J.B.,

Quote:


I agree with you that more general terms like "polygraph," or "the polygraph" are often used when a more specific application is actually intended.

Quote:


I suspect you are right, though I also suspect that the polygraph is not the best instrument for conducting such tests. It should be noted that concealed information tests are not suitable for screening purposes.

Quote:


J.B., in your earlier post, you made the positive assertion that, "The polygraph has been meticulously examined in actual criminal cases and done so more than any other forensic science." My point is that most of the field research on polygraphy (the thousands of cases of which you speak) has not been "meticulous" enough for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that the limited research which has been so published does not establish that CQT polygraphy reliably works at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.

It is my understanding that with most genuine forensic tests (e.g., urinalysis for metabolites of various drugs), laboratory conditions more closely approximate field conditions than is the case with CQT polygraphy (such that laboratory studies may be relied upon), that test procedures are well-defined and standardized (unlike CQT polygraphy), that appropriate control measures exist (such control is completely absent with regard to CQT polygraphy), and that, with regard to diagnostic tests, sensitivity and specificity are knowable (which is not the case with any application of CQT polygraphy).

Quote:


Not so! The NAS conclusion that "...There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods" appears in its conclusions regarding polygraphy in general.

J.B.,

While the focus of the NAS report was indeed on polygraph screening, the polygraph review panel did make conclusions with regard to polygraphy in general. These conclusions are enumerated at the beginning of Chapter 8 of the report, before the conclusions regarding polygraph screening in particular.

I do not wish to be argumentative, but I think it is important to emphasize that  the NAS's conclusion that "...[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods" was made with regard to polygraphy in general, and not just screening, as you (incorrectly) assumed. This fact may easily be checked by referring to the context in which the foregoing conclusion appeared.

The NAS concluded that there is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing in general. This is a key conclusion that you cannot gainsay.

George and Friends
Well it appears things have not gone quite as you think they should, but you might remember I told you this would happen, I also told you that the "pool" of examinees will shrink in the DOE, this will also happen in time.
A bit of reality for you from someone who has been involved with the DOE community for over a decade.  DOE made a decision that was thiers to make, as the requesting agency and the one footing the bill.  The Secretary takes all information into account, such as the political aspects of why this review was even conducted, and the blatant anti-polygraph bias existing within the panel, looks at the practical reality in the form of congressional mandates,and made a decision.   
The Secretary of Energy knows that he has many PHD researchers that would tear down fences, welcome the Chinese into design areas in the name of academic freedom, institute tye dye shirts as the uniform of the day and generally create a friendly campus type atmosphere free from the nasty inconvienience of security measures.
Generally speaking, this community chafes at the requirements placed on them by the department.  As contractors fresh from academia in some cases, or insulated from the real world in others, this group requires special handling.  Perhaps including having a group of scientists look at the source of thier concerns.
Some of these scientists will never accept the idea that someone with a bachelors degree can have a possible impact on thier careers.  In some cases this fear is justified as this crew is notoriously sloppy with security and the protection of classified.
So George, dont be upset.  Your boat may be going sideways, but it has not capsized yet.

Vance,
What you say is somewhat true in criminal cases. But we are talking about employee screening here. The court admissibilty of a polygraph is moot. People are losing their jobs and security clearances soley on the basis of those "squiggly lines". More important though is the possibility that the DOE may be relying on the polygraph so much that the real spies (who know how to manipulate the test) are slipping through unnoticed.

Dear George,

I have been visiting this site for a couple of months now. I originally ran into the site through word of mouth while discussing polygraph experiences with co-workers. I find your site very informative and I wish you luck in abolishing the polygraph. It is merely an interrogation tool that allows unethical polygraphers to arbitrarily accuse people of dishonesty often times because of a persons attitude, appearance or a mere "hunch" on the part of the examiner. 

I am a 7 year Police Officer,  I have worked for 2 departments, I am a Defensive Tactics Instructor and Firearms Instructor. I am thankful every day that I have been given the opportunity to work in this field. I was afraid when I began the process, in 1995, that I would be DQ'd for violating the "Drug/Substance Use" policy of the department. I was well outside the timeframe for use of marijuana (5 years) but I had exceeded the number of uses (20 times or less). I could not recall the number of times I had used marijuana, but between the ages of 17 and 20 I knew I had used it more than 20 times. I had no other violations or criminal conduct that result in being DQ'd, so I decided to give it a try. During my process, I had several friends from high school that also applied with local PDs shortly before I did. These gentlemen were, to my knowledge, not guilty of anything too horrible in their backgrounds that would have removed from the eligibility. Nothing aside from some high school pot use and maybe some underage drinking, but nothing "serious". All 4 of these individuals were DQ'd after the polygraphs. This made me very nervous and I considered withdrawing from consideration as my polygraph was going to be within the next 30 days. 

However, before I took my first poly I had the incredible luck of running into a friend of the family from years past who was a former Police Officer and had become a PI and a poly examiner. I began to explain to him my dilemma and boy did he open my eyes! He was VERY honest with me about the machine's flaws as well as the prospect of unethical examiners and even took me to his office to further acquaint me with the machine. He explained control, relevant, irrelevant questions, etc. We even conducted a couple of mock exams.

I took my first "official" poly about 3 weeks later and totally blew it away. I  started out with a smaller department (about 80 officers) to get my foot in the door and about a year later applied with a large municipal department (about 3400 officers) and the Highway Patrol in my state. After processes with both agencies, which included polygraphs, I was offered a position with both but elected to work for the city as the Highway Patrol wanted to relocate me about 250 away from my home. Both of these agencies had guidelines similar to the original department I worked for. Yes, when it boils down to it, I LIED. However, I decided to do so KNOWING I would make an outstanding officer and also KNOWING I would serve my community with integrity and honesty. I was not about to let a couple bad decisions I made when I was "young and dumb" stop me from pursuing my goals.

To date I have received several letters of commendation, made countless arrests, gotten many of society's undesireables off the street and have served my community and profession with pride and integrity. To think this all may never have happened if, like so many others, I had walked into the examiner's office as his or her pigeon and spilled my guts, only to be told "no" is almost sickening to me. 

I would encourage anyone who is considering a pre-employment polygraph to educate themselves, so as not to become a poly examiners "victim". The polygraph is NOT accurate and should be trashed as a pre-employment screening tool. 

Good luck all!

Keep up the good work George!

PK

IS IT ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN TELL ME HOW OR IF IT'S A WAY TO BEAT A POLYGRAPH TEST??? 
NOT THAT I HAVE LIED ABOUT ANYTHING BUT I WANTED MY GIRL FRIEND TO TAKE ONE AND SHE SAID SHE WOULD BUT I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF IT CAN BE BEAT??? ALL OF YOUR INPUT WOULD BE VERY APPRECIATED... MY EMAIL IS : BOWENS001@HOTMAIL.COM   IF YOU WOULD WRITE TO ME PLEASE IF YOU KNOW ABOUT MY QUESTION? 

SINCERE REGARDS,
BEN ~~

Los Alamos National Laboratory's Daily News Bulletin Reader's Forum includes some pointed commentary on the DOE's decision to ignore the NAS report:

• The National Academy on the polygraph (Bernard R. Foy -- 5/22/03)
• DOE - Short on trust, but long on faith (Ken LaGattuta -- 5/21/03)
• More on DOE earning our trust (Joe Martz -- 5/16/03)