The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) has significantly changed the chart-scoring rules for federally-administered polygraph examinations. A copy of the DoDPI's Numerical Evaluation Scoring System, dated August 2006, has been provided to AntiPolygraph.org (376 kb PDF):

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-numerical-scoring-08-2006.pdf

The most recent version of this document previously made available to AntiPolygraph.org was dated August 2004:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-numerical-scoring-08-2004.pdf

Under the 2006 rules, the number of respiratory features considered "diagnostic" for scoring purposes has been reduced from 10 to 6 while the number of cardiovascular features considered diagnostic has been reduced from 7 principle and 3 secondary features to 1 primary and 1 secondary feature. No explanation is offered for these changes.

What this inescapably entails is that some polygraph charts that were scored as "deception indicated" under the old rules would be scored as "no deception indicated" or "inconclusive" under the new rules, because some reactions to relevant questions would no longer be scored. The converse is also true, and the charts of some who passed would no doubt have to be scored as "deception indicated" or "inconclusive" because some reactions to "control" questions could no longer be considered.

This raises the question, will applicants for federal employment who "failed" under the old scoring rules be given the opportunity to have their polygraph charts re-evaluated under the new scoring rules and to have their applications re-instated if they now pass? If not, why not?

Conversely, will the polygraph charts of those who have "passed" and been hired be re-evaluated to see if such persons would have "failed" under the new scoring rules? Again, if not, why not? After all, if you are a true believer in polygraphy, any such persons must now be considered unacceptable security risks!

What about those convicted of crimes whose sentencing was influenced by the outcome of a polygraph examination? Will they be able to challenge their sentences after having their polygraph charts re-scored under the new rules? Does not justice demand it?

Paragraph 1.6 of the DoDPI document admonishes polygraph students, "It is absolutely critical that you dedicate yourself to mastering test data analysis for peoples' lives may, at times, depend upon it." But it seems that DoDPI is playing with peoples' lives by arbitrarily making up the rules as it goes along.

Here are the 2004 scoring rules for scoring the pneumographic channel:


Quote:

3.9. Respiratory Features. There are ten diagnostic features used in the evaluation of the respiration channel. Five of these features involve some form of suppression. The features are: 3.9.1. Apnea (blocking) 3.9.2. Increase in amplitude 3.9.3. Decrease in amplitude 3.9.4. Progressive increase followed by a progressive decrease 3.9.5. Progressive increase in amplitude followed by a return to homeostasis 3.9.6. Progressive decrease in amplitude followed by a return to homeostasis 3.9.7. Increase in rate 3.9.8. Decrease in rate 3.9.9. Inhalation/Exhalation (I/E) ratio change 3.9.10. Temporary baseline change

And here are the shortened 2006 scoring rules for the same channel:


Quote:

3.9. Respiratory Features. There are six diagnostic features used in evaluation of the respiration channel. Five of these features involve some form of suppression or slowing of the respiratory rate. The features are: 3.9.1. Apnea-blocking (suppression) 3.9.2. Decrease in amplitude (suppression) 3.9.3. Progressive decrease in amplitude (suppression) 3.9.4. Decrease in rate 3.9.5. Inhalation/Exhalation (I/E) ratio change 3.9.6. Temporary increase in baseline

Features struck entirely are:

• Increase in amplitude
  
• Progressive increase followed by a progressive decrease
  
• Progressive increase in amplitude followed by a return to homeostasis
  
• Increase in rate

One feature has been qualified:

• Temporary baseline change -> Temporary increase in baseline

Here are the 2004 scoring rules for the cardiovascular channel:


Quote:

3.11. Cardiovascular Features. There are seven principal diagnostic features used in the evaluation of the CV channel. The features are: 3.11.1. Phasic Response: Relatively rapid increase or rise from the pre-stimulus baseline (baseline arousal), irrespective of whether the response returns to the pre-stimulus baseline or establishes a new baseline. 3.11.2. Tonic Response: Relatively slow increase or rise from the pre-stimulus baseline, irrespective of whether the response returns to the pre-stimulus baseline or establishes a new baseline. 3.11.3. Increase in amplitude 3.11.4. Decrease in amplitude 3.11.5. Increase in rate 3.11.6. Decrease in rate 3.11.7. Premature Ventricular Contraction 3.12. There are also three secondary evaluation considerations used in the evaluation of the CV waveform. 3.12.1. Duration 3.12.2. Speed of Arousal 3.12.3. Sympathetic Response versus Parasympathetic Activity

And here is the greatly reduced feature set under the 2006 rules:


Quote:

3.11. Cardiovascular Features. There are two diagnostic features used in evaluation of the CV channel. One of these diagnostic features is a secondary feature. 3.11.1 Phasic response (baseline arousal) is the primary diagnostic feature used in evaluating the CV channel. A phasic response is defined as a short-term change in physiological activity following question presentation. Typically, this response has a relatively rapid onset and may return to the pre-stimulus baseline or establish a new baseline within a period characteristic of the response system. 3.11.2. Duration is a secondary CV waveform diagnostic feature considered in certain instances.

George,

   I'm sure the ancient Roman priests who read the entrails went through similar changes in how to "score" those entrails.  If nothing else, this sort of thing enhances the perceived status of the profession, as now practitioners have to learn new techniques.

   Of course as far as the real validity of the polygraph is concerned, this changes nothing, just different ways of interpretating entrails did nothing to enhance the validity of entrails reading.  But just as many ancient Romans were taken in by that mumbo jumbo, so many influential people in North America are taken in by it.

All the best, John

Perhaps a comparison to the act of people judging a field for which they know a few select things about while blanketing judgement upon would be viewing some male dentists hanging out and discussing proper care for vaginas.

Your analogy of male dentists judging vaginas would apply if I, having not even completed high school physics, would be commenting on, say, a group advocating cold fusion.

However, the CQT polyraph as practiced by DOD is a purported application of the science of psychophysiology (even they admitted this when they adopted, at my suggestion when I was advising them in the nineties, the term "forensic psychophysiology" to characterise their specific-issue polygraphs). and in that scientific area I do have special expertise (see, e.g., http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/polygraph.htm) which is much greater than that of male dentists on the field of taking care of vaginas.

All the best, John

Golly George:

I told the Lieutenant who performed the polygraph test on me that I have a cardiac abnormality.  I have early repolarization syndrome AKA ERS.  This is a result of alleviating stress for most of my life (I’m 48) through SERIOUS cardio-vascular exercise.  This syndrome is noted in many athletes and is benign.

Reviewing the postings apropos the LAPD revised deception indications, I see that early ventricular contraction was formerly indicative of deception.

Lloyd

Oops:

The discussion was about changes to The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) scoring rules, not LAPD.

wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 5:26pm:

Golly George: I told the Lieutenant who performed the polygraph test on me that I have a cardiac abnormality.  I have early repolarization syndrome AKA ERS.  This is a result of alleviating stress for most of my life (I’m 48) through SERIOUS cardio-vascular exercise.  This syndrome is noted in many athletes and is benign. Reviewing the postings apropos the LAPD revised deception indications, I see that early ventricular contraction was formerly indicative of deception. Lloyd

Hi Lloyd,
does that produce what the  p/g industry refers to as an extended diastole...?
or is that one caused by floppy mitral valve syndrome?

regards,

1904:

I'm a senior research chemical engineer, not a cardiologist.  However there does seem to be some correlation.

From:
http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/42/3/401

Ventricular repolarization components on the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) include J (Osborn) waves, ST-segments, and T- and U-waves, which dynamically change in morphology under various pathophysiologic conditions and play an important role in the development of ventricular arrhythmias. Our primary objective in this review is to identify the ionic and cellular basis for ventricular repolarization components on the body surface ECG under normal and pathologic conditions, including a discussion of their clinical significance. A specific attempt to combine typical clinical ECG tracings with transmembrane electrical recordings is made to illustrate their logical linkage. A transmural voltage gradient during initial ventricular repolarization, which results from the presence of a prominent transient outward K+ current (Ito)-mediated action potential (AP) notch in the epicardium, but not endocardium, manifests as a J-wave on the ECG. The J-wave is associated with the early repolarization syndrome and Brugada syndrome. ST-segment elevation, as seen in Brugada syndrome and acute myocardial ischemia, cannot be fully explained by using the classic concept of an "injury current" that flows from injured to uninjured myocardium. Rather, ST-segment elevation may be largely secondary to a loss of the AP dome in the epicardium, but not endocardium. The T-wave is a symbol of transmural dispersion of repolarization. The R-on-T phenomenon (an extrasystole originating on the T-wave of a preceding ventricular beat) is probably due to transmural propagation of phase 2 re-entry or phase 2 early afterdepolarization that could potentially initiate polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation.

Lloyd

wrote on Aug 7^th, 2007 at 12:49pm:

1904: Rather, ST-segment elevation may be largely secondary to a loss of the AP dome in the epicardium, but not endocardium. The T-wave is a symbol of transmural dispersion of repolarization. The R-on-T phenomenon (an extrasystole originating on the T-wave of a preceding ventricular beat) is probably due to transmural propagation of phase 2 re-entry or phase 2 early afterdepolarization that could potentially initiate polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Lloyd

Well - you got it spot on. Strangely, this condition (extra systole ) is somewhat prevalent in ethnic african males and so are cardiac diseases  / hypertension.

So gentle readers, there is evidence that physiological responses recorded by polygraph machines could be due to normal human genetic variance and/or cardiovascular disease.  Why does our government seek to exclude these subgroups from employment?  Why are these subgroups falsly held suspect of crimes?

Lloyd Ploense

And there's more.....

Cardiologists say that thin white women have a tendency to develop 'floppy mitral valve syndrome'.
The mitral valve literally is 'floppy', like a sheet in the wind.

And there's more.....

Thin women of all colour have a tendency to produce far less (hardly any) palmar sweating.
Very difficult to achieve any GSR reactions.

Regards,

I'm helping a friend out and don't understand the score on the test.  Can you tell me what -1, -3 means?

interested99,

In what context do these numbers appear?