posted 10-24-2008 11:07 AM            

Yep.

Straight from the mouth of Mr. Holden at the onset of his day-long PCSOT refresher.

Of course, I couldn't refrain from asking a question about this, as it is inconsistent with the NRC/NAS report, recent publications in our out Polygraph Journal, numerous discussions at ATSA, other discussion at antipolygraph.org, and a lot of dialogue and wisdom in the testing sciences.

Mr. Holden reasserted himself, that 'yes' PCSOT tests are "specific issue" tests, and stated "the industry has defined them" that way by the way they use the results.

Now, "industry" is a broad and vague term.

When I pressed a little further, it was clarified that "the industry" was the refering industry - probation agancies and treatment agencies.

Clearly, there is a need for more information about that there "industry," because the survey of Mr. Holden's own committee found that professionals seem to be engaging in varied PCSOT acitivities around the country.

My own experience, in Colorado, and my recent experience in Arizona, suggest that the "industries in those jurisdictions are well aware that PCSOT exams are NOT "specific issue" exams but "screening" exams.

I am also aware that often well-educated folks at ATSA, some of which are opposed to polygraphy testing of sex offenders, are also well aware that PCSOT exams are NOT "specific issue" exams, and are in fact "screening" exams. Many of them, like the folks at antipolygraph.org, have read the NAS/NRC report.

Why then would Mr. Holden make such a silly statement?

The answer is revealed in the other materials and discusion - fears of another EPPA. A good concern. Mr. Holden also seems to believe that a validity is central to that concern, and he is aware of the lack of validity research on polygraph screening exams.

Mr. Holden's solution to the screening validity problem is two-fold: 1) to "declare" standardized PCSOT practices as valid, and 2) to "declare" PCSOT as a specific issue examination and thereby co-opt the validity research and figures pertaining to event-specific single issue polygraphs.

These solutions are nothing more than a linguistic shell-game that will be transparent to polygraph detractors. These ideas will not win the long-game and avoid another EPPA. In fact, they could accellerate the problem.

Validity is not matter of declaration. Its a matter of scientific investigation.

Let's take do this right.

.012

r

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

posted 10-24-2008 01:04 PM            

If PCSOT was a single issue test we should be able to do a "You Phase" format with
either, Did you violate your treatment conditions? Did you violate your treament conditions huh? Or a monitoring exam with questions about Did you violate your probation terms?.

While it sounds simple enough I don't see Corrections or Treatment accepting something that broad.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 10-24-2008 01:57 PM            

Some other ideas lack face validity and lack adequate study.

The committee, and the product, as it is being taught by Mr. Holden, is heavily influenced by Mr. Holden's theories. Some of the ideas are worthy of consideration. Many will be familiar to those in the field - because Mr. Holden has been teaching people his ideas for a while now, and because the JPCOT document is embedded in Texas ideology.

Familiarity does not equate validity.

What is important to recognized is that any quest for validity will not be satisfied by a committee declaration, or even a BOD declaration, of validity. Validity comes from studying the data.

Sure, we can standardize practices. But that does not make them valid. Standardization does not equal validitation.

It would be best to standardize our practices on the ideas that have been validated. If there are not enough validated ideas to standardize everythign we'd like, then we have more homework and study to complete.

It is unwise to set-in-stone any ideas that have not been thoroughly researched.

Some of the committee's recommendations seem to go directly against the scientific studies. Time-barred CQs (time of reference requirements) for example.

Clearly, there is a need to think ahead about the need to avoid another EPPA.

Standardization will help. Doing nothing will not help.

Staying honest about science will help too. Manipulating or ignoring the science will not help.

The argument, I heard from some of he proponents of the present "validation-through-declaration" effort was "we might not be right, but at least we'll all be wrong together." Just take a moment and think about a couple of historic examples in which people just decided to go along with things that didn't sound right, just so they'd all be together.

Yes we should be concerned about the PCSOT situation, and we should take action.

We should not endorese a pied-piper-solution or act like Lemmings out of reactive fear.

We need to stop and think, and have a discussion.

At the MRP, Mr. Holden seemed surprised that the draft proposal was not widely available. I assured him it is not available, though we would be interested in reading it.

Mr. Holden indicated to the trainees at MRP that he would contact the BOD and encourage them to make the committee's draft documents available.

It will be a shame if our BOD neglects to look before they leap on this.

r

.012

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