J.B.

The Polygraph results started with a page of all the admissions I made.  Then, after the last description of admissions, it states:

After the pre-test interview,  two polygraph tests were performed on the subject.

It is in the examiners opinion that there were no emotional responses indicative of deception on any any of the relevant questions, and that the subject was truthfull on all the relevant questions.

Thats all the polygraph results state.

Go figure?

Netin,

Are the admissions you made in the pre-exam the same as the relevant issues on the exam?  If so, my prior post would possibly explain the examiner's findings.  I read one of your other posts on another discussion.  You said you had admitted to drug use in the late 90's.  Depending on the department?s cutoff, within the last five or 10 years, you may have made an admission to a relevant issue.

The Rock,

Properly trained examiners already know about all the countermeasures purported on this site and others that are not.  There is some good information to educate yourself on polygraph, so it is not so mystique when you take one, located here and on the internet.  I would advise you not to take any one site as the law on this issue.  I would tell you to look at all the information, read the research material in its entirety, and become truly educated as to the factual validity of the process you are involved in.  I must point out, that the issue of specific issue testing and pre-employment are separate and not to be confused.  Pre-employment deals with multiple issue testing and has not faired well in studies.  I have posted in the past, that if you have issues that you know you will have to be deceptive about, do not take the exam.  The only way the information on this site can hurt you is if you attempt to employ countermeasures on an exam that you have no deceptive issues on the relevant.  There are no studies to support that this venture will help you and I would argue it would inversely cause detriment to your outcome.  Again, if someone attempts to alter or distort the results of any examination, the motives of that person would become suspect.

Netin,

I think you are missing my point.  There are examiners who pass individuals on the exam even if the exam is deception indicated.  They justify this by saying the reactions to the relevant were caused by the admissions in the pre-exam phase.   

If someone makes an admission in the pre-test to an issue that excludes them from the process in pre-employment or that implicates them in a crime, the test should not be administered on that issue.  Example; John Doe is being tested for stealing 100 dollars from his employer.  In the pre-exam phase he admits to stealing 10 dollars of the 100.  The examiner would note these admissions and not test the subject.  The reason is that the test questions will refer to "any of that money" and not exact dollar amounts.  If the subject fails one relevant issue, they fail the exam.   Administering the exam on that issue would result in deception indicated and knowing the prior admission invalidate the exam.  The examiner cannot seperate the test questions and score one no deception indicated and another deception indicated.

J.B.

Let me correct you again.  A man of science and logic, you are surely not.  I conclude that you are just another polygrapher coming on this board in an attempt to help protect your profession (in what little ways you can).

Let me try, for the third time, to clarify this.  I'm going to put this in third-grade language so that it is easier to follow (I believe my last post was at the fourth-grade level).

Here it goes:

I was given a pre-employment polygraph examination...that means that I had to take a "Lie-detector" test for a job I was trying to get.

The test was a probable-lie control questions test. 

In the pre-test interview (not hooked up to the polygraph machine, just a face to face interview),  the examiner went over a group of questions with me. 

Some of the questions were clearly relevant questions,  while others were clearly questions that were going to be set up and used as control questions during the examination.

During the course of the interview,  I admitted to nothing except (making the mistake of admitting to) using drugs in the late 90's.   

This question was not asked during the adminstration of the polygraph examination it was stated in the admissions section of the results so that the employment agency to eliminate me based on a stated admission.

During the exam, there were Five (that's 5....hold up one hand and thats how many fingers are on it) relevant questions asked with control and irrelevant questions mixed in in an appropriate fashion.

Those five questions--RELEVANT QUESTIONS--were questions that I said "No" to during the pre-test interview.  I denied having any part in any of them. 

During the exam,  I stuck with my "no" answers and lied on the RELEVANT QUESTIONS ASKED ON THE EXAM.
I also used a countermeasure on the control questions.

Here's where it gets tricky J.B....see if you can follow me here:

BASED ONLY ON THE RELEVANT QUESTION ASKED DURING THE ACTUAL POLYGRAPH EXAM (NOT BASED ON ANYTHING ELSE),  the examiner found that there were

"no emotional responses indicative of deception on ANY of the relevant questions, and that the examinee was telling the truth on all relevant questions asked during the exam."

Now if we read the above in English, this means that I was found to be truthful on the questions that I was asked during the polygraph examination.

If I was found to be deceptive on any of the relevant questions asked during that actual exam, the results would read, for example,

"There were no emotional responses indicative of deception on questions 3,5, & 8....

There were emotional responses indicative of deception on questions 2,4,6,7,..."

I don't know what reality your living in, but this is the way the polygraph results are expressed.  They specify what questions were found to be deceptive on the polygraph exam.
If they didn't, THEN HOW THE HELL would the employment agency know whether the examinee was telling the truth if the examinee denied everything in the interview?

Your statement:

"There are examiners who pass individuals on the exam even if the exam is deception indicated.  They justify this by saying the reactions to the relevant were caused by the admissions in the pre-exam phase."

Does not correspond to the situation I have expressed to you.

AGAIN, you are missing the point that I LIED to 3 very relevant question during the interview,  then was hooked up to the machine and LIED about those very same questions again,  and was found to be telling the truth about THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS ASKED ON THE EXAM.

If an examinee admits to a relevant question during the interview,  the examiner will either: 1)Use another relevant question on the exam since there was an admission, or 2)Create a modified relevant question based on the admission.

That is how the exam works.  Your suggestion that the examiner wouldn't state whether or not deception was indicated on particular relevant questions asked during the exam is MIND BLOWING!

They have to so that the employment agency knows whether or not the examiner was lying on questions that no admissions were made to.

For you to argue against my situation and insist that I did not pass the test using countermeasures would be to deny reality itself.  Moreover, it would be a clear indicator of your intent to coming on this board.

Face it buddy...countermeasures CAN work.  If they couldn't ever work, then your ass wouldn't waste your time coming on here trying to insist to everyone that they don't.  You would just let the liars use their countermeasures and "easily get caught," as you suggest would happen when using countermeasures.

Netnin

(PS: Slap yourself upside the head and get with it)

So let me get this str8, if the issue about theft of money from employment comes up, and let's say the question comes up did you ever steal money from an employer, adn I say when I was 13 I stole 10 dollars from my fathers register, then does this mean the the question will not be administered during the "in test" phase, or am I missing something?

Netin,

You wrote in your first post regarding this question;
Quote:
Quote:


In your second;
Quote:


There is nothing in either one of these posts that would give me the information that the Quote:
you admitted to was not a Quote:
on the exam.

I am not protecting anything or anyone.  I am against pre-employment polygraphs in their current state and feel they are invalid.  Again, I do not conduct pre-employment exams.  I agree with Drew that there are no studies supporting this method and would add that polygraph was not designed for the currently used method.  As I have said previously, if there is one issue of concern in a properly investigated background investigation, that issue could be tested using specific issue.  Example; An applicant, who just graduated from college, says s/he has not used marijuana in the last five years.  However, a person contacted in the background investigation says s/he smoked marijuana with him in college.
   
Is there a possibility you may beat an examiner?  Yes.  I have never said that every examiner can detect countermeasures.  The examiner is only as good as their training, knowledge, and experiences.  You have told me that the examiner is reputable in your area and was recommended by other police officers.  Since you have not said so, I will gather you are speaking of police officers and not polygraph examiners who are police officers.  Police departments and police officers usually view polygraph examiners work in specific issue exams, not pre-employment.  Regardless of this, they do not know much about polygraph.  If you have read just the sections dealing with the exam outline in Quote:
, you most likely have more knowledge on the issue.  I am not saying the examiner is not good.  However, it is an unfortunate fact that many examiners go to a polygraph school and get little to no training or education after that.  If you went to a dentist who had been practicing dentistry for 50 years, who only went to dental school, did no refresher courses, internship, continuing education, and simply updated themselves on current issues to keep abreast with the field, you would most likely have your teeth drilled with no Novocain and your filling material would most likely be carcinogenic.

As for your comments on my status of scientific thinking, I would gladly defend any comment or assertion I have made.  I have not made a comment regarding the scientific aspects of polygraph that I cannot back up with supporting information.  On an issue brought to one for comment or enlightenment, one can only do so based on the information that is available to one for comment on.

Drew,

I agree with you on the issue of pre-employment polygraph validity in its current state.  My point on the multiple issue aspect of pre-employment is that it is most often a multiple issues exam.  Cleve Backster has spoken at length about multiple issue testing and his feelings on its use and abuse in polygraph.  More directly to its use in his Zone Comparison Test format.  I am sure you have most undoubtedly heard this lecture and spoke with him on this issue.

My comments on countermeasures stand as is.  Given that there are no studies to support a truthful subject can better their position with the use of countermeasures, I would not suggest one use them and chance a heightened risk of being deemed deceptive.  Literature and studies both point to the success of countermeasures in repetitive training.  If one employs countermeasures and is found in doing so they will most likely be found deceptive.  If you consider the limited research, which I will only for the context of what if,  Honts et al say examiners can detect countermeasures at no better then chance.  This would say approximately 50 percent.  If the examiner could only detect countermeasures even 20 percent of the time, it would still produce a higher rate of false readings due to their venture then the percentage of false positives.  I am unsure of the from what you are deducting the Quote:
  If this is to suggest that 1500 of 10000 would be false positive, that would mean a 15 percent false positive rate.  If this is what you meant, I have seen nor read of such a study.  Even so, adding the low estimation of 20 percent found countermeasures to the false positive rate would in turn produce 3500 false positives in a pool of 10000 and 35 in a pool of 100 applicants,  as opposed to 1500 and 15 respectively with no countermeasures used.   

The only method to the madness is to find a pre-employment polygraph exam that studies support works, and/or stick to specific issue exams on pre-employment as I suggest, or simply abandon pre-employment screening altogether.  Regardless of the above numbers suggested for what if, I suggest either and both are to high for the likes of a truthful person who deserves better.   

Drew,

As best as I can demise, the fuel behind this issue is not so much the examiners themselves but the departments who use it to save time and money.  Depending on how much a polygraph examiners existence depends on pre-employment screening, they may blindly push for its continued use.  I know from first hand experience that the heads of a department or agency, which are worried about the bean counting, usually begin inquiry into the use of polygraph screening.  As you know from working for the government, you can educate them on the issues, show them the studies, bombard them with facts, and warn them of pitfalls but if the money and time issue is still there it is hard to convince otherwise.

On what issue or issues of criminal specific issue examinations do we disagree?  I would be interested and open to hear your input on any differences.  You can post here if you think it is appropriate or send it to my listed e-mail address.

I do not profess to know it all and I never will.  I continue to learn with each day that I am blessed to wake and proceed in my path through life.  I subscribe to the school of thought that when and if you think you can learn no more you have stopped growing and life has ceased.

The Rock,

The answer to your question would be dependent on the agency’s criteria for disqualification.  Most likely the question you posed would be a comparison question and any admissions would be covered by a preface in the exam question, if it were a probable lie exam.  In this scenario, the question would still be asked regardless of the admission.   

Again,  the status of the question depends on the criteria of the agency and the laws in your state.  For instance, if your state has a law that makes larceny from a business or employer a felony, your admission would be to that of a commission of a felony.  If this admission is a disqualifier, then you will have admitted to an issue that eliminates you from the process and a polygraph would not be needed.