If any of you is willing to buy the crap dished out on this site, perhaps you'd like to get some better stuff.  Here is a summary of what it is and where you can find it:

The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are also mentioned. 

Spiral-bound copies of this article may be purchased for $25.00 postpaid from the American Polygraph Association:

National Office
951 Eastgate Loop, Suite 800
Chattanooga, TN 37411-5608
(423)892-3992 or 1-800-272-8037. 

As Drew Richardson is fond of stating, depending on polygraphers' groups for accuracy studies is like putting Phillip Morris in charge of tobacco health and safety research. 

When evaluating studies on the accuracy of polygraphy, it is wise to focus on those done in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals and conducted under field conditions—not those done by polygraphers with a vested interest in the continued viability of polygraphy and printed in industry trade journals.

As I noted in the Slate/MSN Thread, there are only four studies of CQT polygraphy that meet the above conditions. Taken together, they don't prove that CQT polygraphy works reliably at better than chance levels.

Yes, we are back to square one, aren't we?  The impracticality and tremendous difficulty of field studies, along with opposing lab studies on both sides.  The only thing that separates us on this forum, then, is actual experience.

Must I say again what we all know?  Polygraph is not a perfect process.  I believe it's the best thing we have, though, and it gets the right answer somewhere between much better than chance and 100%, depending on whose study you believe.  As I've told Gino, Drew and others, regurgitating studies is not really useful.

I will say again that the people on this forum who failed the polygraph--justly or unjustly--are such a tiny percentage compared to the millions of people who have passed the polygraph without difficulty.  From experience, I know that the polygraph is not difficult for most honest people to pass, and I know that to outright fail the polygraph is either the result of skeletons in the closet or an unfortunate anomaly.  Again, it's not perfect, but it's pretty darned close.  I'd take those odds in Vegas.

A little background, I went in for my examination (I've only taken one) with the absolute intention of being truthful, which I was.  I believed that the examiner would ask questions and I would answer them.  I had no idea about techniques that would be used.  I was brow-beat, questioned repeatedly regarding the same topic, he tried to trip me up, took on an aggressive posture and raised his voice at times.  I was taken off guard.  I never expected to be treated in such a way during my application process.  All of these factors together contributed to the apprehension that overwhelmed me during my exam.  Since that time I have tried to educate myself.  Granted I have a small amount of knowledge on the topic, but I learn more everyday.  I have searched for information regarding polygraph accuracy.  Unfortunately, more information is available that reflects negatively on accuracy (and it is available free of charge).  It would seem that positive information is somewhat confidential (and never free of charge, as in the post above).  If you believe in the accuracy of this "science" that is your perogative.  However, can you please direct me to where the information you base your beleifs on can be found free of charge.  Finally, if you simply wish to assail me for my beliefs please do not reply.  From reading posts on this board it would seem pro-polygraph persons are the most aggressive and abusive (similarly to my examiner who I hope does not reflect the majority of polygraphers).

Something I failed to address (I can only field so many fly balls at once!   )

Quote:


Gino, when you say the published failure rates for those agencies is over 50%, I know for a fact that is absolutely false if you are talking about employment screening exams.  An outright failure in a screening exam is a relatively rare event.  If you speak of failure as meaning the polygraph "failed" to produce a conclusive result, you'd be a little less than a mile off the bullseye because inconclusive results are, of course, much more common that outright failures.  In my experience, for every person who fails a screening exam, there are at least 100 who don't fail, and most of them pass the polygraph (some are inconclusive).

Now, if you are talking about criminal polygraph exams, there are other possibilities.  Again, if you mean by failure rates that a confession wasn't elicited, then 50% may be correct.   Most polygraphers would love it if 50% of all their criminal polygraph exams ended with a confession.  That batting average would make you a millions in the big league.  If you mean by failure rates that 50% of the people tested in a criminal exam fail the exam, I'd call that figure disappointingly low, since probably more than 50% of the accused defendants actually did the crime.

So you see, it all depends on your definition of failure rates.  Is it a failure on the part of the polygraph, or is it a failure on the part of the examinee?  Get your facts straight, Gino, because there is no way in hell that 50% of the job applicants tested in any of those agenices outright failed their polygraph exams.

As for how I could "know" that a person who failed a polygraph lied, I can't.  But I'd take the odds to Vegas that they did, because that is how confident I am, through experience, that the little box you all hate so much really works.

As for how do I know that a large percentage of those who passed the polygraph didn't do so through countermeasures?  Well, the research doesn't support that; in fact, remember that the research I gave you shows that countermeasures do nothing for the innocent examinee.  Ultimate truth is only known to God.  Without God's input, I'll take the next best thing, which right now is the polygraph.

I request that analsphinter reveal his true identiy as I will.  My name is Brandon Hall.  My testor's name is Paul Reger of the Glendale Police Deparement of Glendale, Arizona.  If you truly believe in what you say, tell us who you are and who you represent.  If you choose to not reveal yourself you must be a coward.  The Glendale, AZ police department denied me application based on my polygraph examination.  However, no one, even the chief, has the courtesy to explain the questions I failed or other reasons I was deemed unhirable.

I was off base in requesting you to provide your name and calling you a coward if you refused.  Emotion clouds judgement.  What I would like to know is what experience you have with polygraph.  The reasons I give credibility to George & Gino is because they have researched polygraph for years.  Both have provided background which adds to their credibility.  I have very little credibility due to the fact that I have undergone one polygraph.  The information I have found is only recent and online.  I have no reason to doubt anything you have said.  I am looking to backup your credibility.  That is why I am so interested in independent scientific research.  However the only indedependent scientific research I have found reflects negatively on polygraph accuracy.  If I could review independent scientific research, which reflects positively on polygraph, I would be better able to compare the two and make a completely informed decision.

Please understand that I am not requesting that you reveal your identity, address, credit history etc.  I am simply asking you to elaborate on the experiences you so often reference.  Information such as: Are your experiences as an examiner, examinee, etc.?  I wouldn't expect you to reveal anything more.  I don't mind revealing my identity since I have nothing to lose or gain.  That may not be your situation.  It would seem that many of the people here fear some type of reprisal should they reveal specific information (quite understandable).    You very well could be the leading authority on all things "poly."  How do I know?  It could well be that you hold more credibility than anyone on this board.  This I am unable to make judgement on since I have no knowledge regarding your experiences. 

Also, I have read some of your posts that mention most of the people here fit into the categories of bitchers, moaners, those that lied and failed (cannot remember specific word usage) and worriers.  A couple of categories that should be added are the curious and instigators.  I am sure I appropriately fit into one of them with the exception of the third designation.  Anyhow, I appreciate the information you provide as you are the first I've found that provides a bit more than veiled or dodged answers.  I cannot say that I have changed my decisions about polygraph validity but it provides an opportunity to view the subject from both angles.