posted 01-13-2013 08:48 AM         

That will be but one tiny step toward achieving a modicum of credibility.

I suspect the meta-analytic survey will be soundly panned -- if anyone even cares to read it -- but we have to take our medicine.

Why will the survey be panned? Because it is unverifiable.

I have no doubt that the survey's numbers will all check out, but that's akin to merely having a CPA check your tax return that you did yourself with TurboTax.

Work with me here.

In the case of the tax return, sure, the numbers check out, but the question is this:

Are the taxpayer's claims and declarations legitimate?

We all know what the IRS uses for a remedy. The dreaded audit.

In order to be scientifically vetted, polygraph needs to be similarly "audited" in a manner of speaking. It's the only way.

I can hear the hue and cry... Impossible! It can't be done! Polygraph doesn't work that way!

If that's true, then a sanity check about our "science" claims is clearly in order.

Let me turn to the APA's propagandist (inflammatory, I know, but that's the point) web site...

There are lofty claims made in the meta-analytic survey's executive summary. But does the site contain any independent peer-reviewed polygraph research? No.

Does the site contain any testimonials or position papers in support of polygraph from independent scientists? No.

Does the site contain anything else besides the survey that supports polygraph? Why, yes it does...

[Cue the off-key trumpet fanfare] >>> Anecdotes. Feel-good news tidbits.

Pure fluff.

As Jackie Mason says, whoop-eee gold-boig.

Equally disturbing: What's the main thing that's featured on the APA home page? Pictures of smiling polygraph "believers" clutching awards given to them by their own organization.

Sure, the pictures change from time to time, but it's always more of the same. Kind of like a mutual-admiration yankee gift swap.

What kind of a message does that send?

It's sad, people. Real sad.

My first job in industry, after the army and college, was with a small outfit (70 or so employees) that made LORAN-C navigation devices.

One of my duties was to take notes at weekly engineering meetings, write them up, and distribute them to everyone so we were all on the same page.

One day, someone reported that the gummint was going to launch a bunch of satellites that would put us out of business if we didn't change.

Some kinda global positioning thingee... Ever hear of it?

I remember, upon leaving that meeting, one of the senior guys saying under his breath, "Our future is behind us."

Our future is behind us. Sometimes I think that applies to polygraph.

Now, let's get painfully real...

The main thing that keeps polygraph from being relegated to carnival sideshows, along with psychics and fortune tellers, is an imprimatur of imaginary legitimacy afforded by the government's (and LE's, PCSOT's, etc.) use of polygraph.

But there's no transparency, no across-the-board verification, no running tab on true accuracy, so the mystique continues.

Efforts to scientifically legitimize -- or verify -- polygraph efficacy fall flat because true blind or double-blind studies are virtually impossible to conduct.

Or so the theory goes.

Exacerbating the imprimatur of imaginary legitimacy are government entities that breed their own hierarchy of believers. Those at the top of their little fiefdom's food chains get accustomed to being treated with great deference. Yes, boss, great idea!

After a while, their tribe of adoring fanboys, followers, yes-men and sycophants starts to create its own virtual reality.

That's stupid. And dangerous.

So, while you may castigate me as a troll, nonbeliever, bigot, hypocrite, anti-polygraph polygraph examiner, warped puppy and living proof of Godwin's Law, I ask you to consider whether living in a bubble is what you really want.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 01-13-2013).]

posted 01-13-2013 08:54 PM            

I like that phrase Dan and will tuck it away for future use. That can be used in many contexts!

Not much really for me to disagree with in your post yet I still do not share your passionate lamentations. Associations are often political entities, developed and maintained by a cadre of faux-celebrities who are unknown outside their relatively limited circle of friends. Yet, you could say the same thing about any group of people who effort to get together and work on common interests. The APA is a voluntary association with noble goals, efforting to improve the polygraph profession and I applaud them for that. It is not a governing body that regulates the actions of every examiner in the country. Since you are a member ( I am not - maybe one day) I have no problem with your criticisms , yet once again , you act as if polygraph results sends DI examinees to the electric chair.

posted 01-14-2013 04:22 PM            

You always start out making valid points and then roin youir position by regressing into slamming something or someone having nothing to do with your point other than to try to throw dirt on the APA and its members.

In this case, it's the awards given to hard working people who work dilligently throughout the year to try to make the association better. I am unaware of any organization that does not give awards to its hard working members from the Academy Awards, to the American Legion.

I haven't seen your name on a committee or seen you working at a seminar or doing any of the multitude of jobs that must be done each year to make the organization function.

Feel free to disagree with the organization or its goals and mission but please, refrain from slinging crap at deserving members who are deserving of recognition for their contributions each year.

posted 01-14-2013 04:46 PM         

You're a good company man, taking the focus off of polygraph's embarrassing problem with virtual reality and putting it back on me.

Der Kommissar must be proud.

Yeah, things were a lot better in the profession before I came along, right?

Indeed, how so many APA members long for those halcyon days of the Skip Webb presidency...

Pure utility, freshly minted "challenge coins" for drinking games, and the raison d'etre for many a seasoned conventioneer -- the all-you-can-eat buffet.

Your pre-science administration meant good times, and simpler ones too.

Bon appetit, mon ami.

Dan

posted 01-14-2013 06:30 PM            

Not once have I disagreed with our need to improve our scientific credentials. Not once have I argued against those points made here by Dan. Not once have I argued against his positions on polygraph and its many shortcomings or the need to shore them up.

I try to read and understand every research paper written about polygraph. I read the anti site daily to try to understand their point of view. My argument is and always has been that Dan feels the need to demean, belittle and verbally bash the APA, the Federal government examiners who conduct polygraphs and virtually anyone else who tries to provide an answer or an intelligent opinion opposite to his sarcastic and caustic rants against everyone's polygraph but his polygraph.

posted 01-14-2013 07:02 PM            

This suggestion is worth discussion. Dan's point is that the report may get more visibility and useful criticism if it were more readily available - that we need to hear more from smart folks outside our own folds - that we may have a cloistered perspective on this.

The committee work was all volunteer. The publication cost was already in the budget. The APA looses nothing, and the value of availability, review, criticism, and potential scaffolding new work outweighs the few odd purchases. APA could still sell the bound copies and make a printable copy available for free.

Hey, come to think of it the NAS has recently made the .pdf version of NRC (2003) report available for free.

As for criticism, I think we already know a lot about what critics will say. What we don't know enough about is how level-headed objective and knowledgeable people will find it. Sure it will not answer every question and somebody will object to some design issue. Somebody else will surely suggest a better way - there always is a better way because hind-sight is, as they say, 20/20. Somebody will point out the potential for publication bias - we already wrote about it. Still helpful. And somebody will point out the potential for sampling bias - we wrote about that too. Also helpful even if redundant. Somebody will suggest a different analysis. That can be helpful too.

When we get done reacting to each other personally we can then get back to talking about the merits of the substantive content.

Making the report more widely available is probably a good idea. It was also probably a good idea to put the time into educating ourselves about what we think we know at this time, and getting through all the adolescent growing pains around whether our profession and and the APA membership want to or doesn't want to, and whether we agree or disagree, that we should have to try account for ourselves in some evidence-based way (or should we expect others to trust us simply because we declare ourselves or each other to be experts)? It will be interesting to eventually get to the point of discussing the substantive content.

I'll support the idea of making the report more widely available without cost.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-14-2013 08:51 PM         

Sure, it's easy for George to maintain a gentleman's posture. Hell, he has everything on his side: logic, facts, data, case histories, and much much more.

I've been trying to sound an alarm.

Ironically, George's A-P site -- which is purposefully provocative, remarkably current, continually vibrant, always inviting, and chockablock with relevant information from a multitude of sources -- has for years provided the APA with a blueprint for its own success.

But the APA is blind.

Instead, the APA has been content to keep its head in the sand, whistling past the graveyard.

Then one day, a vocal, strident, polygraph reality change-agent with challenging, albeit caustic, viewpoints emerges from within, and he's branded as the enemy.

In business, such individuals are deeply appreciated if not highly revered.

But most people, especially gummint hacks and public servants, don't know much about that slice of life.

That's why Obama got re-elected.

Look, unless it changes very soon, and in a very big way, the polygraph "profession" is destined to go down in flames.

By the way, I'm all for giving recognition within an organization. Just keep that self-adulating happy horsesh*t confined to a members-only section of the web site, out of view of information seekers and consumers.

No one beyond the tiny APA microcosm even remotely cares, so don't showcase that crap. Rather, make the site relevant and illuminating to the outsider. Make them feel important, not the APA.

posted 01-14-2013 11:37 PM            

To whom would we want to provide it that couldn't have asked for it by now? I correspond with some of the less than supportive of polygraph scientists around the world, and nobody has called me up or sent me an email.

I believe it's been admitted in court proceedings meaning it's probably available as a free public document or ten cents a page in various jurisdictions. I wouldn't be surprised if some polygraph associations have posted it on their websites. That shouldn't happen (copyright issues), but I've found journals or articles out there before.

If we could get it into the hands of those unfriendly to polygraph for comment, I'd be one of the first to give it away. We need their criticism. I suspect most hold the view that the independent report of 2003 (NAS) still essentially stands and therefore they don't much care. They concede polygraph works better than chance but less than perfection, but they still have some concerns. Interestingly, the NAS report reveals that polygraph works (event-specific...) better than the flu shot, but -- never mind.

posted 01-15-2013 07:49 AM         

quote:

---

The report is out there.

---

[sigh] No, Barry, it isn't.

Think BIG, Mr. President, THINK BIG!

This calls for mass dissemination.
www.ap.org www.reuters.com www.prnewswire.com www.bizwire.net www.mcclatchydc.com
All the TV/cable news outlets
etc., etc, etc.
(Don't forget Katelyn Sack.)

You simply send out a news release with an embedded link to the page on the APA site containing the full report.

The idea is to make the news release reverberate, via Google alerts and the like, all over the planet.

Then, and only then, will the report be "out there."

Make it interactive: The readers who follow the link should not only land on an APA web page containing the full survey, but that has provisions for reader comments.

In the news release, be sure to mention that the meta-analytic survey has already been admitted into court. Cite where and when.

That's where the fun really starts.

Dan

posted 01-15-2013 07:55 AM            

I will point out that the absence of large randomized double-blind experimental studies is a very difficult challenge for many fields - those without a lot of re$ource$ (e.g., medical and pharmaceutical). So, that is what meta-analysis is for - to better understand the meaning of the effectiveness reported in the collection of smaller studies. This way we we use our resources wisely (i.e., effective polygraph methods and effective research design) if or when we get to the point of a lager randomized field study.

Many times the large randomized studies never get funded, and we are left to what we learned from meta-analytic studies. When they are done, it is always great when the results agree with meta-analytic results. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't - and sometimes we can identify the issues that led to the discrepancy. One of the common reasons is publication bias - people publish results that are impressive, and don't publish those that are not.

The meta-analysis will contain this type of bias - by design - because the research question was about polygraph techniques that are accurate at 80%, 86% and 90% with <20% inconclusives. Is that a problem? Maybe. Maybe not. Why would we results as indicative of test accuracy if the results are from a technique that is not used due to known lower accuracy rates? It is all described in the report.

Still think it is a worthwhile point that Dan brings up. And it is worth making more easily available to current and future students and researchers. One of the goals is to engage the conversation in a much less biased and reactive way. Putting the info out there helps that - and it becomes more difficult for people to engage the old reductionistic sound bites.

For example: in a recent court appearance an examiner conceeded to the opposing counsel that there is no scientific consensus regarding the polygraph. Of course, I argued that the existing publications do begin to establish a scientific consensus. But we and other have heard it so many times that we repeat it and accept it without much critical thinking.

Thing is this: critical thinking and critical discussion require content - else we are just blowing smoke and sunshine at each other and the conversation will become oriented around to personality issues and personal reactions.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-15-2013 09:15 AM         

Thanks, but I'm not looking for the full study. Everyone who gets the journal already has it.

The present discussion is how to get the full study widely distributed for critical review.

Clearly, the APA site can handle it, as evidenced by your link to the full survey in the members-only section.

The obvious next steps would be to move the survey to the public-access section of the APA web site, enable a mechanism for reader comments, and then pull the trigger on worldwide distribution of the APA's official news release through multiple high-volume distribution channels.

-------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

I believe it's been admitted in court proceedings...

---

Trust us, judge. The data is cool.

It's unbelievable. I mean, it is truly utterly staggering, that a self-penned unverified self-published insider document concocted by a self-serving trade organization got admitted into court.

Can't wait for the thermonuclear explosion after the full survey goes viral.

Maybe the faithful Polygraph Scientologists believe they'll be saved in the ensuing rapture...

Dan

posted 01-15-2013 09:56 AM            

By the way, I'm all for giving recognition within an organization. Just keep that self-adulating happy horsesh*t confined to a members-only section..." "so don't showcase that crap."

OK Dan, We have a saying in the South:

Never wrestle with a pig. You both end up dirty, but the pig loves it." You win!

You just can't type a single cogent statement without putting something in your discourse like "gummint hacks and public servants".

I think the real problem has surfaced. You consider yourself an "outsider" and you're apparently resentful of the fact that some of us work for the government, attend government schooling and get paid fairly well to do what you are doing for considerably less. That's called a life decision. You made that decision and apparently you are upset with yourself and the rest of the world as a result.

Rant on.... You make many good points. Unfortunately you can't push the hate aside long enough to make your point without the hate slipping into every paragraph.

posted 01-15-2013 10:19 AM            

I'm not even sure what you want. Doesn't it make more sense to refer people to the NAS report? I do that all the time.

I hear all the histrionic drama, but I don't understand what you really hope to see accomplished.

quote:

---

It's unbelievable. I mean, it is truly utterly staggering, that a self-penned unverified self-published insider document concocted by a self-serving trade organization got admitted into court.

---

Maybe you're not as in touch with reality as you think you are? Or, perhaps your faith is misplaced?

It should be noted that the report's release was out of order by necessity. People needed answers, so it had to come out. The preferred method would have been to have it independently reviewed before its release. Practically, that couldn't happen. Odd approach taken, we know, but it is what it is.

What would you have done differently? It won't be long before another look should be taken, and we have a lot of data to tell us a lot of things.

If you know of any researchers, students, universities, etc, who want the report, send them to me. I have no problem giving them the report if they want it. Maybe it's a good idea to use a marketing strategy that invites some who wouldn't think about it to take a look. I don't know.

Keep in mind that meta-analysis allows us to answer many of the concerns raised. (See Ray's post.) That's the beauty of it. The committee didn't code all of the studies to answer other questions that could have been studied. (That wasn't its charge.) It could be done, however.

By the way, I publicly offered criticism of the report. I, for example, would have done the calculations differently. (When I do it that way, not much changes, offering support to the committee's findings.) I would not have taken the approach that we're looking for a fixed effect size. Statistical analyses I did indicates a random effects model is more appropriate. That's hardly nuclear. Let me look at what I did, and I'm sure I can criticize myself. That's the nature of these types of things. We always question and experiment - even with our own findings.

Remember: scientific "truth" is not absolute. To say something is a scientific fact is more of a shorthand way of saying that whatever it is is approximately true. There is always a chance of error. The question is how likely is an error. When the risk of error is sufficiently low enough, we put our faith in what is more likely (usually).

posted 01-15-2013 10:54 AM         

That's worthy of a Bazooka Joe mini-comic:

BC: We have a new meta-analytic survey that shows polygraph REALLY works!

DM: Great! That should set the record straight! Let's tell the world! After all, there are so many doubters, skeptics and naysayers out there...

BC: What's the point?

To be continued...

posted 01-15-2013 12:53 PM            

In our case there are advantages to a fixed effects design.

The big advantage is that it better addresses our objective of generalizability - because it assumes that differences in study results are not due to population differences and are due to differences in testing technique.

A random effects design would raise so many interesting questions that we would not have been able to provide a useful distilled answer to the question.

There are always assumption in every research project. The goal is to make those assumptions explicit, and then test them.

We addressed the potential for population differences in the series of multi-variate analyses. And we showed where there did appear to be potential differences in population.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-15-2013 03:06 PM         

quote:

---

The NAS already independently stated polygraph works.

---

Let's stop the madness right here.

How many independent, blind polygraphs did NAS conduct?

None.

How did NAS get the data upon which to base their conclusion that polygraph "works"?

On trust-us-the-data-is-cool "studies".

Was the APA meta-analytic survey independently QC'd?

No.

How did the APA come to its conclusion?

On trust-us-the-data-is-cool "studies".

NAS meta-analysis = virtual reality
APA meta-analytic survey = virtual reality

virtual reality + virtual reality = virtual reality

posted 01-15-2013 03:57 PM            

If you could pick one consistent and logical argument maybe this would be meaningful. Instead, you bounce around and adopt conflicting positions, which hasn't won you any converts. Is your point to try to annoy or actually accomplish something meaningful?

posted 01-15-2013 05:07 PM         

If polygraph is ever to be taken seriously -- by those outside of the industry, that is -- then it will need independent scientific corroboration.

posted 01-15-2013 06:45 PM            

Look at PCSOT. Whether you agree with it or not, therapists, probation officers, corrections agencies, embrace polygraph as a tool for their use.

Look at the anti site you applaud for its efforts to market its views. It has had zero impact - none - on polygraph.

Look at how polygraph is being used in Mexico. They are training examiners as fast as they can as part of their efforts to rid themselves of corruption. (You should have heard the Mexican official who briefed on their program at the last AAPP conference. It was well attended, and fascinating.)

posted 01-15-2013 10:52 PM         

None of it -- outside of the occasional dimwit judge being bamboozled by statistical alchemy -- has a thing to do with independently validated scientific principles.

Mexico? I'm sure those tests are on the level.

PCSOT tests are pure utility. LEPET too.

By the way, how many PCSOT tests have you yourself run? A hundred? A thousand? Please don't say you haven't run any.

I can tell you with authority that PCSOT's validity is oversold.

What continues to propel polygraph is the imprimatur of imaginary legitimacy.

In case no one has noticed, CVSA is growing too. Does that make it scientifically legitimate?

I didn't think so.

The house of cards gets taller and taller, and more and more polygraph converts buy into the virtual reality.

Enjoy the ride.

posted 01-16-2013 01:25 AM            

Also- maybe you should run for the below APA position when it becomes available. You would have my vote.... if I could vote.....

APA Standing Committees
General Committee Assignments 2012-2013
Communications & Public Relations: Robert Peters
Subcommittees: Public Relations & Information;

posted 01-16-2013 09:01 AM            

Law and Human Behavior, Vol 31(3), Jun 2007, 291-303.

Abstract
In a mock crime study of the comparison question test (CQT), 35 subjects decided to participate as guilty and 30 as innocent. Two conditions were varied: Explaining the comparison questions in the pretest interview and re-discussing comparison questions between charts. Higher identification rates (¡­90% for guilty and innocent participants) were achieved in groups with explanation of comparison questions than in groups without explanation. Re-discussing comparison questions had no effect on identification rates. Ratings of subjective stress due to relevant and comparison questions were also obtained and can be seen as indicators of the significance of the questions. The significance of comparison questions was hardly affected by the different testing conditions. When effects are detectable at all, they contradict theoretical expectations in their direction. Results are discussed in terms of the significance of comparison questions used in polygraph testing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

This is one of the best constructed and most realistic mock crime studies done in recent years. Participants were allowed to decide whether they would be the guilty or innocent party. They were allowed to decide when they would commit the crime and were tested weeks and even months after the crime. More importantly, it was done by psychologists, not polygraph examiners and published in a peer reviewed journal with no connection to polygraph. The results speak well for the accuracy of polygraph in identifying both guilty and innocent using probable lie comparison questions.

posted 01-16-2013 11:21 AM         

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1197651321/0

It was an interesting discussion. Ray and Barry chimed in, among others.

Good times.

posted 01-17-2013 10:55 AM         

Green shoots of support are emerging through the crusty black surface of polygraph's long-term parking lot for squelching common-sense observations, creative thinking, and other reality-based ideas that challenge the indu$try's authoritarian figureheads.

posted 01-17-2013 11:50 AM            

While I don’t recall ever meeting you in person, I must say your personality is one that I would probably appreciate. And though I’m not completely sure of your motivations on this site; I am starting to get a handle on it, I think.

Your professional observations are poignant and controversial. You have our attention and certainly make some interesting and I agree, important observations. I do not even mind your periodic opposition to intrenched aspects of the profession or even the APA (yes, I am a member). Keep posting, our profession needs challenges to ensure we keep on the right track through self-assessment and re-evaluation; but now comes the “but"...

What concerns me is the personal attacks. It demeans your argument and makes you look petty and unprofessional. This in turn may cause your posting to be considered unimportant or simply emotional. Sort of like stupid/ignorant commercials, designed for the low educated masses to talk about it because it is so stupid and at their level. Intelligent conversations and informed discussions will produce more of the same.

I do appreciate what you are doing (even some of the sarcasm), but by including unnecessary personal swipes and insults at well respected examiners or those who oppose your thoughts through what you may consider "indoctrination", it is too easy to become distracted and miss your point.

Just an observation, not a criticism.

posted 01-17-2013 03:18 PM         

We've met a couple of times -- once at a CAPE conference in Corornado, and again (I think) at a Backster event. PCSOT, maybe? Not sure.

I know the barbs are edgy, but I liken such postings to the same kind of constitutionally protected satirical attacks that public figures endure every day.

My reasoning is that within the confines of our private forum, many of the high-profile "pimps, hawkers and apologists" are equivalent to real-world public figures -- at least in polygraph's virtual-reality microcosm.

So, if I'm busting someone's chops -- usually someone who enjoys way too much sway with brainwashed rank-and-file polygraph operators -- it's for the greater good.

You mentioned emotion, and I'm glad you did. The polygraph "profession" frustrates me.

Here's one example:

If the APA is serious about getting the meta-analytic survey "out there," then why not make it freely available? Hell, this is big news. Why not go the mass-distribution route that I suggested?

I think the APA decision makers are scared.

It appears that APA "leadership" would rather live like basement-dwelling adolescent video gamers, immersed in a virtual reality of their own making, safe from the rigorous challenges and potential harms of the real world.

As I often say, "Let's get real."

The trust-us-the-data-is-cool approach is a colossal embarrassment.

Another frustration: Polygraph has long abused its "imprimatur of imaginary legitimacy" like some grotesque form of diplomatic immunity.

Again, Where's the beef?

The profession is largely unaccountable, and seems to resist efforts at genuine independent scientific validation.

As a result, polygraph is much more of a religion than it is a science.

Finally, allow me to note that I'm emboldened by the offline support I get via PMs and calls from lurkers and others who feel the same way as I do, all of whom are in the unenviable position of needing to maintain a low profile. I fully understand, but please keep those cards and letters coming.

Meanwhile, I look forward to Skip's return from the dry cleaners...

Dan

posted 01-17-2013 06:08 PM         

quote:

---

Could you expound on how the study and your methodology correspond.

---

Bill, I don't see how it's possible, as any similarities are scarce at best.

During the initial telephone inquiry, I usually explain CQT theory in general, then refer all prospects (except PCSOT and LEPET cases, which are pre-arranged via different channels) to the four links listed on my "Recommended Reading" page for their further edification.

It is common, after that, for a prospective subject (or their spouse) to contact me with further questions, which I answer honestly. Example:

Q. Is it true that one has to actually lie in order to pass a polygraph?
A. I'm afraid that's the gist of it, yes.

The trend I'm seeing is this: The more that people learn about polygraph, the less inclined they are to sit for the "test."

I haven't tracked all the numbers, but a reasonable estimate is that 19 out of 20 people who start out thinking a polygraph "test" is a good idea change their minds after they embrace divergent views on polygraph validity.

This seems to bear out something that my best friend of some 40 years -- he's a recently retired cop -- observed during my first full year in polygraph, 2005.

When I complained about the caliber of the private individuals (not attorneys) who called for information -- or who eventually sat for the "test" -- he said: "Why are you surprised? Normal, educated people don't take polygraph tests. At least not voluntarily."

Fast forward to 2012...

When I started the open-book approach, I remarked, somewhat optimistically, that, in the words of business great Sy Syms, An educated consumer is our best customer.

I must now amend that to An educated consumer is a NON-customer.

Also, ground truth is absent in private polygraph field cases. Therefore, making accuracy comparisons to a laboratory study is impossible.

Dan