Quote:


Gee whiz professor, can it tell if I'm having "naughty" thoughts, or have been playing with my "privates"?   

TC

P.S.  I don't care what you say, repeated F3 reactions to a question does not necessarily indicate "deception", it just indicates persistent "reactions".  Or as the NAS report stated, these reactions are not uniquely related to "deception".  Or as Phil Zimbardo has said, "there is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...".  Cloak your theory in all the fancy scientific mumbo-jumbo you want, you will never get around that fact.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 10:19am:


He does, because he knows he is loosing his battle.

T.M. Cullen wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 8:09am:

 
You have commented on the wrong instrument and the wrong topic. Dr. Zimardo is referring to a polygraph machine and the methodology used within it.  I am not knowledgeable in that matter and was not the topic of this thread. (Although I do know the F3 reaction is a Galvanic Skin response paradigm implored in psychophysiological research and in the polygraph screening). I was referring to the MMPI-2 which is the topic of this thread. The two have nothing in common, and are totally different measures, looking at very different constructs, using different methods for arriving at conclusions. The MMPI-2 is paper and pencil questionnaire that measures personality constructs and levels of psychopathology. There are no machines and no measures of physiological arousal on the MMPI-2. The validity scales are not polygraphs or "lie detectors," but do use statistics to look for signs of overreporting or underreporting of symptomotology. When the scales are raised high enough, they suggest that the chances of elevation to that point by chance alone is so low that conscious intent to distort is the only viable explanation.  With regard to the validity of Polygraph, I am not jumping into that debate, although I will say I would warn you not to put all your eggs in one basket (i.e., Zimbardo). Statistically, you are likely to find many outliers. Only searching and/or evaluating evidence that confirms preexisting beliefs is not a very scientific way to address a debate, and of course leads to confirmation bias, illusory correlations, and a whole host of other logical fallacies that we are prone to.  I am only here to comment on the validity of the MMPI-2 in assessing psychological functioning and it added benefit of being able to discriminate feigned vs true psychological impairment (or normality), not the validity of polygraph or "lie detector" instruments.
 
Lastly, I would argue that intellectual debate between parties is both a healthy and a rather fun activity. I guess there aren't many lawyers in here..lol What a boring world it would be if everyone agreed with us all the time, right?

psych1

If you are in search of a healthy fun intellectual debate, oh boy, did you ever come to the wrong board.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 9:18pm:


Thanks Sarge,

I'll take you last statement as an endorsement of my run-on sentence.

Sackett

I was wondering if you would be able to send me all the questions for the MMPI-2 test. I have to take it and would like an opportunity to study it first.

Thank you 

If you need to cheat on the MMPI-2 in order for you to become a police officer. Then please sit down think, and do everyone else a favor and find another profession. MMPI-2 is an accurate assesment, no pass or fail, you have a 1on1 interview afterwards. I dont want to be working with officers that has psychotic tendencies, so I believe in this test. I just took one with no problem, yea my hand hurts, and it took about 3 1/2 hours. Be who you are, dont pretend to be someone else. Remember INTEGRITY is very important quality for a law enforcement officer.

nopolycop wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 2:48pm:


The published literature on analogue/coached malingering would disagree with you there. Although it can be done, it is very hard (not easy) to do without raising alarm bells on the validity scales, particularly the supplemental validity scales that have been developed in the past decade that are more focused on individuals who try to fake or underreported specific phenomenology, and especially sensitive to those who have been "coached." Both the sensitivity and specificity are high for these scales, albeit not generally as high as the standard validity scales. (i.e., K, F, L). They do meet the Daubert criteria for admissibility in court however. Although the Fb scale has been controversial in several high profile cases in Florida, so I'm not sure if it still would or not. I would also add that an undergrad class in abnormal psych does not provide the time nor the depth necessary to fully understand the psychometric properties, statistics, and the empirical keying (rather than theoretical) method underlying the test.