Batman,

In view of the truly significant problems which do exist in the world of polygraphy (e.g., polygraph screening), a resolution which allows for the use of either polygraph examiner or forensic psychophysiologist (thank God—right, PDD-Fed?? —very clever of the polygraph community to have unleashed such a bold initiative and yet allow you not to have to change your business cards ) as a job description/title is hardly a worthy end goal for the caped crusader.  I do believe though that we have stumbled upon a suitable candidate for next year's awards in that "pimple on a giant's butt" category you unveiled recently...cheers

PDD-Fed,

You are quite right about Bill Yankee.  It was his keen desire to see polygraphy rise from its status quo and polygraph education rise from trade school education it had largely been for decades.  I know because I sat in his office in the early 1990s, discussed his desires extensively with him and offered contact information relative to the American Academy of Forensic Science, a group that he at the time was unfamiliar with.  It was his desire to see the entry level qualifications (academic background and experience) of examiners change with these changes being reflected in a change in the manner and nature of how they would (could) be taught followed by, and I repeat followed by, various academic associations and interactions.  It would not have been his desire to see sham associations and degree awards that sought merely to artificially inflate credentials in the absence of substantive change.  I am not convinced that his vision has in any way become reality, but it still could...   

I believe I asked you in a previous post if matriculation requirements had changed for basic examiner training at DoDPI since that time.  I don't believe I've seen a reply.  At that time, federal agency employment, criminal investigative experience, and an undergraduate degree in anything were sufficient for entry.  Since that time has formalized prior academic involvement with psychology and physiology been mandated?  Until such time as this is done, there exists no real possibility of serious graduate level education in the discipline of psychophysiology.

With regard to the academic review committee you referred to, again I am quite familiar with that topic because of personal involvement.  Although a polygraph student myself at the time, because of my prior research and other academic contact with John Furedy, my shared research interests with Steve Porges (a member of my doctoral dissertation defense committee) and general contact with Bill Iacono (largely persona non grata with the polygraph community at that time as a result of being David Lykken's student), I made initial contacts with and referred these gentlemen to Bill Yankee for their potential involvement.  The other two gentlemen who participated, Ed Katkin (Sheila Reed's former doctoral committee advisor) and Chris Patrick (formerly a graduate student of Bill Iacono) were suggested by Sheila Reed and others.  What you neglect to mention in your previous post is that in the intervening years, this academic review committee (amazingly containing three past presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research) was dismissed largely leaving DoDPI without serious outside academic review and oversight of any kind.

PDD-Fed,

In the early 1990s (at the time Dr. Sheila Reed was teaching psychology and physiology to polygraph students at DoDPI) she (in particular) and DoDPI would have had more than sufficient credentials to teach these disciplines at a master’s level. The problem was that the students did not have the background to be taught at this level.  Until such time as matriculation requirements change, this will most assuredly remain the case...

You write:

Quote:


We are apparently in complete agreement on this topic.  I don't believe that this serious mistake of the post Bill Yankee era is one lacking a remedy.  Although a distinguished group comprised of individuals such as these will no doubt be appropriately leery of any similar future involvement, because they are all serious professionals as well as academics and because many of the same challenges (some augmented) exist today as did a decade ago, I suspect that they might  be successfully prevailed upon to reassemble their advisory group.  Perhaps you might explore the possibility...


As you may recall, the aforementioned advisory group strongly opposed the use of polygraph screening in the early 90s.  I suspect if this group had remained a viable body, the polygraph excesses we have witnessed since might never have occured and the need for this site and message board discussion might never have existed. Regards,

Drew Richardson

Yankeedog,

If the master's program you refer to is one in the area of psychophysiology, then I believe serious undergraduate preparation in the areas of psychology and physiology should be mandatory.  Quite likely coursework related to the general conduct of research and basic statistical methods should be included as well in this list of pre-matriculation requirements.  If the master's degree were to be offered in criminal justice (or something else), then the requirements would obviously be different.

Although I question the validity of control question testing in both specific issue testing and (particularly in) screening applications, I probably would not strongly disagree with your stated uses.  If examinees are protected through the investigative process with the former use and through subsequent focused background investigations with the latter use, I would be much less concerned than I am with the use of polygraph screening as a sole determinant of suitability for employment or continued employment (the focus of this site).  I should point out though, that I believe it is certainly possible that instead of an examinee being protected from the consequences of a false positive result through further investigation, that the examinee might well be the victim of a false positive polygraph result stemming from the bias (passed from investigating/case agent to polygrapher) of a wrong (but prevailing) investigative theory at the time of the exam.  Regards,