at 5:35pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
cavhan7 wrote on Jul 17th, 2005 at 8:47am:
What kind of security measure would CIA or FBI take in order to "replace" the polygraph procedure if they believed that it wasn't really scientifically right?
I believe that there really isnt  anything else that they could do therefore they have to stick with it.

That argument makes little sense.  If they were currently flipping a coin to determine who was hired I don’t think anyone would be arguing that they should keep the coin until something more accurate was found.
Posted by: cavhan7
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2005 at 8:47am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
What kind of security measure would CIA or FBI take in order to "replace" the polygraph procedure if they believed that it wasn't really scientifically right?
I believe that there really isnt  anything else that they could do therefore they have to stick with it.
 
  Top