armysgt wrote on Dec 16^th, 2007 at 3:50pm:


Excellent question,

As a former background investigator and current polygraph examiner I feel fairly qualified to answer your question.

First of all, you actually give a little more credit to screening polygraph then the research supports.  It is specific issue polygraph testing with consistant accuracy statistics in the mid 90s.  Screening more consistently averages in the mid 80s.  Now that would seem to make your question even more relevent except for one small point:

Anybody who has ever conducted or has been a consumer of background investigations understands the false negative rate (the rate in which disqualifying behavior was NOT revealed) is EXTREMELY high (somewhere in the 85% to 95% range).  That means disqualifying behavior is not revealed 85-95% on the time!  That makes background investigations only 5% to 15% accurate.  In comparison, screening polygraph averages 85% accuracy.  Now do you see why pre-employment polygraph testing is so prevelent?

How can background investigations be so inaccurate?  Well, the posters on this site would have you believe that background investigators are lazy and incompetent and therefore rely on the poylgraph to do their jobs for them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that unless some record is found that implicates the applicant in wrong doing of some kind (like an arrest record), or an ex-spouse/significant other, angry neighbor provides derogatory information, usually nothing but GLOWING reports come in on the candidate.  

After all, how motivated would you be to crap all over your brother, sister, mother, or close army buddy when the background investigator knocks on your door?  Besides, most people do not advertise that they have committed or are are currently involved in perpetrating felonous behavior.  The polygraph goes right to the source of the information, the candidate him/herself.  Most folks cannot successfully lie to themselves (People with that skill set generally go into politics).

Thanks again for your question and good luck in your future endevours.

Nonombre

Nonombre,

   Thanks for responding.  I didn't realize the B.I. had such a low percentage rate.  I am not against using the polygraph for screening LE applicants.

[quote author=63626362606F7F680D0 link=1197820220/0#4 date=1197832644
I will reveal one thing I have never discussed on this site.  When I polygraph an officer currently employed by another department, before the examination, I virtually BEG him/her to walk out of the room if there is even a remote chance the polygraph examination is going to cause any "problems."

Most don't leave the room and in fact do just fine on the exam.  Some do not do well and as I have stated, the information revealed has in some cases been unhealthy to the officer's current career.


[/quote]

Again, thank you for your candid comments, and I fully understand the need to remain anonymous, as I share the same concerns.

Regarding the above quoted material, how do you reconcile the 15% error rate on screening exams, with the harm to a lateral entry applicant who "fails" the poly, but none-the-less told the truth?

Fair enough.  Assuming you agree to contiue to chat about this, a follow up question if you don't ind.

In your experience, has there been any discussion or other concern regarding the possibility of a negligent retention lawsuit?  For example, an officer from Dept. A applies to Dept. B, and fails the poly.  Since he is still employed by Dept. A, but the failed poly is now part of his total employment history, what happens if officer does something to place Dept. A in legal jeopardy, and it is found out that the officer had failed the poly for Dept. B?

Have a nice holiday, non...