Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Scientific Validity of Polygraph (Read 34620 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #15 - Mar 8th, 2002 at 11:57pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

You have I think answered my question.  Regardless if the polygraph format is CQT, GKT, or R&I, the Stim/Aquaintence test (otherwise known as the POT/Known Solution Test) is a positive control test. 

As for Comparison/Control Questions, I believe that these will fall under the same defenition of standard tests.

So now we have a positive control and a standard test being used in a CQT polygraph, the same tests that are used in other accepted scientific disciplines.

I will be traveling for the weekend. So I may not respond to you further for a couple of days.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #16 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 12:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.,

I am glad I responded to your question; unfortunately, you do not appear to have read my answer.  I really don't want to be flippant with you, but you appear to have no knowledge of the terms and practices that you associate in your writings.  But nevertheless, do enjoy your weekend and we can continue anew next week...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #17 - Mar 12th, 2002 at 6:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

In looking at my last post, I can see that one of the terms was used without explanation and could have been misconstrued in the meaning of its use.  Standards are samples with a known identity that unknown are being compared to for identification.  To determine that a method is working correctly, one must use appropriate controls and standards.  One may use quantitative controls (called blanks), blind controls and/or internal controls.  These controls are used to assure a reproducible and accurate method by which an acceptable value or range of values is established.  Irrelevant questions are blanks.  Control/comparison questions are suspected known samples that can be established with the known sample from a stimulation/acquaintance test.  The relevant questions are unknown samples that are compared with the other test data to establish its degree within the range of values.  If the degree is consistently greater in the relevant questions, set by numerical scoring criterion, then deception is shown.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #18 - Mar 12th, 2002 at 11:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.,

There is not the slightest bit of scientific control furnished through the utilization of comparison questions with a CQT.  In order for there to be, there would need be some CLEARLY DEFINED, CONSISTENT AND READILY DEMONSTRABLE  relationship between the affect of the two types of stimuli.  NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP EXISTS.  Furthermore, the comparison questions of a CQT have no relationship to the alternative (or correct) answers of a stim/acquaintance test.  As I previously pointed out, the latter is merely a concealed information test (at best) whereas the former is suggested by its proponents as having some relationship to detection of deception .  Your comparison of apples and oranges and conclusions drawn is most perplexing and somewhat troubling…
« Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2002 at 3:58pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #19 - Mar 15th, 2002 at 7:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

You wrote:
(1)
Quote:
There is not the slightest bit of scientific control furnished through the utilization of comparison questions with a CQT.  In order for there to be, there would need be some clear and demonstrable relationship between the affect of the two types of stimuli. NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP EXISTS.


Although other stimuli may be present, the common and main stimulus that exists between the comparisons and relevant questions is deception.  It is the deception that causes the release of hormones from the adrenal medulla.  The greater the stimuli the greater the release.  Thus, if a stimulus for comparison questions is equal to the stimuli of the relevant questions, there is a valid comparison to be made.  Whatever the emotion that is elicited with the deception is a conditioned response and secondary to the main stimuli.  The secondary conditioned response will be readily consistent for a given person based on psychosocial conditioning.

Support for statement:
Quote:
From ‘Social Psychology’ Sixth Edition, by Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin, pg. 98-99:

….,it is difficult to conceive of an experience that is purely emotional or an emotion that is purely physiological.  Apart from the difficulties inherent in the idea of a purely physiological experience, Skinner (1953, pp. 161-62) has observed that the scientific study of emotional behavior which is based on the idea that each emotion has its own characteristic pattern of emotional response offers a far less reliable basis for identifying emotion than does common sense.

Our discussion suggests that emotion should be viewed as an aspect of certain types of behavior rather than as a distinct form of behavior itself.  The specifically emotional portion of behavior is elicited by the relationship of the emotion-provoking situation to the values of the person as seen by that person.



(2)
Quote:
Furthermore, the comparison questions of a CQT have no relationship to the alternative (or correct) answers of a stim/acquaintance test.


The (correct) answers on the stim/acquaintance test are quantitative controls or blanks.  They are simply used to establish the homeostasis or tonic level of a given subject.  The incorrect/deceptive response to the known lie on the stim/acquaintance test can be used for direct comparison with the responses to the comparison/control questions on the CQT to confirm deception.

(3) 
Quote:
As I previously pointed out, the latter is merely a concealed information test (at best) whereas the former is suggested by its proponents as having some relationship to detection of deception .


I have already posted a direct quote from polygraph training material.  Quote:
Polygraph examiner training material reads as follows in reference to the stim/acquaintance, “Correlate outcome to the polygraph examination.”
  This material was written and taught by the same organization that trained you.

In a previous post you wrote:
Quote:
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.


In my opinion this and the previously quoted statement are contradictory in nature.

Your comment about my comparisons of apples and oranges in unspecified.  If you are referring to my definitions of the different scientific controls, then I would agree that it is you who is perplexed.  I have discussed these terms, their definitions, and the relationship to the portions of polygraph noted with other scientists within accepted fields and they concur with me.  It is not my burden to get you to agree and/or even my burden to prove anything.  Scientific acceptance is for the most part general and not specific to an individual.  Like I have stated before, the scientific acceptance of any given method is for the most part subjective and opinionated.

We are wandering farther and farther of the course of this debate.  I do recall it being ‘MY’ burden in the last debate on CMs due to my assertions.  This debate is based on George’s assertions.  To date he has provided no peer-reviewed scientific research either field or laboratory that proves CQT polygraph to or not to, “…. differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions..”

What is the current overall accuracy rate of CQT polygraph shown by peer-reviewed field and laboratory research?
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #20 - Mar 15th, 2002 at 10:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.

Quote:
...Although other stimuli may be present, the common and main stimulus that exists between the comparisons and relevant questions is deception.  It is the deception that causes the release of hormones from the adrenal medulla.  The greater the stimuli the greater the release...


Balderdash!!!!!

As a former US President was fond of saying, "There you go again..."  There is not the slightest bit of evidence of such a thing.  Even your more serious colleagues in the world of polygraphy don't claim a "lie response" let alone one uniquely manifested at the level of the adrenal medulla.  Remember, my friend, you are talking to a toxicologist.  Please show me anywhere in the literature that therapeutic monitoring of blood levels of norepinephrine and/or epinephrine has been performed in connection with deception in a CQT, let alone correlated with deceptive responses to control and relevant questions.  As utterly ridiculous and unsupported as this hypothesis is, it totally ignores the sympathetic cholinergic (acetyl choline) electrodermal responses that have nothing to do with the adrenal medulla.  It furthermore ignores the timing of the onset of response (seconds) which is consistent with neuronal input (neurotransmitters) not organ bathing over minutes with blood born adrenergic hormones which at best contributes to duration of cardiovascular responses (again even this physical phenomenon has never been shown to correlate in any fashion with deception, isolated from God knows how many other factors involved with the asking of questions in a CQT).   This is nonsensical beyond all reason and not worthy of comment, save eliminating confusion for only the most naive who visit this site.....
« Last Edit: Mar 15th, 2002 at 11:06pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #21 - Mar 16th, 2002 at 5:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

This should not a battle of brash words but a debate conducted in a professional manner.  I do not appreciate your unwarranted satirical remarks.  My statements are supported within professional scientific texts.  My prior post used a Social Psychology reference to support my statement about emotions.  Here are some support references for the Physiological portions of my statement.

Quote:
Anatomica 2001, pg. 64:

The adrenal medulla is derived from neural (nerve) tissue and is concerned with the production and secretion of epinephrine (adrenaline) and nor-epinephrine (nor-adrenaline).  These hormones can cause increased heart rate, widening of the airways, and breakdown of glycogen to glucose for energy.  All of these make the body more equipped to handle emergency situations.




Quote:
Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology, by Seeley, Stephens, and Tate, pg. 259-260:

The principle hormone released from the adrenal medulla is epinephrine or adrenaline, but small amounts of norepinephrine are also released.  The epinephrine and norepinephrine are released in response to stimulation by the sympathetic nervous system, which becomes most active when a person is physically excited (Figure 10-8).  Epinephrine and norepinephrine are referred to as the fight-or-flight hormones because they prepare the body for vigorous physical activity.  



Quote:
http://www.hhpub.com/journals/jop/1998/abstv12i4.html

Journal of Psychophysiology Volume 12, No. 4, 1998

The relationship between heart rate and blood pressure reactivity in the laboratory and in the field: Evidence using continuous measures of blood pressure, heart rate and physical activity
by Anita Jain (1), Thomas F. H. Schmidt (2), Derek W. Johnston (3), Georg Brabant(4), and Alexander von zur Mühlen (4)
(1) Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Germany
(2) Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Hanover Medical University, Germany
(3) School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, Scotland
(4) Department of Endocrinology, Hanover Medical University, Germany

The relationship between cardiovascular reactivity in the laboratory and in everyday life has been under discussion for many years. Manuck and Krantz (1984) and Light (1987) proposed three models of how laboratory reactivity could relate to real life reactions (recurrent activation, prevailing state and combined model). The aim of the present study was to test the relationship of cardiovascular reactivity in the laboratory and in the field using continuous measures of blood pressure and heart rate as well as physical activity and posture. Seventeen high and low laboratory rate pressure product (RPP) reactors were selected from a sample of 50. Continuous finger blood pressure and heart rate (HR) were measured noninvasively with PORTAPRES for 22 hours in everyday life together with continuous measures of thigh EMG, arm movement and posture. Adrenaline, noradrenaline, cortisol, and dopamine urinary excretion rates were determined for the same period. As predicted, high laboratory reactors showed higher daytime variability of their RPP after eliminating the effects of serial dependency and they also showed larger responses to stressful situations in everyday life. Similar, but less pronounced effects were seen for HR. High reactors also had higher daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels. In systolic blood pressure no group differences were seen. High reactors also showed higher urinary adrenaline and noradrenaline excretion rates during the day. In this study, different cardiovascular variables follow different models for the relationship between laboratory and field reactivity. For RPP and HR the "recurrent activation model" is supported. DBP may follow the "prevailing state model." Endocrine sympathetic mechanisms appear to be involved in individual cardiovascular reactivity differences.



Quote:
http://www.jphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/3/633?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=1...
IRSTINDEX=40&journalcode=jphysiol

The Journal of Physiology, Vol 250, Issue 3 633-649, Copyright © 1975 by The Physiological Society

RESEARCH PAPERS
Sweat gland function in isolated perfused skin

KG Johnson

1.  A technique for perfusion of skin has been used to investigate a possible neurochemical basis for the different patterns of sweating in domestic animals. Evaporative water loss was measured from excised trunk skin, ears or tails perfused with a nutrient Krebs solution, to which drugs were added as required. Perfused skin was observed to sweat in response to administration of sudorific drugs, and some features of the patterns of sweating were similar to those which could be induced by heating or by drugs in conscious animals. 2. In sheep and goat skin, injections of adrenaline, and to a lesser extent of noradrenaline, elicited brief sweat discharges but these were not sustained when the drugs were infused during 10-20 min. Injections of isoprenaline, carbachol, 5-HT, bradykinin, oxytocin and histamine were all ineffective. 3. Injections of adrenaline into cattle skin evoked longer- lasting sweat discharges, and infusions of adrenaline elicited continuous discharges. Injections of noradrenaline and sometimes of bradykinin caused only brief sweat discharges; other drugs were ineffective. 4. In horse and donkey skin, injections or infusions of noradrenaline, oxytocin and bradykinin elicited brief discharges of sweat. Infusions of isoprenaline caused a continuous and profuse outflow of sweat. Infusions of adrenaline also caused a continuous discharge which was usually biphasic in its onset. Other drugs were ineffective. 5. Assuming that the brief sweat discharges are due to myoepithelial contractions and the continuous discharges to sustained increases in secretion, equine sweat glands seem to have a alpha- adrenergically controlled myoepithelium and a beta-adrenergically controlled secretory mechanism. Sheep and goats may have a similar alpha-adrenergic control of the sweat gland myoepithelium but only a feeble sweat secretory mechanism. In cattle, an alpha-adrenergic mechanism appears to control sweat secretion, but the control of the myoepithelium is uncertain.



Quote:
Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology, by Seeley, Stephens, and Tate, pg. 99:

Emotional sweating is used in lie detector (polygraph) tests because sweat glands activity usually increases when a person tells a lie.



Quote:
Anatomica 2001, pg. 687:

The eccrine sweat glands are distributed over the body, except on the lips and some parts of the genital regions?..They secrete large quantities of sweat, which cools the body by evaporation.  The sweat glands are activated when the body becomes overheated, (due to environmental conditions or exercise), and occasionally by emotions such as fear("cold sweat").




(Note: this post was edited by the AntiPolygraph.org administrator to correct a coding problem that affected display of the message thread. No changes were made to the words posted.)
« Last Edit: Mar 31st, 2002 at 2:04pm by Administrator »  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #22 - Mar 16th, 2002 at 6:12pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.

My goal is not to hurt your feelings through sarcasm, but to clearly point out wild leaps of faith on your part as evidenced by your quantum jumps from explanations of reasonably well-understood physiology to your postulates about control question test (CQT) polygraphy.  I suppose my language is a reflection of the need to continue this after several such exchanges.  Perhaps you can point out to me where deception/detection of deception is discussed in any of that which you have quoted.  With the exception of the Seely et al quote (idle speculative commentary (secondary source) with no reference to the scientific literature), I see none.  Unless you can, it is completely irrelevant (and would be if you had downloaded a complete physiology text if unrelated to deception through references to the peer reviewed literature) to our discussions and simply more evidence of a lack of critical thinking.... sorry, but there lies the truth.  It is not I who stated categorically that adrenergic hormone release was directly and proportionately related to deception, but you.  Where's the proof.  Absolutely none of that which you have offered in your most recent post is evidence of that...if you are going to idly speculate about such things, so be it, but please distinguish such and identify for the reader and also realize that you have offered nothing whatsoever to indicate that comparison questions in a CQT offer any form of scientific control. (I believe the original issue we were discussing)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #23 - Mar 31st, 2002 at 7:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

First off, my feelings have nothing to do with my last post.  Hearing bothersome language and being called names, not on my birth certificate, are common occurrences in my line of work.  My point was we are professionals and we should keep the dialog as such.

Some of the cites in my last post were directed toward your assertion that;

Quote:
As utterly ridiculous and unsupported as this hypothesis is, it totally ignores the sympathetic cholinergic (acetyl choline) electrodermal responses that have nothing to do with the adrenal medulla.



So I quoted to that;

Quote:
From:

http://www.jphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/3/633?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=1...
IRSTINDEX=40&journalcode=jphysiol

The Journal of Physiology, Vol 250, Issue 3 633-649, Copyright © 1975 by The Physiological Society

RESEARCH PAPERS
Sweat gland function in isolated perfused skin

KG Johnson

??.
Injections of adrenaline into cattle skin evoked longer- lasting sweat discharges, and infusions of adrenaline elicited continuous discharges. Injections of noradrenaline and sometimes of bradykinin caused only brief sweat discharges?..



Although Acetylcholine (ACh) is the pre-ganglionic neurotransmitter for both the sympathetic and the parasympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous system, the post-ganglionic neurotransmitters are different.  Norepinephrine (Ne) is the post-ganglionic neurotransmitter for the sympathetic division, which is used for emergency response.  Most organs use both the sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation. There are three exceptions to the above and they are; 1. The blood vessels are only sympathetically innervated.  2. The sweat glands are only sympathetically innervated with the use of ACh as the neurotransmitter.  3. The adrenal glands are sympathetically innervated with the use of ACh as the neurotransmitter.    I am assuming that this is what you were referring to.  If so, I would agree with your last statement in the described neurological portion of a response. There are other factors you negated to discuss, such as the hormonal induced ones.  I don't think you were suggesting that neurological functions cannot be effected by hormons.

For example:

Quote:
From: http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/138/12/5597?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=...
h=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=endo

Endocrinology Vol. 138, No. 12 5597-5604
Copyright © 1997 by The Endocrine Society

ARTICLES
Expression of Adrenomedullin and Its Receptor in Normal and Malignant Human Skin: A Potential Pluripotent Role in the Integument
Alfredo MartÍnez, Theodore H. Elsasser, Carlos Muro-Cacho, Terry W. Moody, Mae Jean Miller, Charles J. Macri and Frank Cuttitta

Detection of AM in sweat
The presence of AM immunoreactivity in the sweat glands (Figs. 4F1F1 and 5F1F1) suggested that the peptide may be secreted into the sweat, and to test this hypothesis, we performed RIA in sweat samples and compared the values obtained with AM levels in blood serum (Fig. 13F13F13). Surprisingly, the values obtained for AM in the sweat were very variable (87.93 ± 88.48 fmol/ml) but, in general, were much higher than the values obtained in the blood samples (16.83 ± 2.52 fmol/ml). These data confirm that AM is secreted into the sweat in large amounts. The variation in AM levels may reflect differences in exertion or in sweat secretion rates.



Quote:
Perhaps you can point out to me where deception/detection of deception is discussed in any of that which you have quoted.  With the exception of the Seely et al quote (idle speculative commentary (secondary source) with no reference to the scientific literature), I see none.  Unless you can, it is completely irrelevant (and would be if you had downloaded a complete physiology text if unrelated to deception through references to the peer reviewed literature) to our discussions and simply more evidence of a lack of critical thinking....



I own the books I quote and they are not downloaded.  I use web-based information because it is readily accessible to anyone who wishes to check my information for accuracy.  I can use full text material I own but most cannot check for the accuracy of statements against those sources.  Seely is a well respected figure within his field and I dare say has more knowledge of anatomy and physiology then both you and I combine. Deception is a broad term and can be associated with much of the literature available.  In an earlier post I cited a book entitled "Social Psychology", which I own, and the quoted text puts the idea of deception into context for our discussion.

Quote:
It is not I who stated categorically that adrenergic hormone release was directly and proportionately related to deception, but you.  Where's the proof.  Absolutely none of that which you have offered in your most recent post is evidence of that...if you are going to idly speculate about such things, so be it, but please distinguish such and identify for the reader and also realize that you have offered nothing whatsoever to indicate that comparison questions in a CQT offer any form of scientific control. (I believe the original issue we were discussing)



Is the intention of your above statement to suggest that the fight or flight syndrome has nothing to do with polygraph?  Are you saying that the sum of stimuli is not proportionately related to the response?  Again, deception is a broad-based term that covers many facets.  As for your inference to scientific control, I have given you definitions of scientific controls taken from other accepted scientific disciplines' and how the CQT uses them.  I am not here to argue which is a better question format, CQT vs GKT.  I believe they both have utility and are valid when used in a proper setting.  I have already made it known what my thoughts are as to the use of CQT in a pre-employment screening setting.

You are correct in that the point of this debate is amiss.  George made the assertions that this debate was based on.  He has purported that the CQT has not been shown to be better then chance in peer-reviewed field research.  This debate has meandered off course because he has changed the subject and passed the burden without first ever proving his assertions.  In a separate thread I wrote;

Quote:
Again you skirt the issue.  There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies.  The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis.  It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better.   Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.



George then replied, in part, the following answer;

Quote:
That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.



I think this is what I have been saying all along.  CQT polygraph used for specific criminal issue purposes is highly accurate and is scientific.  However, some want GKT instead of CQT so they press for its unacceptability and in the course find their cause in the same disarray because it relies heavily on many of the core concepts.  If GKT proponents and CQT proponents would simply agree that both of the methods have utility and are valid, then we would most likely have two scientifically accepted formats.  More importantly, I cannot imagine the impossible force the combine effort would have in steering polygraph.  Still George, you, and I all know that CQT is shown to be better than chance in the current accepted peer-reviewed field research studies. 
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6139
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #24 - Mar 31st, 2002 at 1:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.,

You wrote in part:

Quote:
George made the assertions that this debate was based on.  He has purported that the CQT has not been shown to be better then chance in peer-reviewed field research.  This debate has meandered off course because he has changed the subject and passed the burden without first ever proving his assertions.


Where did I change the subject? I am not aware that I did so.

If the polygraph community would have the rest of us believe that CQT polygraphy is a genuinely standardized and controlled diagnostic test that works better than chance under field conditions, then it must shoulder the burden of proving it.

As we noted in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, there are only four field studies of CQT validity that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and they haven't met the burden of proving CQT polygraphy to work better than chance. (Note that this is not the same as saying that polygraphy has been proven not to work better than chance.)

You suggest that the reason CQT polygraphy has not been unanimously accepted by the scientific community is attributable to squabbling over whose format is better (CQT vs. GKT). I suggest a different explanation: a dearth of competent research establishing its validity. With regard to the scientific community's acceptance of CQT polygraphy, I would again remind you of Iacono & Lykken's survey, which is discussed at p. 22 of the 2nd ed. of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

Quote:
In 1994, William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken conducted a survey of opinion of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) (Iacono & Lykken, 1997). Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, “Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?” Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed.

Moreover, SPR members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, “The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one’s response to the control questions.” Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph “tests” can be beaten.


And as for standardization and control, I think you've failed to understand both concepts, as is amply illustrated by your exchange with Drew above and before that, by your dismissal (in your post of 3 March) of Furedy's critique (which you clearly did not understand and mistakenly attributed to Lykken) as "elusive babble."

If you would have us believe that CQT polygraphy has been proven by peer-reviewed research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels, then among other things, you ought to be able to:

1) tell us what the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CQT polygraphy is for the detection of deception;

2) cite the peer-reviewed research that establishes such sensitivity and specificity;

3) refer us to the standardized protocol for the CQT that was used in this research;

4) explain how such variables such as whether the subject understands how truth vs. deception is actually inferred in CQT polygraphy and whether the subject employed countermeasures were controlled for.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #25 - Mar 31st, 2002 at 2:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.,

The glory of medical physiology does not and will not cover the sins and shortcomings of control question polygraphy.  Your use of the former in an attempt to support the latter through wild assertion and speculation will not fly.  Please do not waste my time or that of other readers with anything less than citations from the peer reviewed physiological literature with specific reference to control question test polygraphy if you would have me evaluate and draw conclusions about one based on the other…

With regard to teaming up with CQT polygraphists, perhaps, but not as you suggest.  I will never seek to garner support for the meaningful (e.g., concealed information testing) by generally associating myself with the unsound, unsupported, uncontrolled, and unspecifiable behavior we now know as control question test (CQT) polygraphy.  The only faint praise I can presently offer practioners of such in a criminal specific-issue setting is that your practice is theoretically more sound than that of your colleagues who use it for the fishing expedition we have come to know as polygraph screening.  But as to your suggestion of team effort…when those of you who use CQT polygraphy in a criminal specific setting have mustered sufficient courage and integrity to openly condemn (It is not sufficient to simply say that my agency does not do polygraph screening) that which you know to be wrong and the source of victimization of thousands of individuals (including many who visit this site), then you will find me quite willing to be part of a team effort to end polygraph screening.  I will be more than happy to be a follower of those in your community who will spearhead such an effort and, once the mutual goals of such a team effort have been achieved, I will pledge support to reevaluate with an open mind all the various options for criminal specific-issue testing.
« Last Edit: Mar 31st, 2002 at 3:23pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #26 - Apr 1st, 2002 at 8:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,

I was referring to your insistence that I must prove CQT polygraph valid.
 
For example:

On 01/22/02 you wrote:

Quote:
?
What peer-reviewed field research proves that CQT polygraphy works better than chance? And just how valid does that research prove it to be?



On 02/18/02 you wrote:

Quote:
Before I address your questions, I note that you didn't really answer mine:

1) Do you agree that that the available peer-reviewed research has not proven that CQT polygraphy works at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions? If not, why? What peer-reviewed field research proves that CQT polygraphy works better than chance? And just how valid does that research prove it to be?

I realize you averaged the Bersh and Barland & Raskin studies to come up with an average accuracy of 67.87? Do you seriously maintain that these two studies prove that CQT polygraphy works better than chance and that it is 67.87% accurate?
You say not better than chance and then say it doesn't say it doesn't work better than chance?  Please explain.



On 03/07/02 you wrote:

Quote:
No, J.B. The burden of proof rests with you (and other polygraph proponents) if you would have us believe that CQT polygraphy is a valid diagnostic technique. Respectfully, I don't think you've met that burden. Not even close.



On 03/30/02 you wrote:

Quote:
If the polygraph community would have the rest of us believe that CQT polygraphy is a genuinely standardized and controlled diagnostic test that works better than chance under field conditions, then it must shoulder the burden of proving it.



It is you who has said 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."

I repeatedly have asked you how valid the current peer-reviewed scientific field research has shown CQT polygraph to be.  Drew interjected with a quiet valid argument about true standards and controls. However, my original references to standardization and controls were based on your wording, "2) Do you agree that because CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity? If not, why???Other uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables that may reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a polygraph interrogation include the subject's level of knowledge about CQT polygraphy (that is, whether he/she understands that it's a fraud) and whether the subject has employed countermeasures."  Even so, I continued the dialogue referencing scientific definitions of controls and standards and how they are used in CQT polygraph.

I admit I erred in attributing Furedy?s assumptions to Lykken, easily done as they are from like ideological camps.  I completely understand what he is saying about the psychological and sociological consequences and elements that may differ in any given test/exam. 

The survey you posted does not specify what information was given to those who were polled and what prior if any knowledge they had of polygraph.  Honts has disputed this poll and I don?t think provides any enlightenment to your original statement for which this debate is centered around.

You then ask me once again to prove elements before you establish your assertion of the validity.

  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #27 - Apr 1st, 2002 at 8:33am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

Just because there are no direct peer-reviewed researches studies for the CQT polygraph on the physiological responses described does not mean that there are no comparable psychophysiology studies.  I don?t see it is necessary to continue this discourse.  It is George who has a not better than chance validity assertions to establish.  There also currently exists the problem of multiple uses that are shirttailed to one another under the common ground of the CQT format, which may rightfully cause subjectivity problems for almost every inference throughout a continued discussion.

I cannot agree with you more about your task for the future of pre-employment polygraph screening.  I too do hope that a true combined effort can be established for the betterment of society as a whole and polygraph as a profession in the not so distant future.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6139
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #28 - Apr 1st, 2002 at 12:22pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.,

Quote:
I was referring to your insistence that I must prove CQT polygraph valid.


This is hardly changing the subject.

Quote:
I repeatedly have asked you how valid the current peer-reviewed scientific field research has shown CQT polygraph to be.


No sensitivity or specificity can be determined for CQT polygraphy (an uncontrolled, unstandardized, unspecifiable procedure) based on the available peer-reviewed field research.

Quote:
The survey you posted does not specify what information was given to those who were polled and what prior if any knowledge they had of polygraph.  Honts has disputed this poll and I don't think provides any enlightenment to your original statement for which this debate is centered around.


The survey to which I referred (Iacono, W.G. and D.T. Lykken, The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82, 426-433) does indeed specify what information was provided to those who were polled, and your assertion that it doesn't suggests that you haven't read it. If you have the 2nd ed. of Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, you'll also find the information that was provided to survey respondents at pp. 179-181.

I only mention this survey in response to your ludicrous assertion that the failure of CQT polygraphy to be unanimously accepted by the scientific community is ascribable to quibbling over whose format is better (CQT vs. GKT).

In your last message directed to Drew you wrote:

Quote:
It is George who has a not better than chance validity assertions [sic] to establish.


Again, I haven't claimed that polygraphy has been proven not to work better than chance, but rather that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance under field conditions. Your position seems to be that polygraphy is valid until proven invalid. If that is indeed your position, then I think there is little point in further discussion.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: The Scientific Validity of Polygraph
Reply #29 - Apr 8th, 2002 at 8:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,

It is a change of subject.  You shift the burden in every discussion and still have yet to assert what the accuracy rate is for CQT polygraph under field conditions.

I have read the survey you have cited.  What I meant by my prior statement was that the information was not specified and/or included in the cited survey by you.  Iacono and Lykken’s survey indicates it is for the purpose of “the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection”.  However, it is overwhelmingly obvious that this survey was conducted in the attempt to discredit CQT and boast GKT.  My assertion about squabbling over methods is not ludicrous but a well-known fact that this ideological camp supports GKT and only prescribes ill comments to CQT.  If you would have posted the information provided in the survey to those surveyed about the CQT and GKT, one could see that the information was vague and bias.  I say vague because there is simply an opinionated summary of the CQT theory.  For example;

Quote:
Journal of Applied Psychology 1997, Vol. 82, No.3, 426-433

         The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion

W.G. Iacono and D.T. Lykken
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

Pg. 427-428

                       Polygraph Techniques
CQT

           The CQT compares the physiological disturbance caused by relevant questions about the crime (e.g., for the O.J. Simpson case, “On June 12, did you stab your ex-wife, Nicole?” with disturbance caused by “control” (more appropriately, comparison) questions relating to possible prior misdeeds (e.g., “Before 1992, did you ever lie to get out of trouble?”  or “During the first 45 years of your life, did you ever try to seriously hurt someone?”).  As characterized by Raskin (1986), the control question, which are deliberately vague and therefore difficult for anyone to answer truthfully, are designed to give the innocent person

The opportunity to become more concerned about questions other than the relevant questions and   produce stronger physiological reactions to the control questions.  If the subject shows stronger physiological reactions to the control as compared to the relevant question, the test outcome is interpreted as truthful.  Stronger reactions to the relevant questions indicate deception. (p. 34)

GKT

     The GKT attempts to detect not lying, but whether the suspect possesses, “guilty knowledge,” that is, knowledge that only the perpetrator of the crime and the police would posses (Lykken, 1981).  For example, “If you were at the crime scene, Mr. Simpson, you would know what Nicole was wearing.  Was she wearing a green swimsuit?  A black cocktail dress?  A white tennis outfit? A red blouse and slacks?  A blue bathrobe?  A T-shirt and jeans?”  A GKT might consist of 10 such items.  Guilt would be indicated by a consistently stronger physiological response to the correct guilty knowledge alternative among these items.  Although the GKT is seldom used in the field, it has been the topic of considerable interest, generating a substantial number of research reports in psychological journals (for reviews, see Abrams, 1989; Ben-Shakar & Furedy, 1991; Iacono & Patrick, 1988).



There should have been data presented of the accepted research studies validity findings and/or a list of these studies combined to show a statistical overall accuracy rate.  A short outline of the entire method should have also been included. I say bias because the wording in the descriptions of the two question formats is obviously slanted.  When the CQT is discussed, the physiological response is a “physiological disturbance”.  When the GKT is discussed, it is a “physiological response”.  When looking at the GKT method description, there are several studies suggested for reference.  The CQT method only lists one source and makes no suggestion to references.  The difference of the highly informed subject group, who thought CQT was at least 85% accurate, and the remaining uninformed was an interesting point of discussion that was touched but dismissed. The percentages of with opinion on the surveyed areas are also an interesting topic of discussion that is set aside.

Whatever you wish to say about chance validity, you still have not once given what the established validity is and/or soundly defined your assertion as to how you have come to the chance validity conclusion. Both the sensitivity and specificity is included in your statement.  I assume your assertion is based on the RCMP study.  Maybe if you were to say, "CQT polygraphy has been shown by peer-reviewed research to work at not better than chance levels for truth under field conditions.” your assertion may have some grounds, albeit still arguable.

My assertion is not that polygraph is valid until proven otherwise.  It is that the accuracy rate for the CQT format has been acceptably established when used in a specific criminal issue testing scope and the only element missing is its proof of general acceptance.  It has been pointed out in previous literature that one of the main reasons for this lack of scientific acceptance is the lack of universal agreement within the field of polygraph, (ie.. use, question format methods,….)  This task is much easier to accomplish by narrowing the scope of use.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
The Scientific Validity of Polygraph

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X