Twoblock

In private practice word of mouth about bad calls will remedy that problem.  In an agency he will just hang on until retirement.

Are you in the new tv show on gold mining in Alaska?

Pailryder,

I would agree with Twoblock that your behavior and demeanor on this message board has been exemplary and puts you in a class above many of your colleagues.   

And I would further commend you on SEEKING, if not finding, a format that does not require you to lie in the conduct of the examinations you perform.

That having been said, there are many lies told during the polygraph exam that do not have to do with the setting of probable lie CQT comparison questions, e.g., misrepresentations regarding the accuracy of such tests, etc. 

And even with the directed lie test, the test depends upon the examinee believing that there is some real significance (relative to the significance of lying to the relevant questions) to the area for which he/she is being directed to lie.  Here lies (no pun intended) a great potential for exaggeration, misrepresentation, etc on your part and that of your colleagues.   

And of course even with this kinder gentler form of CQT there is the little problem of validity--it's missing with this format as well as with other forms of lie tests.   

And last but not least, I suspect the test is not more widely used by your colleagues because of the greater susceptibility to countermeasures.  All an examinee has to do to successfully countermeasure any CQT is to (1) discern which are relevant and which are control/comparison questions and (2) produce greater scorable reactions  to control/comparison questions relative to relevant question reactions in a manner that is undetectable by you.  The DLCT obviously eliminates half of the task (point number 1).

Again, although we will not likely agree on this subject area, I appreciate your participation in these discussions.

getrealalready

If a person is able to produce scoreable reactions  to the CQ's in a manner that the OSS3 software and I cannot detect, you are correct.  But, that is a big IF.  I have 30 years of evaluating charts, more than 10,000 tests.  I should know an artifical response when I see one.  The subject is disadvantaged because he/she has no chance to pratice.  They get one shot and it is difficult to know how much is enough, how much is just right, and how much is detectable.   

With repeted testing, as is the case with the sexual offender, there is more chance to pratice and get it right.

Dr. Maschke

If exams were $500, you would be right and I would be retired.  But that is another big IF.  When I got into the field a polygraph was $25.00 and my first employer required a minimum of 8 each day.  Thus the big numbers and the need for EPPA.  My first year I made just over 11K.  These days I am lucky to get 100 tests a year @ $400. each.  With office expense, insurance, professional memberships, license fees and required continuing education hours, well, making a living in private practive has always been a great challenge.

Analysis of any algorithm, as you correctly assume, is not my area of expertise.

I have had a couple of false negatives who later informed me of my missed call, but do not discount the meaningful feedback when ground truth is established by confession.

If I may paraphase Ambrose Brice, certainty means mistaken at the top of one's voice.

I never claimed certainty in detecting CM's, I just pointed out the risks to the user and why I think the odds are in my favor.