posted 12-01-2008 09:53 PM
I found it.Psychophysiology 8(2) is the abstracts from the conference proceedings from the 1971 annual seminar of the Society for Psychophysiology Research.
It contains the abstract for the inaccurate citation in Holden (2000). Holden (2000) cited himself in-text as "Holden (1971)," but the citation in the reference list is "Holden and Uno (1971)" with a publication title which does not appear in the Journal's table of contents or Pubmed.
The missing reference is:
quote:
Holden and Uno (1971). The Effects of Situationally-Relevant, Ego/Social and Physical Threat on the Autonomic Behavior and State-Anxiety of Psychopathic and non-Psychopathic Criminals. (Abstract). Psychophysiology 8(2).
I contacted Mr. Holden last March and he said he'd get me a copy of the Holden and Uno study, but never did.
Note there is no page number, and the citation is not listed in the Table of Contents for Psychophysiology 8.
After searching for months for the incorrect or missing citation and reference, I learned that Holden and Uno gave a presentation or abstract at the 1971 Psychophysiology conference, and that the design of the study involved the recording and measuring of EDA, while showing 20 minutes of film content to volunteer prison inmate subjects.
It appears that the Journal published the abstracts from the conference presentations.
This is an incorrect citation. It should be cited either as a conference presentation, or as (Holden & Uno, in Eds. 1971), and
(Eds.) (1971). Abstracts of papers presented at the tenth annual meeting of the society for psychophysiological research. Psychophysiology 8(20). pp 243-279.
or
Holden, E. and Uno, T. (1971). The Effects of Situationally-Relevant, Ego/Social and Physical Threat on the Autonomic Behavior and State-Anxiety of Psychopathic and non-Psychopathic Criminals. Paper presented at at the tenth annual meeting of the society for psychophysiological research. Psychophysiology, [date]. [location].
Holden (2000), referenced the erstwhile study while arguing the merits of the “situationally-relevant” question, and wrote:
quote:
It defines the need to focus the examinee's fear or concern to “lying to the examiner in the laboratory, “ i.e.[sic.] the lie becomes the relevant issue in that situation (the PDD test). Situational relevance is defined as the concern the offender experiences about the consequences of lying in the PDD setting on the date and time of that particular examination. Virtually, [sic.] in all pre- and post-conviction PDD tests, the act of lying should become the most relevant concern of the examinee.” (page 83)
Holden (2000) cites the missing 1971 (Holden & Uno) study/publication as the first time he introduced the situational relevant question (e.g., "Did you lie to me about..."), in which lying to the examiner at the time of the examination becomes the relevant target. I contend that the citation is inaccurate, and the empirical basis and proof for the situational-relevant question is weak or missing, and the method of question is less desirable that simply asking some version of "did you do it?"
Here is the abstract:
quote:
Holden, Eric J., & Uno, Tad (Baylor University and Texas Department of Corrections) The effects of “situationally-relevant” threat on the autonomic behavior and state anxiety of psychopathic and non-psychopathic criminals. Conflicting findings of autonomic functioning in the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) may be attributable partly to the nature of the stimulus condition s used. This study employed two situationally-relevant stimuli defined as Ego-Socially (E-S) and Physically (P) threatening, and were films involving volunteer inmates and officials of the Texas Department of Corrections.
Ninety inmates were designated Pd, High Anxiety (HA), Control using the Lykken Activity Preference Questionnaire. Half of the Ss in each group were randomly assigned to the E-S threat condition and the other half to the P threat condition. A short state anxiety questionnaire from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was presented before and after each film.
Significant increases (p < .01) in GSR activity from prestimulus to during stimulus conditions were noted for all groups. Group differences, although significant only beyond the .25 level suggested several definite trends. First, the Pd Ss were most autonomically active tot he E-S threat, with the HA Ss being the least active group. To the P threat, the HA Ss were most active with the Pd Ss being the least active. Second, on the anxiety questionnaire, the HA Ss indicated the greatest poststimulus increase following the E-S threat, the Ps Ss least. To the P threat, the Pd Ss reported the greatest poststimulus increase.
The results suggest that the Pd Ss may be distinguishable by their autonomic reactions to situational and relevant stimulation. The findings were interpreted in light of the Cognitive-Physiological Theory.
I content that as study involving recording and measuring EDA while showing 20 minutes of film content does not pertain to verbally administered CQT polygraph stimulus questions such as "Did you lie to me today about..." The title of the presentation/abstract does contain the words "situationally-relevant." It does not provide a basis for the situational-relevant question described in Holden (2000).
This is important because the proposed model PCSOT policy, as far as I can tell from Holden's recent training materials, endorses this method of questioning, and I believe it to be a hazardous thing for the APA's future to formulate standards of practice on flawed or unproven constructs.
There is a further citation problem with Holden (2000) and the situationally relevant question. He cites himself as Holden (1999) with the reference
quote:
Holden (1999). State Law of Texas Family Law Section's Expert Witness Manual.
It is not consistent with APA to cite an individual author to a statute. There is also a missing statute number. Another problem with this citation and reference is that the State Law of Texas is called Texas State Family Code, not Texas State Law or Family Law Section.
I searched long for this document, and have come up with little.
The closest matching available publication is from the State Bar of Texas Family Law Section, which provides a Family Lawyer's Essential Toolkit which includes topic item referring to Expert Witnesses (Direct and Cross Examination Outlines) (Includes Daubert). It is unclear whether this is the correct publication to which Holden refers in his citation. Publications of the State Bar of Texas make a different impression to the reader than published statutes. This inaccuracy has the potential effect of overstating the importance and meaning of Holden's premise regarding the “situational relevant question,” as somehow based in law and not a lawyer's toolkit.
If anyone has a copy of the Holden (1999) document please let me know.
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 12-01-2008 11:29 AM
