This should be interesting to watch.  Who knows maybe we'll all learn something.

Ark

To my knowledge the APA does not prohibit retests.

If an examiner suspects cm, what call do you feel is proper?  Can't call it DI.  Can't call it NDI.  Must call Inconclusive or No Opinion.   

Given that Ark made mention of my bill-of-rights concept, I thought a quick cut and paste would be instructive. The following was posted on several polygraph forums over the past couple of years. Condemnation from the polygraph community was swift and universal.

Please note the the latter point made in item #3 would most likely be unknown in the vast majority of cases, but that's exactly the point: Potential test subjects could benefit from being informed that the examiner's personal accuracy rate is unknown.
>
> -------start of original bill of rights post -----
>
> "No test is perfect."
>
> And some -- like polygraph -- are far from it.
>
> What of the victims of polygraph tests? I speak of those individuals who suffer false positive results.
>
> Clearly, many such victims would be better off had they never taken the polygraph.
>
> Perhaps prevention -- and fully informed consent -- is the key.
>
> Although much is made of polygraph ethics, its scientific robustness, very favorable accuracy (which is often compared to that of medical tests) and purported court-qualified reliability, there seems to be one thing that is conspicuously absent: a bill of rights for test takers.
>
> It seems to me that if polygraph is to ever gain the respect that has been eluding the field for some 90 years, then a bill of rights would go a long way toward achieving that goal.
>
> I have taken a stab at drafting a list of items to be incorporated into "bill of rights." Here it is:
>
>
> 1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.
>
> 2. Knowledge of the name of the examiner who has primary responsibility for conducting the examination, and the names and professional relationships of other examines who may review the test for quality-assurance purposes.
>
> 3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own accuracy rate with those exams.
>
> 4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique.
>
> 5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand.
>
> 6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.
>
> 7. Receive, prior to the exam, as much information about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- including opposing views from respected academic and legal sources -- the subject may need in order to better give informed consent.
>
> 8. The right to refuse the exam, or halt the exam at any stage of the process.
>
> 9. The right to be advised as to the reason for the presence of any individual besides the examiner during any portion of the exam process.
>
> 10. Receive, if requested, a complete copy of the entire exam, including full-length continuous video, charts, work sheets, score sheets (manual), computerized scoring output, notes, and any background information supplied to the examiner.
>
> 11. Confidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to the examination. Written permission shall be obtained before the polygraph records can be made available to anyone not directly concerned with the immediate case.
>
> 12. Mandatory video recording of the entire examination process.
>
>
> Why a "bill of rights"? There are bills or rights for all types of situations...medical patients, mental health clients, even for consumers of commercial credit.
>
> A bill of rights for examinees would go a long way to demonstrating that polygraph is not the witchcraft that it's often made out to be.
>
> Beyond that, it would help prevent polygraph abuses, and provide victims of false-positive results with a solid platform from which to launch remedial measures.
>
> Again, this list is just a rough draft.
>
>
> -------end of original bill of rights post -----
>
> 
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect

No transparency = 45% inconclusive rates, at least where I am.

Even when an examiners shoddy or very questionable  work is exposed, and is undeniable, there is little to no concern  Examinees are told they have no rights to charts to get independently reviewed.  Inconclusive is an easy call to make if someone has red hair, if an examiner were so inclined. (not accusing on that one, just pointing out how easy it is to call a test, inconclusive, and get away with it)

Now with your guy, it is kinda hard to prove if there is any inconclusive abuse.  But when a clear case of inconclusive abuse happens, and is provable, the question there is, how does that not get looked into to protect the APA integrity and/or to take a corrective action against the examiner or firm so the problem is solved.

Now sometimes a test is just plain inconclusive; believe me, I get it.  But come on.

As an industry, shouldn't we want better for the consumer?

Ex Member wrote on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 6:21am:


Ark

I agree there is no transparency.  Many small businesses are not transparent.  A private, for profit business is as transparent as the law of supply and demand dictates. 
The questions you raise are best asked before spending the money.

In my opinion, the polygraph industry loathes transparency -- at least in general.

Case in point: In the past few weeks or so that Joe and I have been posting about some very weighty issues, not one  polygraph "professional" has come forward under their own name.

That's very queer, as everyone who's anyone in polygraph science -- such as it is -- or polygraph politics,  monitors this site with great concern.

Where, oh where, are they? [cue crickets]

I refer to all those polygraph science (fiction) geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists who are desperately trying to legitimize a fatally flawed pseudoscience. 

That goes double for the industry politicos and their sycophants who profit by by exploiting the allure of polygraph's alleged scientific legitimacy.

Are any of you willing to sample your own dog food? (As with a countermeasure challenge, or, God forbid, with incident-specific exams concerning the indu$try's business shenanigans, as Joe has suggested?)

Of course not.

Polygraph is a one-way street.

The industry that claims to be dedicated to truth needs a strong dose of its own medicine.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect

Yeah, that must be it. They wouldn't be chicken or anything...