Hi, 

   Isn't the Test Subject / Examinee attitude and representation of oneself in the test a variable.  Even GM the moderator advises to be polite and professional, even though you later throw in CM's to try and enhance chart reactions.  So I believe that attitude counts for alot.  I also believe that experienced Examiners / Interviewers know that we see applicants at their Crescendo of existance, and it is often in reality down hill from how they represent themselves in the inteview.   

   Another variable would have to be Prejudice / Pre-Judging the process or the examiner consistent with the core "beliefs" expressed here as a contaminating factor.  Exposure to this site would probably diminish the applicant's participation and enhance the outcome of a failed test; this despite the attempted countermeasures.  So then,  Negative Reinforcement + Countermeasure Attempts = a 2/3 chance of a failed test.  Wow, you guys have actually engineered the opposite of what you were trying to achieve on this site.  The self actualization of your own created variables which in effect caused the potential increase in a finding of a D.I. test result.  AND     Who should Thank You for this ?????   

The number of issues addressed is an important variable.  Think target shooting.  Not so hard to hit one, but seven out of seven, almost no one does that every time.   

The LEPET gains flexability, utility, at the expense of accuracy.  Think of the diversity and range of applicants, age 20 to 50, limited or no work experience to twenty years in the military, GED to advanced degree.  Different strokes for different folks. (Sly Stone)

Open ended questions, not easily answered yes or no, can provoke unintended response even when answered truthfully.  Ex. Has your use of alcohol ever caused job related problems?, answered  no by the child or spouse of an alcoholic.   

Failure to break out and utilize single issue format to resolve questionable response.  With multiple applicants for each slot some departments decide not to expend the additional resources to to it properly.

Well, I'll start the list.

1)  The professionalism/training of the operator.  It has been alluded to here by polygraphers that not all polygraphers are the same, so that must be a variable to consider.

2)  Operator bias.  The polygrapher might be good, but doesn't want the person to pass, so they purposely fig the results to show DI.  Can this happen?  IN theory yes, so that is a possible variable.

What else?

Well, it's very complicated.  Probably not fathomable to the average mind of a venomous, unpatriotic, treasonous "anti".

It boils down to "statement analysis".  We have a complex set of algorithms which analize each suspicious statement.  Test variables vary, but include semantic, auto-illusionary, syntactic, dialectual, as well as psycho-cognitive factors.

If the above analysis proves problematic, co-variables statistically measured within at least three degrees of freedom to are obtained to produce a highly pseudo-scientific "probability matrix", which is then fed into a high speed super-computer.

I hope that answers your question.

A word of advice, don't try to figure it out.  You're not meant to know!

Suffice it to say, this process has allowed us to produce thousands of "false positives" a year, so it has been very successful for us!



TC

P.S.  Sorry, couldn't resist!

A serioius question, not intended to turn into a debate.  What are the possible variables which would result in a false positive in a pre-employment polygraph exam?  And, to narrow it more, lets make it a Control Question Test.  Anyone?