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.