1904,

Yes, yes, and off the top of my head, I think so.   

The APA doesn't "accredit" scoring systems.  There are two that have been "validated" scientifically: the Utah Scoring System and the (now) DACA Scoring System.  There is another that shows much promise (and perhaps better reliability), but that's not my work, so it would be improper for me to comment.  One could argue that the Backster system has been validated as well; however, it isn't as accurate as the other two.  (There are many variables to consider when talking about a scoring system, and sometimes decisions come down to one's philosophical perspective.  For example, there will always be an error rate in any test.  The question is then, what types of errors is one willing to make.  With polygraph, the question revolves around the perceived costs of false positives and false negatives.)

The Utah clan has consistently shown that the computer outperforms all but the best hand-scorers.  Whether that was published in a peer-reviewed journal escapes me, but science is science whether or not it's peer-reviewed.  (I think that's a straw man often raised.  With that said, peer review is an essential part science.)

Okay, back to work.  Pray I don't throw a computer out the window - although, I do feel a little better now.

Perhaps you should start a new topic as we are off this one.  Until then, I'm not sure where to begin to address the errors in your post.

The Utah system is the most researched system in the world.  To say it's not peer-reviewed is just wrong.  It's not "their" invention - whoever "their" are.

The system was built upon Backster's; however, scientists found his system to be lacking in some areas, so they set out to come up with a scoring system that is empirically based, which is what we have today.  You can read about it in the works of Raskin, Honts, Kircher, Barland, Rovner, Horowitz, Ginton, Horvath, Iacono, Patrick etc, etc, etc....  You'll note the last two are not friends to the CQT.  (Sorry, friends if I missed your name, but I've got to order dinner and pay attention to my kids.)  DACA, based on a study by John Hopkins University has recently adopted the same criteria as the Utah criteria.

Just because research is done at a single university by separate researchers doesn't mean the research wasn't done independently.  (In fact, some of the "Utah" researchers did their research at DACA!)  Also, it is common (actually necessary) in science to set aside a portion of a data set in order to validate findings from the first portion of data to make sure they generalize.  I'm working on a project now that involves both Drs. Kircher and Honts, but I've never been to Utah.  Will this not be independant? Of course it is.

I believe the CPS (computer) scoring was published in a peer-reviewed journal.  I'd have to check.  It was written in the 80's if you want to hunt it down yourself.

What errors?  That's a philosophical question, and it really doesn't matter what I think.  It matters what my employer thinks.  

With that said, it depends.  In a criminal test where there is no real risk of "failing" (at least in my state), then an error only means you wait two hours for the interrogation that was going to happen anyhow.  In a screening situation (and that's what seems to irk you), you're dealing with a different animal.  I have the freedom to take all the time I need with candidates, and as a result I can get almost everybody through - eventually.  That doesn't mean they get hired.  It just means we can get to the point of truthfulness.

For those agencies that have 100 people in line, 99% of whom are more than qualified for the job, then you can set the bar high and only accept those that can make it through a test extremely biased against the truthful (which means better at catching liars).  The cost of errors there is that you lose good people (probably), but you replace them with equally qualified people.

So you see this isn't really a polygraph question.  It's philosophical, and most examiners aren't in positions to make those decisions.

I'm sorry for the brevity, but I've got a child tapping on me for my attention.

Perhaps more later in a new post.

Barry_C wrote on Oct 18^th, 2007 at 10:43pm:

Since you admit there are errors in the polygraph screening process, what makes you believe that when you lose a "good" (truthful) person you are replacing them with another "good" (truthful) person?

How do you know you are not disqualifying a truthful applicant and replacing them with a deceptive one?

What would the difference be in the results if, instead of a polygraph, every applicant who passed the background investigation had to flip a coin?  If the coin lands on "heads" the applicant is disqualified.

If there are "bad" applicants remaining after the BI, the coin toss method would stand a decent chance of eliminating them.  It would also stand a decent chance of eliminating "good" applicants.  However, any "good" applicants that were lost would probably be replaced with another "good" applicant.

How would the results of such an obviously unfair and ill-conceived test be significantly different from the results of polygraph screening applicants who have already passed the BI?

Quote:


Who told you I was a professor?

Now that's arrogance.  I think you might want to look that one up.  (You'll find it before "gullible," but do you really need to be obnoxious?)

I'll answer and respond to intelligent and cordial questions, but I don't have time for foolishness.  You sound much like Gizmo...?

Quote:


I work along side them.

Quote:


If polygraph and coin-flipping were the same, then there would be no difference, but that's not the case.

Quote:


Polygraph is part of the BI, so to say one "passed" that portion isn't necessarily true.  (I realize it may be in some places, but that's not the norm.  BI's may continue after polygraph based on what is learned at that phase.)  About 50% of the people that "pass" BI's admit to more drug involvement during the polygraph, so how effective is the BI?  When it comes to spies (a different animal, I agree), how many have been caught by an interview?  I haven't seen one published interview success story.

You are going to lose good people at every stage of the process, and not everybody is going to agree that is fair.  How good caandidates don't make ot through the interview... the test... psych / suitability... etc?  Do I like that? No, but it is a reality.

Quote:


Again, why be obnoxious?  "Their" could refer to the cumulative findings of the UU researchers, or any mixed group.  After all, they didn't all walk the halls together, but I know what you mean now.

Backster came up with the idea of the seven-point system.  Utah modified it based on scientific findings.

Quote:


What's your point?  Computerized polygraphs were available to examiners in 1992, but CPSLAB has been in continual development for about 30 years.  Computers were used in the lab before 1993, which is how examiners got them.

You try to sound as if you keep up with the research literature, but you fail to be aware of some of the more common studies.  Why is that?

The paper to which I referred was published in 1988, and yes, it was a peer-reviewed publication, and yes, it was a comparison of computers verses humans.

Quote:


Read my response again.  Following legal orders is not arrogance.  Deciding I know better than my superiors about how to do their jobs would be arrogance.  I can voice my concerns, opinions, etc, but how they make decisions about whom to hire and where to draw the cut-off lines is up to them - not you and me.

Quote:


I responded to your questions.  Have you any formal college education?  If so, go and review the basics.  If not, I don't have time to teach you statistics, research methodology and a host of other topics you need for a foundation to have some of the discussions you would like.  

Now, let's get back to the topic.  The computer was able to score charts in which CMs were employed, and they CMs didn't help the guilty, and they hurt the innocent.  As we speak, there are people working on computer algorithms to evaluate how computers could better do that task.  Someday, maybe we'll be able to save the innocent who are mislead and encouraged to try to "help" themselves.

I'm off for a while, and I don't know that I'll have access to a computer. 

Take care.

Methinks you just want to argue.  You seem to be all (erroneous) talk and no substance.  Why is that?

Quote:


That is one of the reasons I asked if you were educated.  You can transform analog data into digital form.  Moreover, they used computers prior to the date you stated, but you I can't help you in your denial of reality.

George,

Why the double standard?  When pro-polygraphers get a little obnoxious they are instantly banned, but this guy seems to speak with impunity.  There's noting in his posts but insults and errors, but you, by your silence, appear to support it.

I have knowledge of polygraph that many here do not.  I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion, but I don't have time to waste. 

Quote:


There's no way you could know that, and experience speaks against it.  The beauty is, even if true, the research shows it doesn't matter if I can spot them or not as the guilty still fail in spite of their attempts.

That's a very well thought out question and observation.  I agree.  We can't determine too much from only the self-reported CM users.  (We can determine some things, depending on how much data we have, but it still requires some speculation.)

The research shows many examiners aren't good at detecting CMs, but thankfully the research shows, as this topic points out on post number one, it doesn't matter since they don't work.  We don't need to speculate.  We have data.

You'll find that the only CMs that were effective (in the Honts study touted here so often) were those for which the subjects had hands-on training - not likely in the field, unless one hires the gentleman from the other site, but his suggestions are laughable.  Then, it's still unknown if one could augment CQ reactions that look real AND are greater than the RQs AND be timely AND fail to produce any of the CM signatures. Good luck.

With that said, I've seen some examiners fooled.  They shouldn't have been, but they were.  Not all examiners are created equal, and some would score what are literally impossible involuntary physiological "reactions."

I probably know more about the polygraph research than most, and I wouldn't want to try to "beat the box" if getting caught had a price.  I don't believe I could do it (which is exactly what the research shows).

Quote:


Let me get this straight.  The guy who only polygraph experience is failing at least two of them knows so much more about psychological research design than the doctors who ran the study and the three Ph.d level scientists who reviewed this study, that he actually has the pompas audacity to feel QUALIFIED to take a blind swing at the quality of this research...

Mr. Maschke spends years demanding (as if he had any right to do so) PEER REVIEWED scientific research into polygraph methods and then whenever peer reviewed research is pointed out to him, he jumps in and uses the full weight of his utter lack of knowledge or education in this or any other field of scientific endevour to slash and tear at the methods used by people FAR smarter than he is.

Bottom line:  George has MAYBE a Master's Degree.  The authors as well as at least three reviewers all have legitimate doctorates specializing in this area.  As I see it, that at least FIVE doctorates against one "maybe" M.S. (In a completely unrelated field, I am sure)

Gee maybe the British Psychological Society should just fire all their doctors and just put George Maschke on retainer as their see all and know all polygraph expert.  Then he, along with Drew Richardson (the WORST NON-certified polygraph examiner in the history of the FBI), can be the world's "One stop shop" for all things polygraph.. .

I still can't believe people are actually taking ADVICE from these guys...

skip.webb wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 12:46pm:


How so?  You posted a study, and George answered by critiquing the methodology.  That's standard fare (unlike so much of the logically fallacious argumentation you see on the Internet).  Until this comment of yours, I see nothing in the exchange between you to that would indicate any "nerves were struck".

In fact, I consider it a pity that you couldn't continue the discussion in the same detached manner (after only your second post), instead choosing to respond to logical argumentation with comments about George's motivations.