Twoblock,   Calling what the NAS did to generate their report "research", is a mischaracterization. They did not do any research into polygraph, and did not submit there conclusions to peer review before publishing their findings. All they did was pick 57 studies out of a thousand and give their opinion on the contents of those 57 studies.  

Much like Dr. Maschke has published his opinions concerning the utility of countermeasures without conducting any scientific research to support his claim. He told me once  He didn't have the money.

SanchoPanza

Technically if the NAS reviewed one study, it can be called research. Can you or anyone else verify how many studies they looked at before picking the 57 to use as case review for their report?

If a lawyer reviews just one case, he will charge for research. When filing or helping to file federal mining and ADA actions, I may look at 25 or more cases before picking a half dozen for the Memorandum of Law.

Twoblock

My most recent post in this thread that generated your response on the subject clearly states that the NAS did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. THEY DIDN’T.

Scientific Research is defined as the systematic observation of phenomena for the purpose of learning new facts or testing the application of theories to known facts. Reviewing someone else’s work is at best secondary or desk research. 

I wonder why you would choose to call the NAS report “RESEARCH” when there isn’t a single sentence any where in their report “The Polygraph and Lie Detection” that calls their activity Research. Could it be that as scientists they knew they were not conducting research, in the scientific sense, even if you don’t?

In fact the authors of the report clearly Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph very clearly describes the task with which they were charged as follows; 

Quote:


If you are willing to refer to what they did as Secondary research (also known as desk research) defined as the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research; in future posts, I will be willing to refer to what they didn’t do as Primary research ie experiments, investigations, or tests carried out to acquire primary data from, for example, research subjects or experiments.

This should end the semantic argument and allow us to move on.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:


Sancho, since the NAS review of the research convinced this distinguished and non-partisan group that polygraph screening is invalid, why are you beating this dead horse?

polytek wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 1:59pm:
 

very impressive Polytek

Sancho Panza

Maybe because they didn't review all of the research and your dead horse comment fails to acknowledge both the research they didn't review as well as the research conducted since they released their report.

The "horse" is far from dead.

Cullen  This is from the APA Website

The American Polygraph Association (APA) recognizes the efforts of such a prestigious body as the National Academy of Sciences in the work performed in exploring questions associated with the detection of deception. We wish to note that the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project. 

The APA proudly counts among its membership, well qualified and highly regarded academicians who routinely conduct and publish research in peer reviewed publications and who would have eagerly contributed to this project. Perhaps in a follow-up assessment, the NAS or a similar body will look to the largest international organization in the detection of deception field for answers to some of the important questions in such an inquiry. It is important that the public be aware that in their published report, the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. 

Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available. The NAS panel and the APA recognize that the field of lie detection is a difficult one to quantify or measure in terms of real world effectiveness. As the NAS so clearly reports, real world conditions are difficult if not impossible to replicate in a mock crime or laboratory environment for the purpose of assessing effectiveness. As a result, a paradigm for research into the validity and efficacy of lie detection has always been, at best, a difficult challenge. 

We further agree that a lack of resources over the past decades has hampered more meaningful research, particularly in the security and applicant screening arena. It must be addressed; however, that the NAS report does not adequately recognize the many successes of polygraph in both the criminal specific arena and in National Security. Polygraph testing admittedly not perfect, has been and continues to be an extremely valuable tool. We firmly believe that continued scientific research will support our position; therefore, we welcome the NAS recommendation for additional research and greater innovation in the field. 

We agree with the panel’s conclusion that although there may be alternative techniques to polygraph testing, none of these alternatives outperform, nor do any of them yet show promise of supplanting the polygraph in the near term. We further agree with the NAS finding that expanding research efforts be directed at detecting and deterring major security threats, including efforts for improving techniques for security screening. 

We believe polygraph testing now provides satisfactory detection and deterrence, enhanced research efforts; however, will certainly expand our capacity to improve efforts in those areas. The APA will continue to conduct and support research within its limited resources; however, we must look to other sources, perhaps including the Federal Government to allocate the resources needed to fully accomplish the specific research challenges offered by the NAS. 

The APA stands ready and willing to work with such sources to bring the recommendations of the NAS to fruition.
                                                           end
]
]
Any person or group who believes or states that picking 57 studies out of 194 when there are over 1000 to choose from can be considered thorough or exhaustive lacks the collective brain power to dump water out of a bucket if the directions were printed on the bottom. 

You do not know what was contained in the more than 800 studies they didn't look at and NEITHER DO THEY.

I may choose to leave this forum for awhile because I am busy or bored, but I assure you I will not ever be driven from the forum by the intellectual equivalent of the Lollypop Guild. It's time for your nap now If you're a good boy there might be jello later.

Sancho Panza