George and Canadian Crusader,

An admission of some sort that could explain the response to the relevant question could cause me to offer a second series.  

I would never consider a DI without confession the result of artifact.  I would consider something that looked like an artifact, or occurred during a known artifact causing incident (movement, noise, cough, etc), an artifact.  A DI without a confession, otherwise is just that, a DI.  Most artifacts don't occur over and over at particular questions; unless the artifact is a deliberate act-- ie. counter-measures.

And yes, I would give another exam in the scenario cited, if the examinee admitted to CMs.  If they were silly enough to CM on a relevant, there should be even less concern that they could actually "beat" the test.  Then I could either catch them in a lie outright, or clear them on the relevant issue (with a footnote in the file that they weren't the sharpest tool in the shed, nor of the highest integrity).  The purpose of the exam is to get to the truth on the relevant issue.  The decision of suitability for the job (in this scenario) is up to the adjudicator to whom the examiner suppies all the facts he obtains. 

Honesty is still the best policy, especially when you are trying to get hired to a government agency.

Regards.

Quote:



Indeed, this is a common theme as it really is a fundamental problem and requires the polygrapher's to switch to a different approach or bamboozle the examinee into thinking a control really is a relevant. This area fascinates me which is why I am looking into the general psychology of persuasion with respected exponents such as Cialdini, and other, less respected (in academe) but perhaps more adept practitioners such as Rowland.

A critical QC measure is (I would assume) determining the percentage of applicants that are familiar with the CQT. While giving every applicant an extensive GKT should go a long way to establishing this statistic, it would interfere with the CQT screenings. OTOH, a pair of GKT questions, tacked onto each CQT, would provide the supervising QC folks with this statisitic and allow them to track this vs other variables such as applicant technical background, etc. to establish guidelines as to when other approaches such as DLT should be used instead.

Such a limited sampling of GKT questions would be close to worthless as an indicator for an individual candidate, and shouldn't be individually scored,  but over the course of hundreds of exams, should converge to a significant metric.

This would also provide a way for the polygraph community to actually measure a part of the impact of sites such as this.

-Marty

orolan wrote on Jul 13^th, 2003 at 1:53am:


I would use names or nomenclature specific to this site or William's site that would be highly recognizable to informed applicants but infrequently recognizable to uninformed ones. There are significant complexities to executing such a program (especially examiner bias) but it should be doable. It's important to remember that such a limited set really shouldn't be used in any way to score the examinee. Ideally, responses to the GKT Q's should be recorded electronicaly and sent to QC without the examiner even being in the loop.

-Marty

orolan wrote on Jul 13^th, 2003 at 3:52am:


Absolutely. Totally inappropriate GKT question.

Quote:

Me neither. Also not a good idea for a GKT. There are a fairly good selection of candidate questions though, assuming an examinee has done enough research to understand the issues. For the ones that have not, they are likely not going to be able to deploy CM's effectively.

Quote:


The technology available these days makes this sort of thing feasible, at least amongst the larger organizations. It doesn't need to be done by all of them, just enough to obtain the demographics. I don't see any evidence they are doing this but they are clearly concerned. I assume that these issues are being looked at one way or another but who knows. The research in CM's has been classified for the last decade or so (according to Kleiner).

-Marty

Public Servant,

I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?

Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?

Quote:


Ah, that's the rub. The reason the PLCQT is so widely done is that it is considered the most reliable technique available applicable to screening. Presumably then, knowledge, in and off itself, reduces the effectiveness of the polygraph as the examiner reverts to a less desirable and less practiced protocol. Reminds me of a Fed. Civil Statue I ran across that specifically ordered that a jury was not to be informed of a specific portion of said statue.

Directed ignorance. How nice.

-Marty

George

Knowledge of CQT wouldn't necessarily cause an examinee problems (meaning the examiner could still use it).  Knowledge about a technique and the technique being performed on you are two entirely different affairs.   

Knowledge of a surgical procedure you're about to undertake and surgery being conducted on you are two totally different scenarios.  I don't care how much reading your criminals on this site do, it's not going to properly prepare them for their examination.  I believe deep down you know that to be true, particularly in light of how much study you've conducted regarding the topic.