Ark, what, exactly, do you find to be deficient in the APA's meta-analytic survey?

Ark, in your opinion...   

Given the fragility of the CQT polygraph "test" -- and the tremendous variance in examiner ability, as well as that of  examinee suitability -- should Monte Carlo statistical modeling be part of the equation that predicts polygraph accuracy?

If not, why not?

John Daly? You're really dating yourself Ark. But I did the same when likening APA de facto chief researcher Ray Nelson to Professor Irwin (The world's foremost authority!) Corey.

The APA has a storied history of steadfastly supporting studies claiming perfect accuracy. In fact, the report that the APA stood by for 15 years -- and sold for 25 bucks a whack -- contained multiple studies showing polygraph to be 100% accurate. Remember, in that compendium, it was reported that average field accuracy for polygraph was a whopping 98.6 percent.

There are several factors that contribute to the "perfect storm" that sets the stage a study showing perfect accuracy. Such factors include clear-cut cases that more than merely satisfy Backster's cardinal requirements for success -- adequate background information, case intensity (i.e., what's at stake), and distinctness of issue; flawless execution of a proven technique, test-taker suitability, and, of course, examiner expertise (to include innate talent, skill and intuition -- none of which are "scientific").

The bottom line is that polygraph is far more of an art than it is a science.

Add to all of that the inherent benefits of conducting a polygraph "test" in a police setting, such as being fed information based on the hunches of the case investigators, as Dr. Richardson has pointed out. Also, people who submit to a police polygraph are probably not all that bright, which helps immensely.

Let me be clear: Studies suggesting 100% accuracy are not to be generalized to the polygraph-operator population at large. Far from it, in fact. Look at it this way...you can't teach someone to throw a 95-mph fastball. That's primarily a God-given skill.

In the case of the MQTZCT, it is my opinion that only (exceptional) examiners who were taught personally by Backster in his seminal ZCT method, and subsequently taught the Quadri-Track technique by its creator Matte himself, should conduct such exams.

Nelson is correct when he characterizes the MQTZCT as both an outlier and a boutique technique. To be sure, the MQTZCT does not fit the APA's current cool-kid narrative that espouses simplified, dumbed down, cookie-cutter polygraph methodological shortcuts such as ESS, inclusive CQs, and directed lies.

Dan, let me bone up on the MQTZCT so we can have a discussion about it. It seems very interesting. It's been a while since I've cracked open the Matte boat anchor.

Hmmm, I wonder if your irreverence may be related to the attached?

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 1:51am:

Yes, would you happen to have a copy of this document?:

Verschuere, B., Meijer, E., & Merckelbach, H. (2008). The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique: it’s just not science. A critique to Mangan, Armitage, and Adams (2008). Physiology and Behavior, 95(1-2), 27-28.

It would be interesting to read as Bruno Verscheure is one of the top polygraph researchers and I'd like to compare his analysis with that of your paragon of polygraphy.

By the way, "boat anchor" referred to the size, not the quality. 

It seems that your angst may be related to APA's feud with Matte. Advice from the fence: loyalty is noble but, don't take things so seriously, they are just spirited discussions.