posted 10-24-2008 05:16 PM            

Someone posts a question set - PCSOT or other.

Everyone else gets to comment on what is wrong with the questions, and why the test is "in-valid."

Start with the present standards of practice for your local juristiction.

It might make the most fun to attack each question set with consideration for the proposed PCSOT changes.

I'll start.

R4: Since your last polygraph (3/22/2008), did you engage in sexual contact with anyone besides your wife?

R6: Since your last polygraph (3/22/2008), have you been completely lone with anyone under age 18?

R8: Since your last polygraph (3/22/2008), did you view or use any X-rated or pornographic images?

(obviously, I didn't post the CQs - we'll get to that in a bit)

.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 07:06 PM            

PCSOT exam: R4 wouldn't be a violation of his probation unless the s/c was with a minor. So they all have the same TOR but the consequences would be different. Plus if the dude had an affair with an 'age appropriate' he might fear R4 being known by his wife more than the others if he hadn't abused a kid when he was alone with the minor...unless he viewed porn during the affair and he might show arousal...okay I won't go there.

Being completely alone (R6) (I personally haven't used the term 'completely') with a minor and viewing (or using …same thing cuz to use it you would have to see it …99% of the time. lol) porn could have the same consequences as they are a violation of AP&P and therapy in UT (they are not separate areas as discussed in new PCSOT rules). I believe in PCSOT rules it would put R5 a violation of probation and R8 a therapy issue?????

Bottom line is, they don’t have the same consequences so it is in-valid….

This brings me to another question. We are not to ask about fantasies in the pretest anymore and definitely not on the final RQ or CQ’s. I actually understand this a little better now than I did when I took the class by Holden a couple of weeks ago. However, the reasoning about this is if we ask a fantasy we could possibly have too hot of a question because they could think of the fantasy. Well what about porn? When you say the question ‘SLT hy viewed any porn?’ couldn’t that do the same thing – wouldn’t their mind wonder back to some current fantasy they had on porn they saw before their SLT?

So Ray, am I in left field? BTW, I really don’t even want to talk about the CQ’s…..well, yes I do because that is a bigger concern to me.

Please be nice to me…
Donna

posted 10-25-2008 04:16 PM            

a slightly used set of pneumo-tubes - available for retrieval in person, only on your next road-trip to Denver.

R4 is both a requirement of probation and treatment, because both want to know everyone with whom the offender is smashing bodies and swapping fluids. Of course, if he had re-offended, this would be a "monitoring" test, but we couldn't possibly know that in advance. The language at R4 does not describe a reoffense. It is therefore a maintenance question.

R6: completely alone, alone - whatever. completely alone is simply an attempt to clarify the point a little. The concept still requires an operational-definition: alone with a minor at a time and location that is unknown to others, that cannot be heard or seen, and cannot be monitored or observed by others. Operational definitions make a big difference in counseling and in polygraph testing.

For an offender to be alone with a minor would be an act of reckless, belligerence, or poor planning. We might assume that any offender who was alone with a minor had only one thing in mind. Could it, therefore be a monitoring/reoffense question? Most incidental admissions are of the public-restroom type. Restrooms can be planned for - even church restrooms. If not, the activity should not be approved. They can go the men's Bible study at 7:00 AM on Friday Morning. So, this may be non-compliance /maintenance. Again, we can't known in advance. Offenders will generally keep turning in these excuses until we stop-the-world for them and burn one of them at the stake in front of the others. Then they get it. Don't be alone with kids.

R8: pornography (X-rated stuff). Did you know there is no actually rating of X or XXX. Actually there was a movie that was rated X - Midnight Cowboy - with Dustin Hoffman and John Voight. Its the only X-rated movie to be nominated for an academy award. Now, what if the offender is not in therapy, and remains on probation. And what if probation tells him no porn or X-rated stuff - including Midnight Cowboy. Wouldn't then be a probation issue.

So, valid one way in-valid the other.

This-here validity is slippery stuff. I'm beginning to see that it is not the target or language of the test question itself that makes a test or question valid, but the external stuff - which agency holds the particular rule - that drives PCSOT validity.

It's not that you're out it left field Donna, but it does begin to look like all fields are left fields with the new PCSOT standards.

One could find fault with anything. Nothing would be valid. Just because someone said so. No science. No studies. Just declaration.

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

Who said we are not to ask about fantasies during the pre-test?

Is that another Holden thing, like PCSOT is a "specific issue" test? "Hot" is a metaphor - there is no actual temperature involved. So, lets be really clear about what we are saying.

Part of the goal of PCSOT is disclosure while staring at your and my polygraph gear.

Why not ask about fantasies. Some will and some will not have been experiencing deviant fantasies. We can't really know which in advance - though we might be able to guess based on the individual's history. But if we don't ask they won't tell us. THAT'S WHY WE POLYGRAPH THEM DAMMIT.

I don't like fantasy questions for RQs, but there is very little for which I would prohibit shaking-down a sex offender during the pretest.

This idea sounds like a lot of fancy psychologizing.

Your point about the possibility existing for porn is spot on. Of course, if its child porn, that would be different.

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

Your serve? Or should I try another?

R4: Since your last polygraph, did you rub or touch the sexual organs of another person?

R6: Since your last polygraph, did you masturbate while looking at any sexually stimulating images?

Neither are themselves unlawful - unless you consider rubbing or touching the sexual organs of an underage minor, or child pornography. Both are included in the special terms and condition for sex offender probation and the sex offender treatment contract.

Valid or not valid?

Better yet Probation or Treatment?

.012

r

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

posted 10-25-2008 07:53 PM            

Sure, it's a therapists job. And monitoring compliance is a probation officer's job. The team-work advantage is calle CROSS-TRAINING. POs do a little bit of intervention work now and then, and treatment provider's set some limits and impose some consequences. Polygraph examiners are a little unique, in that we cannot get into the bid'ness of either intervening or consequencing. To limit our roles is to defeat the purpose of the containment team.

Offenders are not healthy persons, and borderline/splitting defenses are common among them. So, they would love to marginalize each team member's role, and only answer to each person in certain ways. This is how they create containment gaps, how the play one person against another, and how they manufacture he ability to get out of bounds.

To enforce a strict separation of probation and treatment roles goes against good containment treatment theory, and permits the offender to become obsequeous with the preferred "nice" professional and attempt to create marginalized perceptions of the bad-object.

Yes, we have distict roles, but offenders will behave best when they are a little unsure which professional will be the one to burn them at he stake.

.012

r

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

posted 10-28-2008 10:44 PM            

National-level trainer need to be careful about replacing gaps in scientific knowleges with personal opinions. Regardless of how many years of experience, any untested/unproven idea is a personal, not professional, opinion. Professional opinions are based on data.

If we are going to be a science, then we must at some point stop expressing ourselves in metaphors (except to the extent they are useful for teaching).

"Hot," and "too hot" are metaphors. There is no temperature involved. What we seem to be concerned about is that the signal value of fantasy questions could become more salient or stronger than the signal value of the RQs.

It may be that fantasy questions are actually relevant questions. It is the referring agent that defines the relevant targets, along with the breadth of the questions.

So, what we are saying is that "thinking" about someone or something in a sexual manner can produce a greater reaction than a stimulus questions regarding behavioral non-compliance in the form of an unreported sexual contact, using pornography, or touching minors.

Really? If so, then we have a really problem, becuase every offender has an excuse for failing their polygraph. They didn't do it, but they thought about it.

This is all a lot of mind-reading and psychologizing. Bottom line is that fantasy questions, CQ or RQ are potential trouble.

.012

r

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

posted 10-29-2008 07:47 AM            

Ray,

That's a confusing statement at best to which I must take exception. One who has engaged in some activity or "profession" on a daily basis for a number of years could certainly make observations and form conclusions that would constitute professional opinions without the need to stop and scientifically test.

A plumber might observe over 20 years that a particular solder or a particular torch performed better than some other type in a given situation and form a professional opinion which he might share with less experienced plumbers who would find that information helpful. So long as he includes a caveat when providing that information that he has observed this fact based upon his years of working in the field, he would be giving a professional opinion.

As a mechanic, if I observe that over 20 years, most of the times I have tried to use an open ended wrench in a particular mechanical operation or repair rather than a “boxed in” wrench, I split my knuckle, that’s not a personal opinion, that’s a professional opinion that, if shared with an inexperienced mechanic can save him a lot of busted knuckles. I don’t need a scientific test in that situation

posted 10-29-2008 10:58 AM            

I'm overstating myself.

Experience is invaluable.

My point was that we should continue to be careful with our professional opinions, when they are not adequately researched or proven.

With all our years of experience, we are sometimes very comfortable flinging around our expert opinions. When interacting with impressionable and less-experienced professionals, opinion can quickly become dogma - as when someone say's "I wouldn't do it," and it gets interpreted as "dont' do it," or "its prohibited."

Courts, of course, need expert opinions and experienced professionals to guide decisions about things that judges and juries know little about.

It's easy to forget, though, that even expert opinions can be wrong, and often are.

We come up with a idea (hypothesis), conduct an experiment, gather and study some data, and most often we find that our hypothesis is not as meaningful as we thought. We come up with more questions. Then we set about reformulating our ideas, with consideration for what the data supported or didn't support. What we don't do is assume that our reformulated ideas are the final answer. Those reformulated ideas are merely another set of hypotheses.

Hypotheses, of course, need to be tested - to be proved wrong if possible.

Sure experience and expertise matters. It matters a lot. That's why we listened carefully when Frued was talking about the Id, Ego, and Superego, and all those Oedipal complexes, death-wishes and so on. We also listened carefully, as we should, to expert wisdom about things like time-bars and symptomatic questions. But the data doesn't ultimately support a large portion of our fancy ideas.

So, I agree that expert opinions, and experience, are invaluable in practical and legal situations. In science, expert opinions are simply un-tested hypothesis. Most fancy ideas are just fancy ideas. A few stand up to scrutiny, and those are the one's we should use to anchor our policies and practice guildelines.

When we are formulating model policies, and best practice recommendatations, we want to solicit the input from experts. We also want to be careful about what we actually known, and what we think we know.

It may be necessary to set some things in stone. It's best to follow the data when doing so, but sometimes we have to make policy in the absence of data (when there is an imminent risk). Other things, it may be wiser to not set in stone, because doing so will tend to prevent further inquiry about an important matter, and then we might not ever figure it out.

.012

r

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

posted 10-29-2008 10:58 AM            

r

posted 10-29-2008 12:15 PM            

Oh wait YOU DID RDRR

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

posted 10-29-2008 03:58 PM            

I certainly agree that much of what we do in polygraph is done because someone did it that way and told us that's the way it's supposed to be done. I developed new rules on following dogma:

The person must be older than me and....
Have less hair than me and.....
Have been doing it longer than me and.....
Have more letters after his name....and
Be fatter than me and .....
drink more than I do.

Those last two rules keeps me from following much that I am told that isn't supported by science.

In fact based upon my new rules, I only have to do to everything Sackett says!

posted 10-29-2008 04:33 PM            

(no photshop on the handheld)

r

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

posted 11-07-2008 08:07 PM            

quote:

---

R4: Since your last polygraph, did you rub or touch the sexual organs of another person?

R6: Since your last polygraph, did you masturbate while looking at any sexually stimulating images?

---

No takers.

These questions were requested by PROBATION.

This offender is no longer in treatment. He's completed. Unfortunately, this will happen with lifetime supervision. This particular offender was an attorney at one time.

Attorneys, of course, represent special problems, because they will readily exploit any disjunct syllogism. They will, and do, press us with the reality that if we say they have to complete "it," then we will have an obligation to tell them what "it" is. Courts simply do not allow "shell-games," in which only one person knowns the answer (and the answer either keeps changing or doesn't really exist). The result is, of couse, reductionistic, and ammounts to turning the clincial and supervision process into a checklist. Treatment is not a simple checklist, its about change - the shell-game part is that most people don't change their basic personalities or sexual preferences. So, somewhere between "checklist" and "shell-game" is a conversation that will lead to the formulation of an enforceable and defensible set of requirements for sex offender treatment and supervision.

My point in posting these questions is that no-one can tell from reading them whether they are "treatment" or "probation." We cannot therefore evaluate their validity - if we use an arbitrary (non-objective, non-science) based method for declaring what constitutes a "valid" PCSOT exam.

.012

r

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

posted 11-07-2008 08:12 PM            

Probaion or treatment? (valid or invalid?)

R4: During the last 6 months, besides those two people, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else?

R6: During the last 6 months, did you masturbate to a thought or fantasy about a minor?

?

r

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

posted 11-08-2008 12:40 PM         

For example, an examinee admits viewing pornography 50 times that they failed to report to their therapist or probation officer. However, they deny using the images for masturbation. What would be more beneficial to treatment and/or probation? What questions would you ask them?

1. Since X, have you viewed any pornographic images that you haven’t reported?
2. Since X, have you masturbated while viewing any pornographic images?

For several reasons, I would be inclined to ask the later. Why? The examinee has already admitted lying, keeping secrets, etc. from his therapist and probation officer. Is it possible he viewed pornography 51 times? Yes. However, it would seem a matter of principle that we would attempt to address the issues they are failing to discuss and not testing the limits of what they have.

Essentially, all questions and interviews can be demonstrated in the form of a decision tree. In the case of pornography, this can be broken into several parts:

1. Step one: Identifying if an individual has viewed, seen, witnessed, etc. and pornographic materials, images, etc.
2. Step two: Identifying the extent they have viewed, seen, or witnessed pornographic images, where they say the images, etc.
3. Step three: Identify if they actively sought out the images.
4. Step four: Identify what they did once they saw the images (i.e. did they masturbate, etc.).

Obviously this doesn’t identify all potential questions, but it alludes to my point, that we have to think about the questions were asking. If I run a test asking the aforementioned examinee if he viewed pornography more than 50 times and he fails, has anything really been accomplished? We already know they’ve lied to everyone. Treatment and probation won’t likely do anything different even if he says it was 75 times during the post-test. Although there may be clinical reasons for doing the test, in general, what becomes more significant: (1) if they viewed pornography more than 50 times OR (2) if they're able to control their sexual urges?

Marty

posted 11-08-2008 01:49 PM            

quote:

---

I think we can all agree that we deal with a complex and dynamic group of individuals. Unfortunately, we make assumptions that our perception of consequences is similar to the examinees. Moreover, we often ask questions that provide us with little useful information.
For example, an examinee admits viewing pornography 50 times that they failed to report to their therapist or probation officer. However, they deny using the images for masturbation. What would be more beneficial to treatment and/or probation? What questions would you ask them?

---

Good points.

It's mind-reading, psychologizing, and crazy-making for us to think we know what issues present the "greatest potential consequences" for the examinee.

For the examinee who is not cheating on his spouse/girlfriend, and not coaching the pop-warner cheerleading team, but is viewing/using pornography - it is the pornography question that presents the greatest potential consequences.

Now, we may think there is a potential difference in the potential consquences for questions pertaining to felony behaviors, questions pertaining misdemeanor crimes, and questions pertaining to non-criminal violations (technical violations) - but a look at the facts will inform us that most offenders who are removed from the community and sent to prison are resentenced for technical violations, not new crimes. That is the basis of some defense attorney's attacks, the offenders are sent to prison for behaviors that are not even unlawful.

Maybe that's the way its supposed to be. Should we wait for a new crime or new victim, or is it wiser to take action in the face of beligerence or non-compliance before a new person is harmed?

Let's not fool ourselves that we can anticipate the conseuquences.

We are in the information business.

Let's do a careful and responsible job of it.

quote:

---

1. Since X, have you viewed any pornographic images that you haven’t reported?
2. Since X, have you masturbated while viewing any pornographic images?

For several reasons, I would be inclined to ask the later. Why? The examinee has already admitted lying, keeping secrets, etc. from his therapist and probation officer. Is it possible he viewed pornography 51 times? Yes. However, it would seem a matter of principle that we would attempt to address the issues they are failing to discuss and not testing the limits of what they have.

---

Excellent points.

Do we really believe the polygraph can differentiate 50 times from 51 or 55 times. If he admits to 50 times, do we really think there are not 100 times.

We gather this information for the purpose of risk assessment, risk management, and treatment/intervention planning.

To ask this:

quote:

---

1. Since X, have you viewed any pornographic images that you haven’t reported?

---

becomes empirically meaningless. By that, I mean that the question provides no incremental validity to the risk assessment and risk management process.

Imagine if an offender actually passed that question (pornography use >50 times)...

Would we suggest to a risk evaluator that they steadfastly believe that an offender did not use pornography 51, 55 or 100 times, or even 500 times. These things add up quickly.

It would be smarter for therapists and risk evaluators to take any admission and simply multiply it by 2 or 10, and use that as the size and scope of the problem.

The bottom line is that underreporting is a normal phenomena, and we will never know everything. Let's not fool ourselves.

Now consider the more likely posssiblity that the offender doesn't pass the questions (pornography use >50 times). What incremental validity is achieved by throwing away a test result over what is now already (with the pretest admission) a known issue.

It might be better to remove the question altogether, and preserve any remaining accuracy around questions pertaining to the permeability of the offenders boundaries with children, and with whom (everyone) the offender has engaged in any form of sexual contact since X.

The alternative:

quote:

---

2. Since X, have you masturbated while viewing any pornographic images?

---

Is OK, but has it's limitations too.

Do we really think, that if someone is using pornography 50 or 500 times, he is not also using that pornography for masturbation???

So, we might again be throwing away a test result over a know or obvious issue.

Clinically, there may be times in which it becomes useful for an offender to fall on his face and fail a question. Consider the narcissistic treatment-star, who succeeds at passing polygraphs while making 11th hour (pretest) admissions. So, there may be value in allowing an offender to fail this type of question, simply to leverage some humility, and leverage the issue (pornography/masturbation) back into the therapeutic conversation. This, however, is a judgement that should be made by the referring agent, not the polygraph examiner. All that is necessary is a brief conversation, and some simple instruction regarding how to proceed in the context of pretest admissions. This plan may even differentiate between extensive admission, and incidental admissions.

For example: any offender who completes community service hours picking up trash on the roadside will have some incidental contact with pornography. Same for commercial vehicle mechanics - topless stick-on dashboard calendars, tool advertisements, and so on. If the offender reports these few odd incidents (not 50x), in a timely manner, the the next threshold of concern becomes that of self-control. Does the offender borrow, take, keep, or use those images for masturbation purposes. Some will. Some will not. The difference may illustrate for a risk evaluator, risk manager, and treating clinician an offender who is or is not struggling with sexual compulsivity or preoccupation.

So, I do favor the alternative question with smaller admission numbers.

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

Here's another:

R4: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/2008), did you engage in sexual contact with another person?

R6: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/2008), besides that one time, have you been completely alone with anyone under 18?

R8: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/2008), besides what you reported, did you view or use any other pornographic images?

Offender is diagnosed with a psychotic bipolar disorder, though stable on meds. He has chronic med-related distal shaking, and has completed about 16 or more previous polygraphs. He has been revocated from lifetime probation, resentenced to prison (lifetime) - for having unauthorized sexual contact with his wife. After some months in prison, he was resentenced to probation again on a reconsideration of his sentencing. Now divorced, he denied any sexual contacts (recent), and reported one public restroom incident in which a male child entered the restroom while he was leaving. He appears to have called his PO immediately at that time. The admitted pornography incident was a few seconds of incident while changing the cable TV chanel at his parent's home.

While I contend that it is not often useful to test the limits of large admissions, it might be useful to test the limits of a minimal admission?

.012

r

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

posted 11-08-2008 01:51 PM            

I love the discussion on valid or invalid, and I am guilty of semantic fickelness(is that a word?)as well as using question classifications just because fatter, older men have told me so.
Ultimately, the pcsot examiners' job is to use tools to protect people, not "shove nose in it." I have been plenty tempted to shove nose when I forget that some statements by offenders are rediculous enough and need not be sand-blasted for ground truth-----like the contact with porn 50 times in a supervision period. It's always a mistake to serve as "clinical punisher" even though that responsibility can seem to be thrust upon us. A good interrogater doesn't need charts to get rediculous statements clarified (imo.)

posted 11-08-2008 11:58 PM            

You make good points. However, masturbateion concerns are not moot just because of an admission.

As stat pointed out, there is the shove-nose factor. But more importantly, there is still the question of self-control or lack of self-control. And the question of beligerence. Minimal and incidental admissions do not answer those questions.

Your questions are excellent probing questions for the pretest, to further develop the admissions.

Of course, keeping one or more images, or a collection does begin to illustrate beligerence. They still fall a little short of adequately illustrating the self-control aspect.

You are correct that it is sometimes useful to broaden the language beyond actual pornography. "use for masturbation," "masturbate while viewing," "masturbate while looking at," and even "sexually stimulating images" all sometimes do a better job than the term "pornography."

Clinically, there is a really big difference between masturbating while looking at pornography or sexually stimulating images, and masturbating while thinking about sexually stimulating things/images. Masturbation itself, values systems aside, is neither deviant nor pathological and means nothing clinically. The frequency of masturbation can be informative, but it is again very easy to be misled by values-based (not scientific data-based) assumptions.

Some offenders cannot masturbate whithout looking at something. Some cannot relax without masturbating.

If they need something to look at while masturbating, then they will find something to look at while masturbating. It is useful for supervision and treatment teams to known this.

Masturbation itself, provides insight into just how transparent and forthcoming an offender is with the supervision team. Equally important, it provides insight into how sexually revved-up or aroused the offender is. Of course, more sexual arousal means more sexual behavior. For people who tend to engage in problem sexual behavior, more sexual behavior will include more problem sexual behavior.

Remember our job is to gather information that will help reduce or provent problems sexual behavior - ideally the prevention of a new offense. Prevention of a new offense will require that we notice the problem during the early stages of escalation, and not wait until a reoffense has occured. Waiting to catch an offender after he has reoffended is too late, and we have not then done our jobs.

Masturbation and pornography issues are just one of many "canary" issues.

If the rules say "no masturbating to pornography," then masturbating to pornography indicates either beligerence toward the rules or inadequatge self-control - or some other problem pertaining to masturbation. All of which should be understood clearly so that the community supervision team can formulate the most effective course of intervention.

.012

r

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

posted 11-09-2008 08:52 AM            

quote:

---

Do we really think that if someone is using pornography 50 or 500 times, he is not also using that pornography for masturbation???

So, we might again be throwing away a test result over a know or obvious issue.

---

My statement regarding the question being moot alluded to my agreement with this phantom poster concerning the obvious conclusion that if the subject is viewing that much pornography that he is using the images to fuel his masturbatory efforts.

The questions I proposed eliminate exculpatory explanations involving inadvertent or casual contact with stimulating images.

If a guy has already admitted to viewing porn or stimulating images 50 or more times, I see no real value in wasting a question on the masturbation issue unless the treatment provider is trying to pin the subject down or break denial.

If that is what the treatment provider needs, he should communicate that to the examiner. In this setting, I don't think it is an examiners job to assess a subject's clinical needs. I see the examiners job to verify the examinee's truthfulness regarding compliance issues. It comes back to "Let the Doctors do what they do, the P.O.s do what they do, and let us do what we do. In the commonly used graphic for the containment model I notice that the points of the triangle meet, but they DO NOT overlap.

50 is more than a threshold number, I would certainly re-evaluate the question series if, when asked about porn in the pre-test, the subject's response was "maybe once or twice" or "I'm not sure"

I must qualify these opinions with the statement that while I do test sex offenders, I am not currently doing PCSOT testing. My interest at the present time is is trying to understand the position proffered by APA that PCSOT is so different that is requires a clearly marked specialization.

At the present time I would agree that Polygraph Examiners should be well rounded and knowledgeable in all matters that could become the topics of their tests. I would not agree that PCSOT is so different that it justifies 16 hours of specialized sex offender polygraph training every two years any more than testing on homicides should require such continued specialized training. At the present time APA doesn't require ANY police experience or training to conduct crime tests, it doesn't require any marriage counselor training to conduct fidelity tests. If someone would propose either one of those requirements they would be shouted off the floor.

No one asks the Rick Holden's or the James Matte's of the world why they feel qualified to test homicide suspects when neither has ever investigated a homicide and neither has ever been compelled to attend a homicide investigation school as a condition of being allowed to run homicide tests. No one goes on and on about the need for specialized training to understand the psychology or motivation of murderers even though it is at least as varied and complicated as the same characteristics in sex offenders.

I'm all for continuing education. If I don't do at least 40 hours per year I feel like I'm cheating myself, but from a purely polygraph standpoint the real difference between PCSOT testing and everything else lies in whatever difference exists between instant offense testing and Maintenance/Monitoring testing. While training that addresses that difference is worthwhile, 8 hours per year seems more about pocket padding than education.

WOOPS I sorta got off on a rant there that probably should have gone into a separate post topic. Oh well my need to rant is, for the moment, satisfied.

If someone wants to pursue this line of discussion, Let me know and I will cut and paste this into another thread. This was not meant as a hijack attempt.

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

posted 11-09-2008 01:13 PM            

Also, I'm quite sure that cpolys' example of 50x was a back-pocket hypothetical example, not intended to provoke this, but what the hey... it's fun.

As for expertise and specialization, we are forced, now, to have this conversation - or shy away from it out of fear - because of the present proposed PCSOT standards, which, while they may contain some good ideas, contain more dogma than science, and will do more to fuel the arguments against polygraph by scientific thinkers who are sometimes good at reading between the lines.

Consider this:

Current APA sponsored training includes this statement:

quote:

---

“There is no PCSOT “latitude” available for the examiner to take liberties with validated procedures and still consider the test a validated test.”

on slide 12 of 267, from the PCSOT training materials provided at the UPA seminar

---

along with the notion that EPPA occured in part because the APA failed to "declare" pre-employment tests as "valid."

Like the opinions of so many long-past experts regarding the Ptolemiac geocentric theory of the solar system, some of the fancy ideas proposed will not stand up to empirical scrunity. Some are down-right inconsistent. For example: the committee members state in public their awareness that probation and treatment rules often overlap, but then attempt to assert that maintenance/compliance-treatment questions represent a "distinct" frame-of-reference from maintenance/compliance-probation questions.

Ebvan,

quote:

---

In the commonly used graphic for the containment model I notice that the points of the triangle meet, but they DO NOT overlap.

---

Never forget that the containment triangle is a metaphor. There is no actual reason it has to be a triangle. In fact, Colorado's Juvenile standards define the containment triangle (called the community supervision team in the Adult standards) a Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), with the recognition that containment-treatment/containtment-supervision is simply a model of multi-systemic intervention. MDT's include DHS child-protection workers, psychiatrists, teachers, school administrators, coaches, and others. There is strong argument that an adult Containment Team should include at least a Psychiatrist, when there are chronic mental health issue, and a DHS child-protection worker when their are children.

Its just a metaphor. If we take it literally, then we'll have to determine what type of triangle it is: right-triangle, equilateral, iscololes...

Metaphors are just teaching aides, they don't themselves define the model.

.012

r

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

posted 11-09-2008 01:52 PM            

Try it and I'll wager they'll tell you in no uncertain terms that they don't need that training in order to do THEIR jobs.

Somebody, Anybody, explain to me why an experienced polygraph examiner needs all of this extra training in order to verify the examinee's truthfulness regarding compliance issues.

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

posted 11-09-2008 05:18 PM            

I think the special training, while sometimes on the surface is useless, is important for a number of reasons.

If it does anything for seasoned LE examiners, it alerts them to the fact that dealing with offenders who are in such an odd state of supervision is different. It becomes pretty clear at some point to coppers that the post-conviction system is different-----and a perfect example is cpoly's masturbation situation. A cop who must get to an evidentiary threshold will be inclined to find out more about the "50 times but no masturbation BS." A pcsot examiner has so many other possibilities and targets that they can't afford to get forensic over everything. This is an oversimplification of course.
I have always likened the probation officer to being more like a game warden and less like a cop. A certain population to patrol, a certain set of crimes, greater powers within the framework of suspected lawlessness. And lets not forget the bad hair. But seriously.

posted 11-09-2008 06:13 PM            

I think we are in general agreement, and I gather cpolys gets it too.

It'd be fun to have an actual argument some day, but there is no sense in scaring people any further from participation in an actual PCSOT conversation.

---------

but is this test valid or in-valid?

R4: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/XXXX), did you engage in sexual contact with anyone besides your wife?

R6: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/XXXX), have you been completely alone or unsupervised with a minor?

R8: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/XXXX), did you masturbate while looking at any sexually stimulating images?

Lets assume he's married, denies cheating, admits incidental physical contact with minors (handshaking) during approved church attendance, and has made timely reports of occasional incidental contact with pornography.

.012

r
---------

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

posted 11-10-2008 03:06 AM            

Sometimes, I think that the only difference between pre-conviction poly and post-conviction poly is the conviction date and not going past it or before it.

Simplisitic, (is that a word?) But, other than learning how deviant perverts can be and how far they can carry their deceptions makes them just a little different, but not really.

I think that habituation with poly and examiners is the real issue with PCSOT.

my two cents worth,

posted 11-10-2008 08:59 AM            

It's not just the conviction date that defines a PCSOT exam.

An important difference is whether there is, or is not, an allegation or known incident. An allegation or known incident defines the difference between an screening test (fishing trip) and a diagnostic/investigative test. A known incident/allegation, coupled with some reason to suspect the involvement of our test subject, affects error estimation in an important way. The difference, in Bayesian modeling, is that the prior probability, or external probability, of involvement can be assumed to be much higher for known allegations. When investigating unknown allegations, our estimation of the prior probability of involvement is usually based on the base-rate for behaviors.

As you know, reported base-rates for actually re-offending are actually somewhat low, though you can look carefully at the data and see that they go up over time. Re-offense base-rates also differ for different typologies of offenders. For example, there is some evidence that treated psychopaths reoffend at a higher rate than other offenders.

Also, deviancy is tricky business - in part because it is massively clouded by value-judgments, and in part because we really don't know much about the sexual arousal/deviancy interests of normals (non-offenders). We do know that the pornography industry is larger than the TV, Music, and Film industries. So, we have to assume a lot of people are using pornography. Are we to assume they are all offending, or that there is a direct link between pornography and offending. No. What we can assume is that pornography seems to play a role in the lifestyles and sexual behaviors of some offenders. For another example: we know that in rural areas, some juvenile history sexual contact with animals is reported by offenders at higher rates, compared with sexual offenders in urban areas. We also know that juveniles from urban areas who report sexual contact with animals tend to be more antisocial than juveniles from urban areas who report sexual contact with animals. This is, of course, a general finding that cannot be applied to any particular individual. It's a trend. What we don't know is the exact clinical meaning of that activity. It seems a little clearer to evaluate as actually deviance any persistence of sexual contact with animals as an adult, or the persistence of sexual contact with animals after moving from an rural to urban environment. To put it simply, we don't know how many non-offenders in urban areas have engaged in some form of sexual contact with animals during their lifetimes.

Another important difference between PCSOT and preconviction testing is the number of distinct issues included in the test. Screening tests (PCSOT) are often designed to investigate multiple distinct issues at once. There are trade-offs when doing this, including possible reductions in sensitivity, and increases in error and inconclusive rates. In a diagnostic situation, regarding a known allegation for which the examinee is a suspect, allowing a reduction in sensitivity or increase in error and INC rates is unwise, so we like single-issue event-specific polygraphs for that reason. In screening situations it is useful to shake as many trees as is reasonably possible, just to see what falls out.

The PCSOT committee's recommendation to separate monitoring/reoffense polygraphs from maintenance/compliance polygraph makes sense to me. I get the sense, however, that the committee's process of this concern was largely around the notion of fear and the assumed differences in fear of consequences for failing a compliance vs. reoffense question. To me this is overly dependent on fear as the basis of response - despite the fact that psychopaths have low fear conditioning, and despite the fact that an offender is more likely to be consequenced for failing a compliance question. Most POs know they cannot revocate an offender on a failed reoffense question without an admission. Offenders know this. How many prosecutable admissions do we really get regarding sexual contact with a child while on probation? I suspect this number is small, or we'd be hearing about a lot more prosecutions on these things. What does not make sense to me is that the committee separated reoffense/monitoring polygraphs from maintenance/compliance polygraph, but still seems to allow reoffense question in the context of a maintenance polygraph.

Look at the materials from the UPA PCSOT training, slide 256 of 267:

The slide reads:

quote:

---

The SOME is conducted when

---

“SOME” is “sex offender monitoring exam.”

the fourth bullet on that slide reads

quote:

---

following a DI (SR) Maintenance examination that includes sexual re-offense RQ

---

So, while the PCSOT committee is willing to make up a “distinct” separation of constructs where is does not likely exist, it also fails to impose a separation of constructs where it most likely does exist.

Habituation is a whole 'nuther dimension of discussion. In short, we don't really know. Responsible scientists refrain from imposing their personal belief systems until we study the problem and learn the answer. Of course, people interested in dogmatic solutions will tell us with great confidence that they already have the answer. A quick look through history will reveal that the purveyors of dogma will also sell us on fear and uncertainty, and will target opposing ideas as the cause or source of the hazzard.

The point is that we need to align polygraph science with good basic science, and then align polygraph testing with good scientific testing concepts. To set in stone unstudied solutions is unwise. Similarly, dogmatic solutions will tend to prohibit actual learning, because studying the problem requires questioning the dogmatic solution. Making up fictitious constructs without proof will increase our vulnerability to the accusations of scientific-minded opponents, that polygraph is a bunch of made-up wizard-of-oz pseudo constructs.

.012

r

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