polyfool wrote on Jul 7^th, 2005 at 2:33am:



Polyfool,

Thank you for posting.  I am afraid that however that I must disagree with you.  Not because your vision of a classicially run investigation is not commendable, but because it unfortunately does not jive with the realities of life.  I have done background investigations, and I have conducted criminal investigations and in the real world, your description much more closely fits a "textbook" criminal case.

You see, as a criminal investigator, I have managed between a dozen and two dozen felony criminal cases at a time, a managable case load when their are prosecutors and victims relying on you for a solved case and closure to what is usually a horrendus situation.

Conversly, as a background investigator, I have sometimes had 200 to 300 files, stacked on the floor, in piles from three to five feet high, with hirings pending, academy slots needing to be filled, and the other two guys out sick.

And it is not just the overwork.  It is the whole dynamic of a criminal case vs. a background investigation.  In a criminal case, there is physical evidence, witness interviews, confessions of co-conspirators, a criminal act,  a victim, changing stories, and all the tings you have alluded to in your post.  Good stuff, the stuff that solves cases.

In a background investigation, all you start with is the word of the applicant and a carefully chosen list of references HE has provided.  Sure you do the usual asking of the references what other people know this guy and MAYBE you get lucky.  But I hold to my earlier statement that unless you manage to find an arrest record or  someone who has a beef with this person, all you are going to get is the usual "He's a really good guy."  In most cases, the neighbors who are giving him such a glowing reference have no idea he had been molesting their 12 year old.

Polyfool, at one point you asked me, "Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?"

I am not sure what answer you were looking for, but I can tell you this.  From what I know, I would figure that VERY, VERY, few people are  denied clearances based purely on a background investigation.

Ahhh, but add a full scope polygraph into the mix... 

Nonombre.

Brandon,

As you correctly assess, a full scope polygraph exam (or any polygraph screening exam for that matter), as a diagnostic tool, would be accurately, fully and simply described as one of the most useless activities of mankind if it were not for the fact that it is additionally and routinely counterproductive and harmful as well.

Tasercop-

Welcome aboard.  The distinction here is between validity and utility.  I don't think anybody would argue that polygraphics had a high degree of utility in this case.  Fortunately for the "suspect" both he and his accusers believed in polygraphics.  This combined with the skills of a good interagotor (you) was able to extract a confession from the false accuser.

However, this particualar story in my mind provides no proof of polygraph validity; esp. in cases of screening exams.

Jeffery,

The polygraph has been used for scientific research for years for things other than the detection of deception.  As an instrument it is both valid and accurate.  Validity is determined by whether or not it accurately records what it is purported to record, which it does.  Reliability, another requirement, is whether or not it consistently records what it is supposed to record.  Here too, the polygraph is proven.  The debate, I believe, is more about the accuracy and reliability of a polygraph examiner to detect deception using the polygraph instrument. 

The polygraph for the detection of deception, in the hands of a well trained, educated and experienced examiner, is very accurate and reliable.  I will agree that there are a lot of examiners out there who should not be doing polygraph examinations and my profession has done a poor job or regulating itself.  I, as most legitimate examiners, openly embraced the EPPA as it was needed and forced a lot of bad examiners out of business.   

The detection of deception using the polygraph is rooted not only in physiology, but equally in psychology.  Because of this it is nearly impossible to consistently replicate field conditions in a laboratory environment.  This has been a problem that has plagued us for years.  Testing someone on a mock crime does not elicit the same sympathetic arousal as testing someone accused of murder. The negative consequence with getting caught in the lie is not the same. 

As far as pre-employment screening, I agree, there are problems.  Nobody should ever be rejected for failing a pre-employment polygraph examination.  In fact, agencies should not even call it a failure, but "significant response".  These are screening exams and the polygraph is used to spot possible areas of concern.  Once SR is detected for a particular question(s), follow-up, specific issue examination(s) should follow. It is not uncommon for me to give 6 or 7 specific issue exams to a person whose initial PE screening showed SR.  My experience is that at least 50% are cleared by the subsequent testing and move forward in the process. The others end up DI and usually admit they had withheld something or the tests results coincide with negative information obtained during the background.  The agency should look at everything as a whole, not just the polygraph.   

The courts have ruled that an applicant does not have a property right to a job and cannot sue due to being denied a position because he/she failed a polygraph.  Unfortunately, many large agencies, especially in the federal government, use it as a tool to thin out and narrow the candidate pool.  They do not have the time or desire for subsequent testing and because of this they lose some good people.  However, they weed out more bad than they lose good, so they consider the loss acceptable.  The same happens with applicants who do poorly on psychological tests, such as the MMPI, which if my memory serves me correct, is only about 70% accurate.   

In years of doing pre-employment screenings, I have never had a complaint filed or even had an applicant use the appeals process.  As far as doing just a thorough background and getting the same information, it doesn't work.  The federal government did a study and found out they miss 70% of the negative information that exists about an applicant without the polygraph.  Many offenses, such as child molesting, peeping Tom, frottage and undetected thefts, are committed in secrecy and must be self reported.  When hiring a cop, I want to know this information if it exists.

Some of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations.  For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use.  Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets.  I believe they are living proof that the system works. Pre-employment polygraph screening isn’t going away; in fact it is increasing exponentially.  Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works better. 

Tasercop wrote in part:
Quote:


Actually by admission of many posters on this forum, many applicants were unjustly denied further processing.  You write of the lack of honesty, integrity and fortitude of many site users.  Please expound on the information posted by these multiple users that caused you to form this opinion.  Your last statement would more properly read as:  Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works.

I also agree with you, Dr. Richardson.  Validity and accuracy are dependent upon the use of the instrument.  I agree the polygraph is spot-on reliable to record one's physiology as designed.  However, its use in detecting deception is lacking in validity and accuracy.  A polygraph's accuracy in detecing deception is lacking due to the sheer existence of false-postives and negatives.  The accuracy is lacking due to the need for human opinion regarding the meaning of the chart.  Without validity how can one claim accuracy?  Without accuracy how can one claim validity?

Although polygraph examiners will generally admit that human physiological responses fluctuate for a number of conditions and reasons, they seem unwilling to accept this fact as they continue to administer examinations with this information in hand.  This to me would pose a question of integrity to those who blindly continue to administer these examinations.

nonombre wrote on Jul 7^th, 2005 at 5:03am:


Nonombre:
There are so many FBI applicants who don't make it through the hiring process to obtain a security clearance that the agency hires double for each position and even then the job may go unfilled. Some managers may even extend offers to four candidates HOPING that just one will make it to the finish line. The FBI purports that 50 to 70 percent of its applicants who are extended conditional job offers will not make it through the background.

Hello all,

Been away for awhile, but I had a few free minutes and was bored so I thought I would check in on things here. Good to see the site still alive and kicking.

Those darn Polygraphers are still around I see, they're nothing if not tenacious. I guess I was hoping they would just kind of "go away", and go onto more fulfilling careers, maybe as tarot card readers or "Psychic Hotline" operators, but that's just wishful thinking of course.

Funny thing to me is that they KNOW what they are doing amounts to garbage that they want to pass off as a "science". They do this knowing full well that the "test" is flawed and not anywhere close to being accurate or truly reliable.

I do realize that they see the usefulness in their "art" as being a good intimidator and interrogating tool for those who do not know better and believe that the "test" is capable of distinguishing truth from deception. To the polyguys (especially the screeners)out there, how many people's lives are you willing to screw up and how many careers are you willing to wrongfully deny, based on this garbage? I'm not really looking for a response, they're just rhetorical questions.

I also hear many polygraphers say "this is the best we've got for now and until we find something better..." yada yada yada. They also try and justify themselves with reasons such as those given by Tasercop. These examples do absolutely nothing to disprove that Polygraphy is nothing but a scam, easily squashed by anyone who is lucky or insightful enough to come across accurate info. These people kill me with their attempts to justify the unjustifiable.  

Fortunately for me, I was one of the lucky ones, and I have enjoyed a very satisfying career to this point. I just hit my 10 year mark and I have accomplished more than I would have ever thought possible before I began my career. I am thankful everyday for the opportunities that I have been given.  

Best regards and good luck, 

PK