Quote:


Honts was quoted extensively in that study.   As a polygraph practitioner, he is among those who have a “vested, financial interest” in polygraphs. Suffice it to say that the study should be greeted with the same skepticism with which one would receive a tobacco industry study into the linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer.   

The NAS report came out in the same general time frame and refutes most of the conclusions made in the study in question.  The NAS report pretty much concluded the Polygraph is NOT a scientifically valid test.

TC

Anonymous Too,

I am suggesting that unless research is published in a legitimate scientific journal and peer reviewed by legitimate scientists with credentials from legitimate, accredited universities, then said research has little integrity, and has no use being sourced for any point. 

Here's what the American Medical Association has said:

"The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."

""Though the polygraph can recognize guilty suspects with an accuracy that is better than chance, error rates of significant size are possible."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-04-08-kantor_x.htm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

The last two is where your quote came from. It mentions "75% to 97%," not "97%." They also strongly emphasize the high rate of false positives directly related to trying to catch a higher number of guilty suspects. I can catch 100% of guilty people if I call every person I interview a liar. They also say that the polygraph is not capable of deciding guilt or innocence alone because of its high error rates, and that it should not be used as a screening device, also because of its high error rates (which, by chance, is the subject of this thread).

1986 was just the beginning of true, skeptical research on the polygraph. Since then, a lot of research has cast more unfavorable results. I wasn't able to find any recent statements from the American Medical Association, but I would be very surprised if they still claimed the numbers they do.

How many people do you see complaining about false positives on urine analysis during the hiring process for law enforcement agencies? That should offer some insight.

My position is not based solely on the American Medical Association's 22 year old position on polygraphs. It is based on the culmination of science's overall outlook on them. If polygraphy legitimately fell under a specific science, it would be psychology, which is the scientific study of human behavior. And the American Psychological Association has a much worse, more up-to-date opinion of the polygraph.

The fundamental problem with the polygraph and why it will never be acceptably accurate is because "(t)here is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception."

http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html

Anonymous Too,

Recently, Theodor C. Caron, Jr was also "cleared" by the polygraph, then was later found by DNA evidence to have killed Pamela Brown.

Anonymous
3 references to the same document does not count as 3 sources. Psychology Matters is not listed as a "Professional Journal" by the American Psychological Association. Nothing in the essay states that it is a position paper on behalf of the association. The essay you referenced there only cited four sources clearly selected for their negative stance regarding polygraph. The essay on that site about driving while talking on the cell phone cites 19 sources. Hmmmmm

The author of the USA today article you referenced describes him self as a  technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all. Have you read any of his other stuff like the scholarly "Pastor Roger Byrd- Ignorant Redneck" or "The Damn Lithuainians are at it again"? Somebody might get the impression you judge credibility based on whether or not someone agrees with you.  

Theodore Caron's DNA wasn't the only male DNA at the crime scene. The victim had another fellows DNA on her underwear.  Why don't we wait and see if Caron is convicted before we declare polygraph a failure here.

Whatever Psychology Matters is, or regardless of who pays for the web site, WHAT IT IS NOT, as you are so fond of saying, a legitimate scientific journal and peer reviewed. Nor does it clam to state the official position of the organization. The essay is just an article, insufficiently researched to pass muster as a high school term paper that uses cherry picked citations and not even very many of those. 

NOWHERE in your JAMA citations does it state that "The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss" that statement comes from Kantor ( The guy who doesn't like southern preachers and Lithuaninans, remember?)

But lets talk about JAMA and coins just for fun. While tossing a coin is a 50-50 proposition with a 2 sided coin, if you take the BOTTOM JAMA estimate of 75% you would need to flip a 4-sided coin with heads on 3 sides and tails on one side to get a 75% chance at heads on the flop. Have you ever been to Vegas?  all of those bright lights are paid for with a median house advantage of less than a 56% chance at winning on table games, slots and video poker and that even includes sucker games like keno. But polygraph isn't chance at all even JAMA states that the process performs significantly better than chance. Just because  you flip a coin 100 times and get heads 75 and tails 25, does not in anyway prove the coin is defective

But Polygraph isn't a chance proposition and testing error rate has NOTHING to do with chance. 

The only thing that lends more credibility to JAMA and the American Psychological Association is that however wrong they may be on this topic it doesn't appear that someone who had a pre-stated interest in a particular outcome paid them almost a million dollars for their opinion like happened with the NAS study. I have even heard that the "Donors" didn't authorize final payment until they heard the results of the study. If this is true, the employees that funded the study managed to turn the NAS into extremely well-paid hookers only it was Polygraph that got screwed. 

Anonymous I don't know who fabricated that silly "coin toss" quote either. Lots of polygraph detractors use it but no one including you seems to be able to point to a verifiable source. They always say that some unnamed "expert" used it in an unspecified hearing on some unknown date while testifying regarding some unspecified law or investigation.   
This raises justifiable doubt as to it's legitimacy.   

Likewise concerning your assumption that all of the essays on that 
other APA web site are reviewed by several PHD.s and even if they are that still DOES NOT carry the weight of a position paper any more than their story about cell phone use in cars means you'll never see a member of their association jabber-jawing in traffic. 

What you fail to acknowledge is that there are relevant, scientific sources that verify that polygraph is a useful screening tool. No screening test of any type should be the sole determining factor in any decision making process. The purpose of a screening test in any field including medicine and psychology is to identify targets for further investigation or consideration. Women who produce questionable mammograms do not go straight to Chemotherapy they are subjected to further testing to confirm or refute mammography screening.   As a screening instrument, polygraph performs as well or better than many medical or psychological screening tests as evidenced by the Crewes Study. To date no-one has successfully refuted the findings of his study. 

Regardless of what examinees who fail their polygraph tests may want or choose to believe, the polygraph result hardly ever is and never should be the only reason someone is not hired. I think the American Polygraph Association Policy on pre-employment testing says as much:
" 3.3      Polygraph test results should never be used as the sole basis for the selection or rejection of a law-enforcement or public-service applicant". 
http://www.polygraph.org/files/delPolicyLE-PublicServicePre-employmenttestingJan...;

This  also agrees with the content of the JAMA abstract.  I have never heard of a polygraph examiner who makes the final decision regarding the hiring of any applicant. 

Polygraph isn't stagnant. Polygraph procedures today are different than polygraph in 1986 When JAMA published their article.  Pre-employment screening tests now generally use a successive hurdles approach to clarify the results of a questionable screening exam. However if someone is caught attempting countermeasures like the ones taught on this web site then no further testing is conducted. The assumption being if the examinee tried to cheat on his first test he will probably try to cheat on any subsequent examination. Perhaps if the successive hurdles approach was being used at the time many of the detractors here took their pre employment test the concerns might have been resolved and they might have been hired. 

Polygraph detractors not only seem to want to criticize polygraph they seem hell-bent on preventing any research that could result in polygraph improvements. They certainly try to ignore any research conducted since the NAS study which specifically called for more research. What are they afraid of? They aren't paying for the research. If it shows that polygraph can't improve, and it is outlawed they win. If it shows that polygraph can be improved, and its accuracy and reliability increase, they win.  The only thing they stand to lose from further research is their right to gripe.

Anonymous Too,

We both agree on one thing: Unless results from a polygraph session are confirmed, they should not be grounds for any negative action. Unfortunately, this is not the case with many agencies, local, state and federal included. And many innocent people are getting burned because of this.

Quote:


If yo can't cite any credible study concluding the polygraph to be a good screening tool, just say so.  No need to go into a long and lame diatribe comparing the pseudo science of polygraphy to podiatry, radiology or any other scientific practice.  It's frankly an insult to podiatrists!  They actually have to go to medical school to earn a doctorate, not some 14 week polygraph school!  Ditto, to those polygraphers using the term "psycho physiologist".  I believe physiologist have doctorates also.

You're starting to remind me of Sancho Panza (aka Capt Phillip Queeg).

Quote:


If you don't pass the polygraph, you will not meet requirements and will not be hired.  People are routinely presented with a conditional offers of employment at these agencies.   Conditional upon passing the polygraph.  They fail the polygraph and are not hired.  Some letters even state that they've been rejected because their polygraph results were not "within acceptable parameters". 

TC