Marty wrote on Jan 1^st, 2003 at 1:44am:

Anyway, such fun aside, both your challenge and Drew's can not prove anything. They are inadequate from a statistical point of view and whatever their results, it would be the equivalent of spitting in the wind. So let me suggest that conducting an appropriate, peer reviewed set of experiments on a sufficient population would further this far more. I also believe the study of countermeasures could be more fruitful since establishing base line "truth" is not at issue.

Dear Marty,

Studies by Polygraph Organizations are attacked by opponents using the "Fox watching the henhouse" analogy.

Studies by the scientific community within accepted statistical practices are almost non-existent and attacked by proponents of polygraphs as not reflecting the "reality of the test room" and their utility as a tool.

Currently, the government agencies using the polygraph have no internal reason to question the status quo and will not move unless a political cattle prod forces them to do so. The federal government does not want to spend any money on this subject in today's fiscal climate.

The NAS report was a huge watershed document to start serious discussion on polygraph accuracy and validity. I definitely agree that further studies are necessary to document actual percentage of predicted accuracy of the "polygraph tool."  

My personal experience in the pre-screening use is that it is easily manipulated by test administrator bias. In my case, it was not videotaped.  I believe my experience would not have occurred if my examiner knew his actions could be easily subjected to review for possible disciplinary action.

Regards