This message thread is being started in direct response to George Maschke?s assertion that, "CQT polygraphy has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. Moreover, since CQT polygraph lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity."   

The discussion will encompass but not be limited to; 

1. All studies that are published and peer reviewed in a professional journal or publication. 

2. Comparisons of polygraph to other scientific accepted fields of studies and their practices.

Here is an excerpt from http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/conc.html to get the discussion under way.

In reading this, one can see that the reviewing entity states quite clearly that polygraph does show a better than chance ability to detect deception.  "The preponderance of research evidence does indicate that, when the control question technique is used in specific-incident criminal investigations, the polygraph detects deception at a rate better than chance.."   
 
Quote:

George,

The OTA's findings and statements that polygraph is better than chance was based on all available credible research and only acceptable field studies were included.  Some suggested research studies were eliminated due to validity and structural problems found upon "peer-review".   

The Bersh study, although archaic, does much to enlighten the general public and scientific community by producing what I believe to be the first field research study of the ZCT (1961 Backster).  There were changes made to the ZCT that could have increased the Bersh study accuracy even further, standardized numeric scoring criteria being one.   

Bersh examiners' did not solely conduct a "clinical" evaluation of subjects for deception as Lykken suggests.  The examiners used a global scoring method of evaluation.  This method does uses the charts to discern if one is showing deception to a particular question.  Global scoring also includes observations of the subject prior, during, and following the exam, and all the available investigative material.  It does puzzles me that Lykken would state, "clinical impressions or behavior symptoms, which, we know from the evidence mentioned above, should not have permitted an accuracy much better than chance."  It is a well-known fact that psychologists quite frequently use this very method to come to their professional opinion.  Sometimes, if not often, psychologists' opinions are regarding weather a client "truly" believes or is being "truthful" about something they say has happened to them.  The psychologist then gives his professional opinion to the aforementioned.  I have both seen and heard psycholgists testify to these opinions in court.  Unlike polygraph, psychology rarely has physiological data to base or support their inferences. 

As for the results of the study, the OTA compares Bersh?s to Barland and Raskin?s study.  The OTA does note that the two studies have some inherent differences.  However, the OTA considered the studies similar enough to compare.  The OTA states, "Assuming the panel's decisions, the two studies' results are strikingly different.  Barland and Raskin attained accuracy rates of 91.5 percent for the guilty and 29.4 percent for the innocent subjects; comparable figures in Bersh's study are 70.6 percent guilty correct and 80 percent innocent correct."  My math shows a combine accuracy rate of 81.05 percent for guilty, 54.7 percent for innocent, and 67.87 percent overall accuracy for the two studies.  The OTA then wrote, "It is not clear why there should be this variation?.."  They go on to give some possible but miss some technical reasons for the differences in the findings of the two studies.  Most obvious, Bersh?s study used ZCT and R&I, the global scoring method, and eliminated inconclusive exams.  Ground truth is the most difficult element to establish in a polygraph research study because it is subjective to the interpretations and opinions of the peer-reviewer.

The R&I question format has proven to be a less accurate technique when compared to the ZCT or CQT in specific criminal issue examinations studies.  This is arguably the reason why the Army Modified the General Question Technique (MGQT) to include comparison questions, zone/spot scoring, and total chart minutes.   How the two question formats in Bersh?s study compared or differed in accuracy would be interesting.

The available scientific research for polygraph shows that a greater percentage of inconclusive exams are found in the innocent.  Thus it would be prudent to ascertain that Barland and Raskin's study may have produced similar, if not better, results in the truthful and in the deceptive when compared to Bersh, if inconclusive results were set aside.  The scientific community often holds inconclusive results against polygraph when reviewing its scientific validity and accuracy.  However, polygraph examiners view inconclusive results as not enough in the chart tracings to determine an opinion.  An inconclusive can be attributed to many variables.  One example of inconclusive chart tracings may be found in an exam where the examinee has problems remaining still or intentionally moves.  Even Farwell the Brain Fingerprint?s inventor says his instrument will produce inconclusive results if the examinee does not remain still during the examination.   

Lykken also states, "Because the exams were clinically evaluated, we can be sure that every test that led to a confession was scored as deceptive."  He makes this statement without any supportive documentation, and/or reference to a specific incident within the study where this actually occurred.  There is no evidence to support his opinion on this issue.  If a confession were to be obtained prior to chart data collection, the exam would have been considered incomplete by the examiner.  This is not the case in point in Bersh?s study because inconclusive and incomplete exams were not included.

Lykken's argues that Bersh's study is "fatally flawed" because of his prior assertions.  He writes, "That the polygraph test frequently produces a confession is its most valuable characteristic to the criminal investigator, but the occurrence of a confession tells us nothing about the accuracy of the test itself."  I agree that a confession is a valuable tool in a criminal investigation.  I disagree with his fallible knowledge of the use of a properly documented confession to ascertain conformation of the polygraph data results.  A proper confession covers the elements of the crime and includes information that only a person who committed the crime would know.  When this information is present in a confession, it would undoubtedly confirm the data.  The question here is not weather the confession can be used to confirm the polygraph chart data but what standard was used in deeming statements made by examinee's as a confession.  However, this point is not asserted and/or proven in Lykken's argument, thus it would appear to be a nonexistent flaw.

Horvath's research study provides good data in areas but had missing information that might of hindered the overall accuracy results. Barland submits that Horvath's original examiners were 100 percent correct in their opinions.  Barland notes that some special charts administered in 32 percent of the cases were removed from the files of considered deceptive subjects.  These special charts were most likely removed to avoid pre-judgment by the research evaluators. I do not think his study invalidated polygraph in anyway.  The study in fact provided valuable insight into the possible effect incomplete chart data might have on accurate review.  Horvath's study still produced better then chance results considering there was a 50% chance of the reviewers being correct and they were overall 64% correct.

Lykken states, "The original examiners in these cases, all of whom used the Reid clinical lie test technique, did not rely only on the polygraph results in reaching their diagnoses but also employed the case facts and their clinical appraisal of the subject's behavior during testing."  This statement is partially true but not completely factual.  The examiners in this study used scoring of the charts along with the global information present.  The global scoring method in no way goes against the chart data results and contrariwise uses other information to confirm the chart data.  Lykken goes on to purport, "Moreover, some other suspects, judged truthful using global criteria, could have produced charts indicative of deception."  This is an illogical statement.  He never stipulates what scoring method or criterion might have produced a deceptive result.  He cannot prove or disprove his assertions.  I could easily conclude that, if given all the data available to the original examiners and the same scoring method, the reviewers would have concurred with the original examiners in 100% of the cases.  Neither Lykken nor I can prove or disprove our assertions because this variable was not present or measured.  However, Barland had access to and reviewed the data after the missing variable was discovered.

The point I am making is that no matter how meticulous one accounts for variables there will most likely be ones that need further research to answer.  This is true in any research including physiology, psychology, and medical.  One cannot control for and/or predict every possible variable.  Because a variable is in question does not invalidate the findings or methodology.  Because DNA's sample database is relatively small in comparison with the total population that inhabits the earth, does not lead scientists to doubt the accuracy and/or scientific validity of its methods or findings.

I have read chapter one of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector and have found no reference to what standardization and control the CQT lacks.  You state that it lacks these elements but give no examples or criterion for standardization and control.  I would think this would be hard for you to do, as even the scientific community is quite subjective in their opinion of what constitutes acceptable standardization and control for scientific validity.  Can you reference, for comparison purposes, any other scientific method that has been accepted and its basis for acceptance?  Can you reference, for comparison purposes,  any other scientific method that was rejected based on comparable factors you might use to make this statement? 

George,

To answer your first question, no I do not agree.  The peer-reviewed research does prove polygraph to be better then chance at detecting deception. I purposefully used a rather dated research for my first post because even it provides a better then chance accuracy in the review method used.  If we look at Bersh's study alone, "....70.6 percent guilty correct and 80 percent innocent correct.", the overall accuracy rate is 75.3%.  This is one of the first field polygraph studies.  There have been changes made to polygraph which have improved the overall accuracy, some of which I discussed in my previous post.  Bersh?s study also uses non-polygraph evaluators to confirm results.  Thus, the 75.3% accuracy is achieved in part through information independent of the polygraph data.  Lykken?s argument is that the results are independent of the polygraph charts. I have stated previously that this is not completely true.  Some of the evaluators? based their decisions on information independent of the polygraph charts.  However, the examiners? original decisions were based on the polygraph chart data.  Regardless of all that, it shows better then chance in detecting both truth and deception in a field setting.   

The combined studies of Bersh and Barland and Raskin do not illustrate polygraph to be 67.87% accurate per se.  The studies illustrate that polygraph was accurate to this degree for the particular confirmation method used.  Your argument is that polygraph is "not better then chance".  Although the previous studies do not reflect the current accuracy rate of polygraph, using the given confirmation method the combine studies do support a better then chance accuracy rate.

On a related but separate note, just because Barland and Raskins study did not appear in a professional journal upon its release does not mean it was not peer-reviewed and accepted.  Just because Lykken does not like the results and the method is not his, does not make the study invalid.  You may get some of the people to agree some of the time but you can?t get all of the people to agree all of the time.

Since I have stated that there were improvements made to polygraph which have increased its? accuracy, I will quote some more recent studies to support the increased accuracy of Polygraph.  All of these studies appear in professional journals and provide better then chance results for CQT polygraph detecting deception.

Quote:


You ask how valid it shows polygraph to be. It is you who have purported that the CQT is not better then chance at detecting between truth and deception.  Since you have in the past set the terms for rational discourse, I see it to be your burden to prove what is chance and what peer-reviewed studies have proven polygraph to be below the chance level.  You would also have to establish what scientifically the chance level is.  In a separate message thread you wrote: 

Quote:


This is an estimation of base rate on your part.  One cannot establish an ultimate true base rate in a field setting for truthful and deceptive because it will vary.  One cannot control for the number of cases that will produce one or the other result within a field setting.  A toxicologist cannot say that 50% of his cases will detect a presents of XYZ in the field because it will vary.  A toxicologist can say that if XYZ is present then it will be detected, if the test works.  Since polygraph measures for deception, polygraph can only produce one of two results, if the test works.  Thus, the exam/test will have a 50% chance of producing deception or no deception, if the test works.  If the exam/test does not work in either discipline, there is an outside contaminant that is thwarting the ability of the exam to produce an acceptable result.

As for your second question, no I do not agree that polygraph lacks both standardization and control.   

Standardization:

The instrumentation must meet a standardized criterion.  The examiner must meet a specified standard criterion. There is a very standardized process followed in a specific issue polygraph that is discussed in you book.  The examiner must follow the process from the beginning to the end.  This is standardization.  The given question formats must contain a standardized number of a given type of question.  This is another standardization.  The given question format must follow a standardized sequence.  The chart tracings must be of a certain standard of quality for acceptable scoring purposes.  The scoring must be done in an acceptable standardized scoring method and must meet a standardized scoring result to make a decision.  The fact is that there are numerous standardized methods within polygraph that prove it to be standardized.

Control:

The examiner is required to conduct the polygraph in a sterol environment that is free of visual and audio distraction.  The examiner is required to assess the examinee?s medical background to control for outside contaminants that may hinder the ability of the instrument to obtain suitable tracings.  The examiner must attempt to control for movement by the examinee to control for outside contaminants that may hinder the ability of the instrument to obtain suitable tracings.  The examiner must conduct an acquaintance exam to control for the possibility of undisclosed medical of physical variants that may contaminate or hinder the ability of the instrument to obtain suitable tracings.  Again, polygraph controls for a number of variables and thus does not lack control.

You quiet frequently use Furdey and Lykken for references.  It should be noted that both of these individuals do have motive to be bias in their opinions toward CQT but support polygraph.  Dr. Furedy has repeatedly condemned the use of polygraph but only the CQT method.  Furedy is a proponent for polygraph when it uses the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). The GKT lacks the extensive research, reviews, critical debate, and sheer numbers of its use in the field setting that the CQT has endured and produced over time.  Lykken is under the same ideology as Furdey.  Their bias may be genuinely for scientific purposes but I think not.  Their motive more likely is synonymous with the old cliché that plagues polygraph, "My question format is better then yours."  Why argue so intensely over this issue of the question format to use?  Polygraph is attempting to even further standardize an already standardized method.  Searching for further standardized format, polygraph looked to the academic community because of its? wealth of resources, ability to formulate experimental design, and ability to conduct extensive controlled laboratory research on the methods.  In the academic community, those who posses the acceptable methods are the ones who get the research grant money to perfect and substantiate their methods.  This may be somewhat of an off issue for this discussion.  However, if one looks at why polygraph has not been overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community regardless of its? high validity marks, one can see that lack of agreement is a major issue that hold up is overall acceptance.  I have spoken with scientists, psychologists, and many other scientific disciplines.  These people say that polygraph is valid, not flawless.  Again, the reoccurring theme that hinders polygraph is the lack of agreement amongst the ranks.  The irony is that those who are causing such confusion and thwarting the acceptance of polygraph as a standardized scientific method are the ones who were sought out to aid in doing just the opposite.  Further, these individuals are not even polygraph examiners.  "Those who can do.  Those who can?t teach."   

Further more, Lykken?s argument against presence of standardization and control in polygraph is elusive babble.   He say?s things like, "There are virtually an infinite number of dimensions along which the R [relevant] and the so-called "C" ["control"] items of the CQT could differ. These differences include such dimensions as time (immediate versus distant past), potential penalties (imprisonment and a criminal record versus a bad conscience), and amount of time and attention paid to "developing" the questions (limited versus extensive). Accordingly, no logical inference is possible based on the R versus "C" comparison. For those concerned with the more applied issue of evaluating the accuracy of the CQT procedure, it is the procedure?s in-principle lack of standardization that is more critical."  He has haphazardly taken terms used in polygraph, thrown them about into a paragraph, imposed his own opinion of there meanings and uses without reference to support, and finally drawn a conclusion that has nothing to do with the previous statements made.  The fact is, none of Lykken?s gibberish has a thing to do with the standardized methods of polygraph and/or even the physiological data for which its? findings are based on.      

You state:
Quote:


I can with quite certainty say that you have no research or data to support your opinion on this issue.  There are no published research studies that have measured specifically for this variance you speak of and/or one that has concluded with data that will concur with your ideology.   

You then use Dr. Richardson?s explanation in attempts to illustrate a scientific procedure that has been accepted and its? basis for acceptance.

Quote:


You will notice in Drew?s explanation that he states, "if the test works".  To be fair, maybe all forensic sciences should be put to the standards of validity measurement that is held against polygraph, inconclusive results included.  It is a known fact that even controlled testing for proficiency purposes in accepted scientific practices can often go a rye.  When this happens, the  results can be inconclusive and/or even false.  For example I will give a hypothetical scenario; A standardized control sample of urine leaves an accredited proficiency testing company. That sample is known to contain benzoylecgonine.  The test is weather the sample contains benzoylecgonine or not.  During the shipping process the cabin of the airplane that contains the samples loses atmospheric pressure.  The loss of pressure causes the cabin temperature to plummet to  -80 degrees F.  When the airplane descends, the cabin pressure and temperature returns to normal atmospheric conditions for the region, let us say 70 degrees F for this hypothetical scenario.  This change can happen quite quickly considering the sometimes rapid descent of airplanes.  The sample arrives at the lab and is tested.  It is found to contain no presence of benzoylecgonine and is reported as such.   
 
Drew also speaks about the test for known to verify the test and the instrumentation works.  A polygraph examiner should be conducting an acquaintance exam/test, as stated in APA polygraph procedures outline.  This exam/test checks for the ability of the test to work.  If the subject has an autonomic response to the known lie, the test works.  If the subject does not have an autonomic response to the known lie, the test does not work.  The subject is instructed not to move and to follow specific directions.  If the subject does not cooperate and attempts to augment his responses in any way on this non-intrusive exam/test, the subject is intentionally attempting to hide his natural responses.  I know of only one reason for someone to augment his or her response.  That is, they are going to attempt to deceive.  I believe any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.  Now if the exam/test works, I have a true physiological response created by a known lie and a true homeostasis or tonic level measurement contained in the known truth.  This data can be used to confirm the remainder of the exam/test data collected.   
 
You referenced, for comparison purposes,  phrenology and graphology.  Phrenology and graphology measures no known and/or research proven methods.  These once experimental methods do not even remotely compare to polygraphs extensive research, documentation of known and proven physiological responses, and proven accuracy.  A closer but distant comparison you may have used would be questioned documents, since it is a forensic science.  From your same source of information, http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html , the following appears.  "Real handwriting experts are known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists. Forensic (or questioned) document examiners consider loops, dotted "i's" and crossed "t's," letter spacing, slants, heights, ending strokes, etc. They examine handwriting to detect authenticity or forgery."  I believe the author of this site accepts questioned documents as a scientific discipline.  Polygraph measures known physiological responses of the subject to detect deception.  Polygraph has provided more favorable research, standardization and validity then questioned documents.  I know you have read the research study in which polygraph was putt head to head against questioned documents and latent fingerprints.   

Although it is not my burden to prove the validity, I will give an example of how polygraphs tested validity stands up against other accepted science:

Quote:


Considering the above, I would conclude that polygraph has provided more then sufficient overall accuracy data and done so over a greater test period of both laboratory and field settings to prove scientifically valid.

Comparison example:

Quote:


The above comparison supports the assertion that polygraph when using the CQT meets standard validity test requirements to be considered a scientific test method.    

Drew,

Although one may control for some given variants in a particular setting, there is always the chance of uncontrollable variants.   I will admit I am not a toxicologist.  My knowledge of this discipline is extremely limited in comparison to yours.  I am not arguing that toxicology is invalid nor is that the subject.  I did not use or list toxicology as a direct comparison of scientific validity.  My reference to toxicology was to show that even validated disciplines could have outside factors that cannot be controlled for in field settings and that those outside factors may produce an inconclusive and/or false result.  I compared questioned documents for scientific validity and I used documentation of the validity results of the 3T3 NRU PT for accuracy comparison.  This dialog was in direct response to what George wrote in his post prior to mine.

Quote:


In reading this I deducted George was referring to variant control.  George must prove, with substantiated evidence of comparable scientific disciplines, that polygraph is not scientifically valid.  It is his assertions and this discussion is based on those and the past rules of discourse he has used.

I wrote, “This exam/test checks for the ability of the test to work. If the subject has an autonomic response to the known lie, the test works. If the subject does not have an autonomic response to the known lie, the test does not work.”  I did not say that the purpose of the stim/acquaintance was to measure the ability of the ANS to work.  A positive control test simply takes a known sample of a suspected unknown and simultaneously tests it with the unknown.   

For example:

Quote:


You reference the ANS.  Although the ANS is regularly used to sustain life, the specific deceptive ANS response measured in a polygraph is not regularly used for continual life sustaining purposes.  I agree with you that there are other reasons that you have alluded to that define others’ explanations for the use and existence of the stim/acquaintance test/exam.  A stim/acquaintance test/exam is a Known Solution Peak of Tension Test.  Polygraph examiner training material reads as follows in reference to the stim/acquaintance, “Correlate outcome to the polygraph examination.”  Given my and the above supporting literature’s explanation of positive control test, do you agree or disagree that the stim/acquaintance test/exam is a positive control test?   

Quote:


When referring to scientific validity, one can reference many instances where a science was discredited by the majority of scientists, thus not accepted, and inversely proven to be true and accepted at a later date without addition and/or change to theory.  The reverse of this process has also happened.  So  “Scientific Validity” is in itself a highly subjective process directly dependent on the opinions of the current majority of scientists in the related discipline.  A scientific process can be accurate and its theory sound but with an absence of its general acceptance it may be considered invalid.  It is the test of scientific acceptability that defines whether a theory or practice is accepted.   

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Mar 7^th, 2002 at 10:09pm:


Nope, no sir. No way. You cannot prove a negative, it is a Logical impossibility. The burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. Thus far, I'm not convinced.

J.B.

Quote:


True, but irrelevant to the fact the probable-lie control question test (CQT) polygraphy has no, nada, zilch scientific control on ANY day, uncontrollable variants notwithstanding.  This is because the emotional content of relevant/control question pairings is NEVER known apriori for a given examinee with a given examination.  This makes any conclusions drawn from physiological recordings meaningless and sheer speculation on each and every occasion/outing.


Quote:


Again, all likely true, and although containing an appreciated and flattering admission, all irrelevant to the issue at hand...

The theoretical nature of control/comparison questions (emotional content/affect in relationship to paired relevant question material) can not be verified on ANY and again I repeat ANY given occasion, making their use, if not without purpose, at least providing no scientific control in any formal and recognized context.

J.B.,

In order to answer your lasted posted question, I am afraid I must seek clarification.  I believe that you are asking me if I consider the stim/acquaintance test a positive control for subsequently administered probable lie control question tests.  If not please correct me, and I will answer your intended question.  But to this one...

No, I don't---if the stim/acquaintance test were in fact a probable lie CQT, at best, you would have an external control situation, a much weaker form of control than the internal positive control we have discussed with a forensic toxicological analysis, but in fact, even this weaker form of control does not exist...

The so-called stim test is really not a probable-lie CQT or any other test for deception and therefore offers no form of control, external or internal.  The reason being that, although you can instruct the examinee to answer "no" to the chosen number (and therefore lie), you can also have he/she answer "yes" to that same number or provide no answer at all, i.e., a silent test, and obtain exactly the same result/same response.  In other words, the lie is irrelevant to the stim test and what the stim test  really is is a form of concealed information test in which the examinee is merely responding to something of significance to himself, significance derived from the fact that the number was recently chosen by the examinee.  Although, as I have indicated before, I have great disdain for how a stim/acquaintance test is used in a polygraph setting, I actually believe the format, apart from that setting, to be a quite useful and a narrowly defined/controlled vehicle for studying physiological change.  But again, in answer to the question that I believe I was asked, it (a stim test) has absolutely nothing to do with providing control to a probable-lie control question test.