posted 02-24-2009 12:13 PM            

Ray, whatever happened to that awesome PCSOT document you put together for Ebvan a while back? That sucker was awesome! Can you post a link to it here for us APA and non-APA members to review? You may want to consider submitting that to the APA PCSOT committee to assist them in formulating our PCSOT policy. Someone told me you were on the PCSOT committee, but I gather that you are not, because we haven't heard a thing about this new policy. I hope you aren't because I would expect you to keep us (the guys and gals in the trenches) informed. No offense meant, Ray. Anyway, if you aren't on the committee, you really should send that document to them.

posted 02-24-2009 07:48 PM            

At the last minute, Eric Holden requested that the vote on the Model Policy be tabled until the policy could be discussed in more detail regarding inout from other examiners.

posted 02-25-2009 07:55 PM            

You can access the alternate model policy from this link:
http://www.pcsot.info/model_policy/PCSOT_MODEL_POLICY_alternate_2-19-09.pdf

This document began after an offhand suggestion, on 11/18/2008, during a exchange with ebvan in this thread:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayprivateνmber=11&topic=000869

Here is a direct link to the 11/19/08 document:
http://www.raymondnelson.us/pcsot/Ray's_PCSOT_draft_11-19-08.doc

During December 2008, myself and a couple of other experienced examiners decided to complete the document as a model policy draft.

The draft is intended to appreciate the limits of authority for a model policy. The document is intended to provide declarative instructions to polygraph examiners, and attempts to refrain from editorializing or commentary. Language is intended to be descriptive and not metaphorical. The .PDF version includes an internally hyper-linked table of contents and document structure that makes the document much easier to navigate.

The present alternate draft is based in large part on the work of the PCSOT committee (as I understand them from Eric Holden's training materials at recent conferences), the present APA PCSOT standards, the polygraph standards from the Colorado SOMB, and the JPCOT standards – in no particular order.

This model policy does not attempt to take a declarative position on any matter of science, and does not pretend knowledge where it does not exist. The alternate draft is intended to served only as a point of departure, with the recognition that specific solutions to practical and operational problems have and will evolve somewhat differently in different jurisdictions, due to differences in statues, judicial attitudes, and prosecutorial attitudes, and perhaps resources. It is outline numbered, and every item is indexed in a table of contents.

We have shown the alternate document to anyone who is interested, and most of the responses to the draft have been positive. The completed draft was shown to the BOD, and the members of the PCSOT and AD HOC committee's of which I am not a part.

The PCSOT committee has worked hard for a long time, but the completion of this is obviously dragging. It has been my impression that the committee has constructed some worthwhile solutions to some very complex problem, but is probably struggling with the final document production. Completion of a final word-smithed document is a laborious task, that is facilitated by skill and experience in drafting and adjusting documents and language of this type along, along with and an attitude of accountability for what we do and do not yet actually know.

In consideration of the fact that we have recycled some conceptual solutions from the PCSOT committee, the Colorado SOMB, JPCOT, and other we offered this model policy draft to the PCSOT committee to assume its final editorial review, ownership and authorship. I also offered to help with editorial tasks, and in the resolution of any differences between our draft and the details of the committee's proposed solutions.

There was some very productive initial discussion and effort to achieve a compromise between the committee's draft and this alternate draft. I identified 10 points of difference in the conceptual content, and solutions to 9 of those 10 points were discussed between the committee chair, the general chair, and myself. After communication with others, I now have a possible solution to the last remaining point (included in the 2/19/09 draft). This is hugely important because it affects the degree to which our PCSOT standards reflect a fictitious or erroneous position on an important matter of scientific validity and examinee rights. However, our discussions have ended for now and may not continue.

This is unfortunate because we are working independently and in parallel, when we should be working together. We are not working against each other, and I wish to prevent any such assumption before it emerges. We are simply wasting a lot of time and effort, and putting ourselves at risk for achieve a less than optimal result.

It is my impression that the committee's work is stalled in the final editorial stage, and that they would benefit from the assistance of an independent editor/writer. It is also my impression that individual egos and personal priorities have interfered with a process that should be intended to serve the needs of the APA, its membership as a whole, and the polygraph profession in general.

As I understand it, the committee's draft was to have been completed several months ago, for review by the AD HOC committee and the BOD. Many committee's in many organizations would be held more strictly accountable for neglecting to complete a task or to achieve its mandate.

It would be great if we could make the committee's present draft available for all to read. That will not most likely not occur, as the committee's leadership has seemed to favor a closed door process (vs a sunshine procedure) around its work. Openness and discussion are sometimes painful but healthy processes.

The 1/11/09 version of our draft is our original solution. The 2/19/2009 draft includes the conceptual solutions that we had begun to negotiate in the pursuit of a compromise between the committee's document and this alternate. It is clear to everyone that we are pursuing similar objectives, and it would make the most sense to get all the experts seated on the same side of the table. I remain willing to provide any assistance I can toward the completion of the best possible model policy that can be produced on behalf of the APA and polygraph profession.

The most unfortunate thing is that all of this could be done (completed, finished, packaged, signed, sealed and delivered) in less than one hour if there were continued or resumed interest in a resolution or compromised document product between the committee's draft and this alternate.

If anyone is interested in more information on the discussion re conceptual differences between the committee and alternate document, then let me know.

Peace,

r

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

posted 02-25-2009 08:28 PM            

I encourage any APA member who is engaged in PCSOT to review the documents and offer Ray your comments. Transparency in preparation of these type of documents seems to lend itself towards a more widely embraced result.

posted 02-28-2009 03:02 PM            

You can find em here:
http://www.pcsot.info/model_policy/PCSOT_MODEL_POLICY_alternate_2-19-09.html

http://www.pcsot.info/model_policy/PCSOT_MODEL_POLICY_alternate_1-11-09.html

Here are the discussion points of major difference, through which the 2/19/09 draft is able to more closely resemble the committee's position on certain things.

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

1. Exploratory vs. Screening (language) - want to minimize exposure resulting from the damaged-merchandise language of screening, resulting from examiners having told consumers that sex offender tests are not screening tests. also want to minimize exposure to scientific criticism for failing to account for the fact that PCSOT tests are in fact screening tests. declare once that PCSOT tests are screening, and use "exploratory" language throughout the remainder of the document.

A lot of us never use the term screening in public. However, avoidance of an obvious fact – that PCSOT tests are screening tests – is likely to be troublesome in the long run. It is obvious to any scientific minded persons that these are screening exams. By definition, a screening test is intended to be an expedient and cost effective test that can be given to anyone regardless of whether a know incident/allegation/concern is identified. Screening exams are fishing trips. Some screening exams are broad multi-issue (mixed issue) tests – such as the variety of blood screens or the MMPI used in police applicant screening. Some screening tests are narrowly focused (single issue) tests such as the good-'old rubber-glove prostate test. It is not the number of issues that makes a screening test, but the presence or absence of a known concern (allegation/incident/conflict).

New York recently published their research review (Jan 2009), after receiving training and instruction from Eric Holden, and stated clearly that PCSOT exams are screening exams. The fact that PCSOT exams are screening exams is a Humpty that has fallen off the wall and broken and ain't going back together again.

A polemic view of any effort to state that PCSOT exams are not screening exams would be that we are either stupid or dishonest for attempting to make such an assertion. An apologeticist's view might recognize that an attempt to state that PCSOT exams are not screening exams may be an attempt to differentiate a structured and numerically scored CQT approach from the loosely structured and unregulated practices of pre-employment and employee-periodic screening exams of the pre-EPPA era.

The “screening” nature of the test is not determined by the breadth of the RQ. For example a behaviorally descriptive RQ “physically forced anyone/else for sexual contact” is just as much a screening question as “left anything out of his written sex history" or "done anything he shouldn't have in the last 6 months,” though the second two examples are clearly broader and not acceptable.

Screening and diagnostic tests are selected and defined, in medicine and psychology, by the presence or absence of a known concern (symptoms). If we want the polygraph to be accepted as science, then we should adopt the same scientific language and concepts as other sciences and not engage in idiosyncratic polybabble dialog that makes us vulnerable to pseudoscience accusations by setting ourselves apart from basic science and other sciences.

2. POSE / PAE (language) - agreed to change the language. It is the concept that is most important and not the label. "offense" is a legal determination, "allegation" is unequivocal

3. Reoffense RQ in ME - the draft has been edited to reflect the committee's position on this - Rick and I agree (for different reasons) that it is not the best, but the committee has apparently achieved a solution to this difficult issue

4. Conflict/Allegation - emphasize the language of allegation and not conflict (attempt to avoid exacerbating perceived conflict surrounding polygraph

5. TOR/FOR as a definition - keep requirement to be separated by either TOR or FOR - RQs have FOR and TOR that is reflected in the yet unresolved discussion about the TOR = pre-conviction/pre-treatment or TOR = date of sex history polygraph.

6. Principle 5 - similar potential consequences (biggest issue of internal inconsistency) - SOLVED - the principle is inconsistent with reoffense RQs in the ME. Have a principle and stick to it or don't have a principle. Do not have a principle and then violate it.

7. CQ TOR - probably not an issue - CQs will keep requirement to be separated by either TOR or FOR - is a commonly accepted requirement

8. mandatory posttest interrogation re CQs - will include language in 10.6 to state "examiner should ask the examinee to explain any significant reaction to any test question" - does not telegraph CQ directly, and is better suited to post on the WEB for public consumption

9. Restriction to evidentiary testing techniques for screening purposes - will include no requirement, therefore validated screening techniques can be used in screening situations.

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

The remaining issue for which I have a proposed solution is the committee's attempt to “define” a sexual history RQ as having a TOR prior to the date of the current supervision.

Firstly, matters of science are not defined in a declarative sense the way the committee would like to do; they are discovered. Moreover, matters of science are articulated in a hypothesis (fancy idea) and then supported by scientific experiments that fail to reject the null-hypothesis that the fancy-idea makes no difference.

In our discussions so far we all agreed that we would probably not really want an offender to pass the sex history re other offenses prior to beginning treatment a year ago after raping and murdering a child last month - it would look to the community and media like a false-negative polygraph failure.

If the TOR actually worked an offender could stuff a child's body in the trunk of his car, then drive to the sex history polygraph and pass questions re other offenses prior to beginning treatment. we all seemed to agree that someone who had reoffended while in treatment would probably not pass a sex history exam with a TOR prior to beginning treatment.

The TOR sex history concern is therefore NOT a matter of empirical validity or science. It IS a matter of systemic function, and the need to ensure some form of rights protection to the examinee. More importantly is it useful to comfort bleeding-heart rights advocates that the offender's rights against self-incrimination will not be violated (the TOR doesn't really do this, but simply argues the consequences are likely to be different for pre-treatment and post-treatment offenses).

This is, of course, a lot of wrangling, but the TOR an effective solution and mimetic device to help rights-advocacy types and reluctant professionals to endorse the requirements for polygraph testing. This is three layers deep. It becomes interpreted as a validity issue because the perceived potential consequences are different for pre-conviction/pre-treatment offenses compared to post-conviction/post-treatment offenses.

To the extent that consequences and fear of consequences are believed to be the underlying basis for reaction, it is MISINTERPRETED as a validity issue. Honts et al, and the Utah researchers tell us that an element of jeopardy contributes to polygraph accuracy. Those researchers also state that there is no linear relationship regarding the degree of jeopardy and accuracy - meaning that while some jeopardy mean more accuracy, even more jeopardy does NOT mean even more accuracy. This is the old correlation-causation thing (there is a correlation between cars that are fast and cars that are shiny, but even shinier cars are not necessarily even faster). If there were a linear and causal relationship between consequences/fear/jeopardy and polygraph accuracy/validity then we should expect to get the most accurate results while holding a gun to someone's head.

The TOR = pre-conviction/pre-treatment model is a solution to the right/advocacy/resistance issue. It is not the only solution.

The TOR is NOT a matter of empirical validity, and flies in the face of what we'd expect in terms of polygraph outcomes. I do understand how and why it gets discussed as a validity concern.

My proposed possible solution is to honor the TOR as an acceptable, though not the only, solution to the systemic problem. Permitting this solution is wise. Requiring it is not. It is solved in a different way in Colorado and the Northwest states. See sections 8.3.2.2 and 8.3.3.3.

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

We are approximately six months past the initial completion deadline of the APA 2008 AGM conference, and nearing 3 months past the second completion deadline of the January 2009 BOD meeting. I think we would all agree that the wisest and best thing to do would be to put egos and personalities aside and seek the best common solution.

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

posted 03-01-2009 03:39 PM            

The committee has managed to lose its interest in discussion of this with non-committee members.

It is my hope that anyone reading this will begin to see the issues a little more clearly.

There are issues pertaining to both the content and process of the committee's work for the past 18 months.

Content concerns involve the degree to which the PCSOSS committee accepts dogmatic and unscientific explanations or positions regarding matters of science and empirical validity. Accepting rigid solutions that cannot be reconciled with scientific theory or data is a bad idea, because it effectively makes us dumber than we would be without such requirements. This will be an enduring problem if we allow it, because the rigidity with which things are put in place or interpreted serves to prevent inquiry and search for a better method.

In my view, one of the biggest long term dangers that PCSOT faces is not just the possibility of an eventual EPPA-type response to indefensible polygraph practices. There is an even more prominent danger that PCSOT fails to account for itself in the common language of science and testing, and fails to demonstrate that it is relevant to the fields of sex offender treatment and sex offender risk assessment. Our requirements go well beyond the tired and banal discussion about “utility” - by which we seem to speak primarily about the obvious fact that polygraph gets more information. We have to demonstrate with evidence that the added information is relevant to sex offender treatment and sex offender risk assessment tasks.

If we want trouble from our opponents down the road, then adopting positions and training examiners to do things that look suspicious to a scientific minded polygraph critic will eventually get us some trouble. If we want to avoid trouble from smart critics, then we ought to stick to things are are defensible.

Defensible means “empirically defensible” - with facts and accurate citations. Defensible does not mean defensible by the strength or charisma of some individual's personality.

This can be done, but it will probably require the courage to deconstruct and carefully examine some of our current dialog and conceptual models. Some may be reconstructed to look a lot like they are at present. Some may look a little different. The point is that polygraph opponents are eager to kick apart our work and ideas. It would be smart for us to evaluate our notions ourselves, and determine in advance how kick-apart-able these ideas may be.

Process level concerns involve the overall operation of the PCSOT committee, and the degree to which it has maintained an un-accountable black-box type posture for the past 18 months. The committee failed to produce a satisfactory document for the BOD by the August 2007 AGM conference, and failed again to produce a satisfactory document by the January 2009 BOD meeting. The committee seems to have repeatedly submitted documents late, allowing insufficient, if any, period for adequate review by the AD HOC committee and BOD. While it has come up with some important ideas, the committee has been so invested in its closed-door process that it has repeatedly rejected assistance and inclusion of expertise from within the organization. To some, these repeated difficulties might ultimately appear to be a reflection of deficits in leadership style or ability. But that is another matter.

What is most important is that people take note of these concerns, and that we do what we can to help the committee achieve its goal of providing the BOD with best possible final product. Nearly all of the difficult and sticky issues have been discussed (and cussed) to some form of resolution and description. Production of a document is simply a task that requires a certain amount of skill and a certain number of hours to complete.

r

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

posted 03-03-2009 10:34 AM            

Just got my APA magazine and the PCSOT seminar advertisement presented by BMI just seems "Wrong"

There was warning regarding "Self Serving Interest" presented on this forum before with concern and I am of the opinion that the advertisement for the seminar reflects that.

Am I all wrong on this?...or is this a subject that we just don't want to talk about?

Tony

posted 03-03-2009 04:10 PM            

it appears you have caught the tail end of the whole PSCOT debacle. Read this thread to get the first part.
http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayprivate&number=11&topic=000901

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com