Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) AntiPolygraph research (Read 26031 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #30 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 11:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sancho:

I have read Croddy, and it is my understand the claim was dismissed because the court ruled that the applicants could not claim a constitutional violation because they had no constitutionally protected property right to employment.  IN otherwords, no "standing".

Sancho and Mr. Nelson:

Regarding the Honts study, I was not criticizing Professor Honts himself nor his background or qualifications, just his work in this particular study.  I fully admit I have not read all his published work.

I also fully admit I am not a math whiz, and it has been 25 years+ since my undergraduate course in psychological statistics.

The Honts study has too many variables, the worse being:

College students self-reporting that they read some or all of TLBLD.  Of course, they had to say that to get extra credit. The amount of actual study of the material, or the attempt to actually decieve the polygrapher is not quantifiable, and thus unable to be replacated.

Good scientific study is by necessity, able to be replacated, in order to eliminate the possible bias of the researcher.   

Additionally, each sub group tested only had 10 individuals.  To even start to be statistically valid, the number should be 20 or more.   

Lastly, because the results of that study indicated only about a 70 percent acccuracy rate, that also is a serious flaw in making any determination about the ability to use countermeasures, because the data itself had a 30% error rate, (approx).

If questioning the study means I am arrogant, then guilty as charged.  I am in good company though, as expressed in USA v. Williams by Judge King:

"Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science (“NAS”) questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy - including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies."

The entire ruling is available here:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf

  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #31 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 11:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 4:43pm:
For everyone's information  Mr. Maschke has notified me by personal message that " I wish I had time to provide lengthier replies to you, but at the moment, I hard pressed for time."


I for one, can relate to that.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #32 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 11:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
To even start to be statistically valid, the number should be 20 or more. 


That's not true. You just pay a higher price, statistically - so to speak - with a smaller sample.  (You use a different statistic, which requires "more" evidence to make a determination that something is (statistically) significant. 

The reason you break studies down like this and do ANOVAs is to avoid needing an astronomical sample size.  It's very common.

I think you should write the journal editor and peer reviewers and let them know your concerns.  See if your critique can pass the peer-review process.

Quote:
Lastly, because the results of that study indicated only about a 70 percent acccuracy rate, that also is a serious flaw in making any determination about the ability to use countermeasures, because the data itself had a 30% error rate, (approx). 


You might want to read the study again.  You've missed a little something.

Quote:
"Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science (“NAS”) questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy - including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies."


And the New Mexico Supreme Court used that same report to support the acceptance of polygraph in their courts.

Let's not forget that they still found single-issue tests worked.  The biggest reservations seemed to be the then believed possibility of countermeasures, and that fear appears to have very much colored the authors' conclusions and speculations, but recent research has demonstrated that fear to be unfounded.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #33 - Dec 13th, 2007 at 10:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 11:54pm:
[
And the New Mexico Supreme Court used that same report to support the acceptance of polygraph in their courts.
.


Well, I'll see your New Mexico Supreme Court and raise you a U.S. Supreme Court.  In U.S. v Scheffer, the court said: ... Oh hell, never mind.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #34 - Dec 14th, 2007 at 1:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Do you know what they said in that case?  I've read the entire opinion.  They didn't say polygraph didn't work if that's what you're implying.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #35 - Dec 14th, 2007 at 4:46am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 14th, 2007 at 1:28am:
Do you know what they said in that case?  I've read the entire opinion.  They didn't say polygraph didn't work if that's what you're implying.


Of course I have read US v. Scheffer, it is required reading for any polygraph related research. 

I was not implying anything, in fact that is part of the problem here at Antipolygraph.org, everyone is on edge and people read in motives and underlying meanings to everything.  I was just having a little fun, that's all.

BTW, thank-you for the textbook recommendations.  I'll start looking for them.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
AntiPolygraph research

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X