posted 12-29-2008 07:15 PM            

is, of course, what doctors are required to say as they snap the rubber glove onto their hand.

The only approved alternative statement, I believe, according to AMA policy, is...

"This won't hurt a bit..."

...which brings me to my question:

What defines a screening test?

r

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

posted 12-30-2008 10:44 PM            

My unofficial interpretation/definition of a screening test is:

Any multi-issue, Peak of Tension Exam.

This, for a lack of better cerebral terminology or academic verbiage.

Jim

P.S. For the first part, I recommend a petite, female doctor; if anyone has to wear those gloves...

posted 12-31-2008 09:56 AM            

Would that not make it a diagnostic test, not a screening test?

r

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

posted 12-31-2008 12:43 PM         

If we have no clue whether an event occurred, i.e., whether an examinee ever used drugs or committed a serious crime, we're simply 'screening' the crowd.

This may impact how we try to resolve the problematic 'screening' exam vs. how one might approach a posttest following a ZCT about a rape/murder/pillage. One man's opinion.

Paul

posted 12-31-2008 01:59 PM         

If the doctor were to find a volkswagon lodged into your colon, he would then do additional testing to address that specific issue.

Makes sense?

posted 12-31-2008 02:43 PM            

Ted, I think you're on to something, but you're still not quite there. A doctor does a physical exam (screening), but let's say he finds a lump some place, he's not ready to diagnose it yet. What he does, as you point out, is to slowly narrow things down until he's out of options. He may do blood work, run other tests, etc, all within his "screening" process to narrow things down to the point at which he can run a test that can tell him conclusively if you've got a particular disease. He does get to a point where he's testing for a specific disease, and we don't necessarily do that. We test for deception to a particular issue - like I said above.

If we are running a screening test, and after narrowing things down (through interviews and testing - successive hurdles) we run a test in which we ask "Did you ever set a structure on fire?" do we necessarily know what the structure is? Probably not, but would such a test be any different from "Did you set that structure on fire?"

posted 01-01-2009 12:43 PM            

let's say jon has a bag with bingo balls (various representations of immoral behaviors.)Also, let's assume that we all have some of these balls. regarding the examinee though, we don't know how many nor what their respective numbers are---but we seek to find out some of them. we set a timeframe (timebar)---let's say---two decades of balls.
the possibilities are---for this exercise, 1 thru 99.
the examinee certainly has some of the 1-99 balls, either being only a few of them---or maybe nearly all of them. who knows?

the balls represent memories of specific transgressions. it's important for the analogy that the balls, while direct representations of naughtiness, are still once removed from the actual behavior. they, like memories, are an echo.

Let's say we, the examiners, are particularly interested in whether the examinee has 7, 21, and 63.

we start running charts:

1. do you have a 63? no, go fish.

2. are you ashamed of any balls? nope (teehee, that's a control.)

3.do you have a 21? nah.

4.have you ever lied about your balls (this is fun!)

5.do you have a 7?

and then something strange happens. bingo!something more arousing then the previous or surrounding askings of, say, "do you have any balls at all?"---regarding the examinee's reaction

the examinee arouses to the number 7. hmmm
we have good reason to be suspicious---we have seen the polygraph do wonderous things----and we have great reason to believe it will do more miracles in this setting.

by the time the pretest, the intest, and chart interp. is over--we have enough time to start asking jon about 7. in many settings, the above process constitutes 2 to 3 hrs. the problem (in my op) is that on many occasions the examinee may simply have a 17----not a 7. in a perfect world, we can break out and spend all day---or even the next day asking about 17, 27, 37, etc. but we can't (i suppose the feds can, if they so choose.)

in my view, that is a screening exam---in a nut shell.

E

posted 01-01-2009 01:39 PM            

Do this.

Using the web-browser of your choice, go to http://www.google.com

Type "screening test" into the search field, and click the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

You will then be looking at this page.
http://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/S/screening_test.html

quote:

---

screening test
A screening test is a test for a particular disease given to patients who have no symptoms (that is, are "asymptomatic"). Screening tests are generally cheap; they are designed to be sensitive (detect lots of possible cases of the disease) but not as specific (accurately identify actual cases of disease). Additionally, the disease or diseases being screened for are uncommon in the general population of patients who receive the screening test.

The goal of this type of test is therefore to identify all individuals who might have the disease. A wide net is cast to catch all suspects. Those patients so identified must then be subjected to further tests which are highly specific, that is accurately identify real disease.

The decision to use a screening test on a given group of patients is made on the basis of cost/benefit analysis. If the cost of testing all the individuals suspected is outweighed by the benefit of early detection to the few patients who have the disease, then a screening test is used. However, this means that there must be a treatment or some sort of amelioration possible to offer the identified patients, or else screening would have no point.

All of your children have received at least one screening test - the PKU test given by law in all 50 states.

---

Happy New Year everyone.

r

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