posted 10-22-2008 12:00 PM            

.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 10:44 AM            

There are some things about the proposed standards that are not bad.

It is clear though that many things still present a serious concern, and will make us look STUPID to our detractors.

If Holden really wants to avoid another EPPA, it would be wise to anchor each standard or principle to research - real research, with citations, that we can access and read for ourselves, and reach our own conclusions about whether the data seem to say what is reported. "Principles" would e more appropriate for a "model policy," as "standards" portend to have some enforcability, and the APA is an "association" not and "agency." It would also be wise to anchor ideas which are not well represented in scientific studies as "guidelines" based on their assumed or face-validity.

Anchoring standards/guidelines/principles to scientific studies is not uncommon.

I spoke breifly with Mr. Holden, at the Midwest Regional Conference. He informed me, with Jaimie McCloughan present, that he was "uaware [I] had any interest in the PCSOT committee." Which really means that my forehead, while it might say "please use Rogaine," must also say "STUPID," for him to expect me to believe such a lie. I spoke directly with him, at APA/2007, about the need for the PCSOT committee to continue working on the abortive standards presented that year. I also filled out the usual volulnteer form at APA/2007 to continue participation on the PCSOT committee.

We have a lot of work to do yet, to get standards that are reasonable and accurately formulated.

The present standards, as being taught be Holden, give a lot of ammunition to polygraph detractors.

.012

r

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

posted 10-27-2008 11:14 AM            

Polygraph is always good for fireworks and drama.

Too bad this is such a scary topic - we're all going to have to live with the results in the end. That is why it's important to have this conversation now. It is also why I have ALWAYS been interested in participating in the PCSOT committee.

It would be nice if the committee leadership were less scary and more approachable.

Any emphasis on the committee's unanimous agreement is moot - a lot of other people have expertise and experience to add to the process. Not everyone is in agreement that the proposed standards represent science or best practices.

I, for one, am opposed to any "lemming solution," or "pied-piper-solution," in which we simply simply follow someone simply because they are opinionated, charming, charismatic, successful, or forceful.

Best practice models should be based in science.

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

Here is a clickable flash version of my notes.
http://raymondnelson.us/mm/Holden_PCSOT_October_2008_Utah.html

and

my general comments
http://raymondnelson.us/mm/Ray's_comments_on_PCSOT_standards_2008.html

and the text (below)
------------------

In General, the proposed standards, as taught by Holden, tend to regard validity as a matter of declaration, not science.

The content and logic of the proposed standards imply that it is not acceptable to ask polygraph questions about any topic that is not a violation This may or may not be a good idea to prohibit this Can a PO request an exam reg travelling to a specific location in the community? (if not stipulated as a probation violation)

The proposed standards seem to have a form of identity confusion: They are supposed to be a model policy of best practices, and pretend to be required standards of practice

Slides 234 - “shall” - this was discussed at APA and we were told it would be corrected

telling offenders they showed reactions is equivalent to telling them they failed

it is unwise to mandate this, and then write reports stating they passed

it will be confusing to offenders, POs, and therapists to get initial reports that somone lied, and then get a report that they were truthful

this will eventually produce cynicism towards the polygraph

if someone fails polygraph, a PO will want to know what the issue is, and will then address it with consequences

Slide 264 - TOR and FOR
time and frame of reference is a construct that is woven throughout the proposed standards
remains unproven

This "proposed construct" invites a whole new dimension of required proof before validity can be proved

It would be wiser to be cautious about defining a who profession around an unproven idea

slide 11- mixed issue would be better than multiple issue - multiple issue is easily confused with multiple-facet

it is also not really that more issues mean less accuracy, but that the constraints on accuracy become more complex and more difficult to manage - less accuracy is simplistic to the point of being almost inaccurate.

it is not axiomatic that more issues mean less accuracy, - more issues mean greater complexity, with results in more difficulty reaching accuracy classification decisions.

use of the term "prediction" implies an emphasis on predictive validity.
we are most interested in discriminate validity

Slide 43 - claims PCSOT challenges most preconviction testing rules
later states "if you wouldn't do it in pre-conviction testing, then you shouldn't do it in PCSOT"

slide 73 DI NDI and INC yet
both ASTM and DACA use SR/NSR for screening tests

10-22-08 Holden declared at MRP that PCSOT is a "specific issue" test
when asked, he asserted that the industry - referrers - have defined it as a specific issue test

slide 90 uses the phrase "never defined as valid" referring to EPPA

tests are not "defined" as valid, they are found to be valid to some degree or other, by scientific study

validity is not a matter of declaration but a matter of investigation

slide 96 -sex offenders are praised and rewarded for admission of the instant offense is simplistic

sex offenders are not praised and rewarded for confession of instant offense - except by naive and inexperienced tx providers

slide 97 wrong praise and well being for passed ME are not guaranteed
termination from treatment for failed sxhx not guaranteed either

slide 99 - says still under review
Elsewhere in the material, Holden states the standards will go into effect January 2009, and that all examiners will be required to adhere to them.

slides 100 to 102 - seems to that we will administer test with no expectation of validity
What is the (Holden 2007) citation?
is this like the missing/non-existebnt Holden & Uno (1971) study on "situational relevant questions"

Slide 119 - valid elements
All RQ’s Address a Common Issue or Target (frame of reference)
All RQ’s Deal with a Common Time of the Issue under Investigation
All RQ’s Have Similar Potential Consequences
All RQ’s Address a ‘Conflict’ or they do not; they are not mixed -
All RQs compel the examinee to mentally focus on their involvement of the relevant issue
RN comment - 4. Why add drama by emphasizing conflict? It would make more sense to simply state
that the presence or absence of a known incident or known allegation
RN comment - 5. This should be first. RQs, must describe the examinee's behavior and
make direct implication of involvment.

slide 124 - unclear what is meant by "broad unlimited test questions" are not allowed
This should be explained more clearly

Slide 131 - Holden is eager to use the word "valid" in a declarative sense
"follows valid model"
These are simply generally acceptable principles
Validity is a matter of science, not declaration
Historically, dangerous and bad things have happened when comittees have attempted to define matters of science with policy
Policy should dictate matters of science only when it is necessary to manage a safety concern
This safety-concern is not clearly specified - though we are warned to be fearful of another EPPA (the process by which that will occur without these policies is not clear)
a PCSOT-EPPA could occur if we define by policy those things which should remain the decision of science

Slide 143 - Validity again as a matter of declaration, not science
This time in the context of Time of Reference and Frame of Reference

.012

r

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