posted 11-15-2008 06:51 PM            

R1: Did you have sexual contact with anyone under the age of 18 years?

R2: Did you have sexual contact with any family members under the age of 18 years?

R3: Did you have sexual contact with anyone without their consent?

Valid or In-valid?

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

posted 11-15-2008 09:29 PM            

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

posted 11-15-2008 09:46 PM            

Valid or in-valid?

r

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

posted 11-16-2008 10:05 AM            

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

posted 11-16-2008 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

Sex history exams should only encompass pre-conviction behavior, If the behaviors you described are post conviction they would be the subject of a monitoring exam but neither sexual history or maintenance/monitoring exams span the conviction date of the instant offense.

---

Are we thinking that these-here sex-offenders have such effective powers of compartmentalization that adding the clause "prior to your date of conviction” somehow fixes something? If so, let's articulate what would be “fixed.”

Or, are we thinking that not adding the clause, “prior to your date of conviction” causes a real problem. If so, we'll have to articulate what is the “problem,” if we don't add the clause. HINT: this is not about potential consequences to the offender.

Imagine this previously though-to-be non-contact (adult) sex offender has been sexually touching an underage relative while on probation.

Are we suggesting: 1) that failing the sex history polygraph due to that unknown new offense would be a problem, or 2) or that we'd want him to pass his sex history without disclosing that new offense?

I'd say it is not a problem if he fails. In fact, I'd want him to fail.

The fact that we emphasize the need for these Time-of-Reference phrases is actually evidence that we suspect that our offender is not all that good at such compartmentalized thinking – that he'd likely fail the polygraph due to the undisclosed relationship, unless we add the clause “prior to your date of conviction.”

Do we really want him to “pass” under these circumstances?

Now consider this: if the offender were to “pass” the Sex History Exam without disclosing the new offense against a relative, (because we decided it is necessary to help him compartmentalize that kind of thing as somehow separate from whatever body of information is relevant to the tasks of risk assessment and risk management) – this could become the very kind of FALSE-NEGATIVE event that Skipp expressed his concern about. Read the Headline: Sex offender passes Sex History Polygraph While Lying About Ongoing Offenses Against a Relative.

If it were me, I'd suggest we might want to have a conversation about the merits of doing Sex History Exams without assisting the offender in concealing a new offense – that if he can't pass it, that maybe needs to be his problem. Why would we want to help our most dangerous offenders (those who reoffend while under supervision) to make us look incompetent?

I dunno.

But, OK, we'll try it with the Time-bars:

R1: Prior to your date of conviction, did you have sexual contact with anyone under the age of 18 years?

R2: Prior to your date of conviction, did you have sexual contact with any family members under the age of 18 years?

R3: Prior to your date of conviction, did you have sexual contact with anyone without their consent?

Valid or In-valid?

.012

r

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

posted 11-16-2008 06:55 PM            

Under those rules, I think the treatment provider is on the hook for the scary headline. The sexual history exam is a treatment tool to help the provider identify problem areas or paraphilias that fell outside the elements of the instant offense and to break denial concerning other sexual issues that might complicate treatment.

I was taught that the purpose behind the sexual history exam was to verify that the examinee had made as complete a disclosure as was possible regarding the disclosure packet and not harboring any big secrets that would complicate treatment. The consequences of failure, for this exam is more work with the therapist rectify discrepancies in the packet.

The primary argument against police officers conducting PCSOT exams has always been the suspicion that they would unethically inquire outside the boundaries in order to make additional cases off of disclosures made during the sexual history exam. Treatment providers agreed during the JPCOT meetings in Texas that it was vital to get the truth about sexual history from a treatment standpoint and that inquiry that would identify victims or result in additional cases would inhibit this disclosure.

In your new question wording there is no acknowledgement that the examinee has completes a sexual history packet, so I don’t know if he hasn’t completed a disclosure packet or if he has completed a packet and did not disclose any information regarding the subject of your questions. In any case, considering the amount of information contained in a sexual history disclosure packet, you questions seem a bit narrow in scope.

Don’t most of these exams include a question like:
Q. Did you falsify or omit any requested information in your sexual history disclosure packet?

That's enough for now.
As Commodore Dewey once said, "You may fire when ready, Gridley"

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

posted 11-17-2008 01:58 AM            

quote:

---

"You may fire when ready, Gridley"

---

Nice. Dewey and the American fleet at Manila Bay...

quote:

---

As it has been explained to me on several occasions, the purpose sexual history exam is not to probe previous criminal acts.

---

Is not asking about past sexual offenses, prior to the date of sentencing, in fact probing previous criminal acts?

quote:

---

It is designed to verify the sexual history disclosure forms that the examinee completes for his treatment provider.

---

Lets be careful about this. It is axiomatic in psychological testing that self-report inventories and self-report paper-and-pencil tests are somewhat inherently unreliable – for the reason that they are transparent (it is obvious to the examinee what is being looked for), and that it is very common for people to under-report or misrepresent themselves (or sometimes over-report/exaggerate/malinger symptoms). So, we never, ever, completely trust self-report inventories. This is why high-level psychological tests, like the MMPI-2, MCMI-III, CPI, and PAI, and others, have validity indices built into them – to identify underreporting and other forms of faking. It is also why we polygraph people, and its why use the the PPG (the penile PPG) to test arousal – people tend to under-report.

Basic jargon in testing includes: self-report inventories, paper-and-pencil tests, structured interviews/semi-structured interviews, clinical interviews, observational assessments, and objective/standardized testing, and perhaps other things (it's late).

Are we to assume that offenders do not under-report in the written sex history disclosures. No. We assume they do. We assume/hope that they might do less underreporting because they have to take a polygraph – but they still under-report. Offenders (and folks like Kokish at ATSA) would like to say that offenders over-report or make false admissions due to their polygraphs – but it would be wiser to assume that they still under-report. We'll simply never know everything – it's not possible.

So, the offender comes to the polygraph, having under-reported, and we often get a little bit more information. Ergo, the purpose of the polygraph is NOT to verify what has been reported to the treatment provider, but to review what has been reported, obtain any more information that can be obtained (what he's staring at the polygraph gear on your desk), and and then attempt to verify that.

quote:

---

This is a document that is particularly structured in most cases to avoid the possibility of discovering/identifying a new victim. Clients are strongly cautioned against providing any information, either before, during or after the exam that might lead to additional criminal charges.

---

Huh? The offender is told to complete a Sex History Disclosure packet (which is really a form of self-report inventory) regarding unknown offenses, but is also told don't reveal any new victims? Sex History Disclosure materials are intended to identify addition victims. That's what a sex history disclosure (and polygraph) is about – other victims. There may be some important operational details that are un-stated here. It would be helpful to know more about how that structure prevents the possibility of identifying a new victim, and how those strong cautions are made. This kind of disjunct logic, (we want to know about additional victims, but we don't want to know about additional victims), makes us sound to our detractors like we're talking out of both sides our mouth.

There is a better solution to this. It involves clarifying the operational details of how we ask offenders to prepare for the sex history exam, and clarifying the operational details of what we want to know.

I think you'll find, from many attorneys, a general sense of discomfort around the fact that any of those additional victims could, in fact, result in additional charges. They often do not... but they could. What I think you are referring to is the notion that reoffenses while under supervision and in treatment will probably result in more immediate action (removal from the community). But that is the way it should be. If they reoffend while under supervision and in treatment, we want to know about it, and it should become their problem. If an attempt to verify a sex history results in the discovery of a new offense while under supervision – that's OK with me. If an offender has to reveal his new offenses, or can't pass a sex history exam because of new offenses – what is really wrong with that. It seems better than the alternative – an offender passing a sex history (history of offenses) while lying and keeping secret about a new offense.

What we are inarticulate about is the actual purpose of the sex history test – it is not simply to verify information. “Verification” plays into the bleeding-heart requests of therapists who want to use the polygraph as a “truth detector,” with questions such as “have you been completely truthful with me today about...” This type of question, while perhaps unavoidable in source/informant testing situation, will require a careful explanation of their construct validity and psychological basis of response for truthful and deceptive persons, in terms of emotional reactions, behavioral learning, and cognition. In addition to their flakey psychological foundations, truth verification questions are complicated by the 2400-some-odd year-old epistemological problems of “truth,” and by the construct of “everything.” I notice that the proposed model policy, as represented by the UPA PCSOT training materials, seems not to address yes-answer truth verification questions.

The purpose of a Sex History polygraph is to facilitate more accurate risk assessment, risk management, and treatment plan. There are some people who would like to prove that what we do doesn't matter. For us to prevail in our efforts to assist, and to win the long game of survival, we have to begin to understand the principles of risk-assessment. First, risk assessment tends to be cumulative – it goes up with more information, not down. Second, risk assessment begins with an assumption of high-risk – it is not like the judicial system, in which one is innocent until proven guilty. We don't put sex offenders in environments with children and see how they do, any more than we give people security clearances or hire police officers without checking them out first. So, we start with a list of concerns that means high-risk (not low risk), then see if we can verify non-involvement in those things (e.g., drugs, crimes, violence, deviant sex, income from organized crime). Reasonably verified non-involvement becomes a basis for a low-risk judgment. Third, the only way an assessed risk level goes down is to verify non-involvement.

So, we verify non-involvement in some things (perhaps). Or, we gather admissions and provide information about involvement in other things. Also, we might sometimes test the limits of certain types of behavioral activity – like how many persons that offender has physically forced or threatened to harm for sexual contact. We need to be careful with the notion of “testing-the-limits” of admitted behavior because we will probably never know everything – especially when we are dealing with large numbers of incidents (how many times have you been to Walmart?) or sexual-compulsivity/deviancy behaviors like peeping, exhibitionism and other stuff.

quote:

---

Under those rules, I think the treatment provider is on the hook for the scary headline.

---

An offender passing a Sex History Polygraph while lying or keeping secret about a new offense will seem an awful lot like a False Negative to to the court, probation, treatment provider, community, and the media. I think there is a good possibility he wouldn't pass the Sex History Exam anyway (if there were a new offense), and that would be OK with me.

quote:

---

The sexual history exam is a treatment tool to help the provider identify problem areas or paraphilias that fell outside the elements of the instant offense and to break denial concerning other sexual issues that might complicate treatment.

---

This could be stated more clearly. The purpose if the sex history exam is to either verify non-involvement or to educe the need for further discussion about specific behaviors that indicate risk or require therapeutic interventions.

“Denial” is not a construct that will win arguments with smart psychologically minded opponents of the polygraph. Denial is a construct that is contaminated by values-based (not science-based) treatment approaches, and the scientific literature on denial is mixed about it problematic meaning. Denial is a very common coping and defense mechanism. So, any suggestion that it is inherently pathological is unimpressive to people who've studied psychology and the literature on denial among sex offenders.

quote:

---

I was taught that the purpose behind the sexual history exam was to verify that the examinee had made as complete a disclosure as was possible regarding the disclosure packet and not harboring any big secrets that would complicate treatment. The consequences of failure, for this exam is more work with the therapist rectify discrepancies in the packet.

---

These assumptions are antithetical to what we know about self-report inventories. People under-report on self-report measures. Not always, but darn-near always. That's why we polygraph 'em.

The idea of “big secrets that would complicate treatment” is also something to be careful with. Aside from the fact that not all clinical “experts” agree that secrets in the Sex History complicate treatment (some say its normal for their to be secrets), is inherently problematic. The concept is also very broad, and lacks operational definition about what would constitute a complication.

A better, more winnable, argument is that the Sex History exam serves to obtain information about issues that indicate higher or lower levels of risk, and identifies issues that require clinical intervention. Of course, there will be discussion about what behaviors require intervention, and some behaviors that tweak our sensibilities may not actually require treatment. We'll have to study the data.

Those “big complication” behaviors will require explication and operational definition. To do otherwise is to concede to our detractors that we're just making this up as we go.

Some of those big complications would be a victim in the offenders' home, immediate family, or neighborhood. So, behaviorally descriptive RQs pertaining to relatives, children, violence, and unconscious victims would help un-complicate things. Admissions of past offenses, prior to sentencing, does not result in “warm milk and cookies” from the therapist. Admission of a past offense (prior to sentencing) against a relative or neighborhood child is a victim-impact and risk-management problems that will result in a new investigation and perhaps new charges.

The consequences of failing a Sex History exam will also be that he is confronted and interrogated, confronted again and therapized in group, confronted again in individual therapy, confronted again by his PO, and then subject to safety-plan/activity restrictions, and other restrictions until it is all figured out. Sometimes, the consequences might be a requirement to live away from his home and family. It might mean work and travel restrictions.

The other consequence is that the case is managed as an unknown – meaning that it is managed as if he presents a high level of risk (which means stop-the-world type of supervision), until we verify non-involvement in the kinds of things that allow us to conclude someone is lower-risk.

quote:

---

The primary argument against police officers conducting PCSOT exams has always been the suspicion that they would unethically inquire outside the boundaries in order to make additional cases off of disclosures made during the sexual history exam.

---

I need help with this one. What would be an example of “unethically inquir[ing] outside the boundaries?” We should be able to ask anything. Name, age, location, behavioral details, how he gained the victim's compliance... If the offender is stupid enough to tell us, that's his problem. If he says he won't provide the information, that's our problem. Of course, if he doesn't make a reasonable effort to account for himself then he might not pass the test. So what. That's what we want. He hasn't told enough then he might not pass.

I think the real problems with police officers doing PCSOT (if there is one) is that addition disclosures are very likely, and the officers might be compelled to make an arrest or pursue an investigation – making the polygraph central to that – or that an offender is compelled to make additional disclosures directly with a sworn officer. I don't really know.

quote:

---

Treatment providers agreed during the JPCOT meetings in Texas that it was vital to get the truth about sexual history from a treatment standpoint and that inquiry that would identify victims or result in additional cases would inhibit this disclosure.

---

Again, are we saying that we want them to report additional offenses, because it is those past offenses that most clearly signals their risk for future offenses, but we don't want them to tell us about additional victims? Then, are we taking the position that we want an offender to pass Sex History exam, after he has re-offended while under supervision?

Then we have the problems that the scientific studies regarding treatment outcomes don't seem to agree on how vital it is to get the truth about the sex history.

There is a massive problem with the present approach, and it's where we will lose with the scientific-minded folk at ATSA. JPCOT is a “consensus” document, not a scientific document. To the extent that the proposed model PCSOT policies read a lot like the JPCOT document, it is also a consensus document.

In Colorado, the consensus of members of the SOMB polygraph committee (comprised of experienced polygraph examiners, POs, and treatment providers) was that we're not bothered by an offender not passing a sex history exam while concealing a new victim while on probation. Not passing is a signal to us that there is something to figure out.

The big problems is that consensus statements do not impress scientists. They are used primarily to leverage an argument. Too often, a consensus is achieved as a result of some central charismatic, forceful or articulate influence over those involved.

Look at the Chiropractic field. Not so long ago, they were issuing consensus statements about the definition and existence of “subluxations,” which was an unproven construct. To medical doctors, the term meant a significant skeletal displacement that would appear on x-rays. To chiropractic professionals, “subluxation” was thought to interfere with the nervous system even if it was not significant enough to be visible on an x-ray. The scientific questions were whether these chiropractic subluxations really existed and whether they really did what chiropractic professionals said they did.

The consensus of the JPCOT treatment providers, Colorado SOMB, and Chiropractic “experts,” is about as valuable as a consensus of 2nd Lieutenants on how to win a war. Similarly, scientific question are not answered by consensus.

Consensus may be useful for formulating a working hypothesis or establishing policy. But then we do our homework – which mean finding alternative explanations, and attempting to disprove our hypothesis.

Not so long ago, it was the consensus of experts that oil and natural gas had something to do with biology or dinosaurs. We now know those fuels to have more to do with chemistry than biology.

It would be wise of us to anchor ourselves to a commitment to policies that are guided by science, and and to seek scientific explanation about why it is that what we do matters. To me this has to do with obtaining information that can improve risk assessment, treatment planning, and risk management. Trying to pretend that we now know “everything” does not accomplish this. We will not and cannot know everything an offender ever did. It's not possible.

We would be wisest to use the pretest to shake-down any information of interest to the referring agent, then use relevant question targets that have actuarial relevance to risk assessment. To to otherwise, makes us vulnerable to accusations that we engage in value-based target selection practices, or simply engage in activity that provides no incremental validity to risk assessment or risk management goals.

Next we'll have to talk about just what are those target behaviors that can be used to contribute to actuarial/scientific risk assessment and risk management.

quote:

---

In your new question wording there is no acknowledgement that the examinee has completes a sexual history packet, so I don’t know if he hasn’t completed a disclosure packet or if he has completed a packet and did not disclose any information regarding the subject of your questions. In any case, considering the amount of information contained in a sexual history disclosure packet, you questions seem a bit narrow in scope.

---

You should be aware that the original questions were Rick Holden's example Sex History questions, slide 243 of 267 in the UPA PCSOT training materials. I corrected some typos, but the questions are verbatim.

quote:

---

Don’t most of these exams include a question like:
Q. Did you falsify or omit any requested information in your sexual history disclosure packet?

---

This type of question is not permitted here in Colorado. RQs have to describe an offense behavior. We try to pick behaviors that would alternatively indicated a higher or lower level of risk or deviancy/compulsivity.

If someone passes this type of question (omit any requested info), do we then know “everything” that we requested to know about? If someone doesn't pass this question, which does not describe any particular behavior, what does the test question itself add to risk management efforts? In other words, what added incremental validity have we achieved for risk assessment or risk management – knowing that underreporting is still normal and common? Answer: nothing. Because the question does not describe a behavior. On the other hand, behaviorally descriptive questions, pertaining to investigation targets that have actual relevance to investigation effort, risk management and treatment-intervention. When we become aware that we cannot verify non-involvement in a particular behavior – it goes on the list of things to work on.

Questions re omitting-any-info encourage us to naively assume that we somehow now know everything that we asked about – which, if achieved, would only validate the over-reporting/false-admissions concerns among the anti-polygraph folk at ATSA, because, again, the probability that the offender gets it perfect – with no underreporting and no over-reporting – is essentially zero. In order to achieve the goal of knowing “everything,” we'd have to ask the offenders to err on the over-reporting/false-admission side. That would play into accusations that the polygraph forces those hapless and unfortunate offenders to have to make false-confessions just to stay in treatment and in the community.

In all likelihood, an offender under-reports on the written Sex History. Then, we review the document, and perhaps get more information. The offender is still probably underreporting. It would be unwise to assume we know everything. Perhaps, sometimes, the offender over-reports. Maybe sometimes. Most likely though the offender is still underreporting.

Then we have the construct problem of which is more salient – a question that behaviorally describes an offense act and implies direct involvement (did you do it) or an indirect/verification questions that describes lying in a written document? Which would we expect to do a better job signaling our continued inquiry and risk assessment efforts?

What we're really getting at is a need to be more careful about our relevant question targets.

No-one has yet commented on the problems associated with the word and concept of “consent,” in the last sample question.

Niters,

As always, .012

r

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

posted 11-17-2008 10:28 AM            

quote:

---

So, the offender comes to the polygraph, having under-reported, and we often get a little bit more information. Ergo, the purpose of the polygraph is NOT to verify what has been reported to the treatment provider, but to review what has been reported, obtain any more information that can be obtained (what he's staring at the polygraph gear on your desk), and then attempt to verify that.

---

quote:

---

What we are inarticulate about is the actual purpose of the sex history test – it is not to verify information. The purpose has more to do with facilitating a more accurate risk assessment and treatment plan. So, we verify non-involvement in some things (perhaps).

---

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. According to the APA policy:

quote:

---

The role of the polygraph examiner in the containment approach is to verify or refute information provided by the offender and to serve as a deterrence tool.

---

Verification of disclosure is exactly what the polygraph examiner is doing. "facilitating a more accurate risk assessment and treatment plan", is what the treatment provider does with the information.

In addition, the PPG is NOT part of PCSOT.

Let me ask you a question or two.

If you were conducting a sexual history examination, and your examinee admitted to you that over the last 20 years he had committed previously unreported chargeable lewd acts with a dozen or more young girls between the ages of 8 and 12; would you then interrogate him to discover the identity of those victims?

If so, and he disclosed the names or information to render them readily identifiable what would you do with that information?

Do you personally take any steps, including intentionally not asking specifics, or are you aware of any steps taken by the treatment provider to avoid identifying previous victims to the point that it triggers mandatory reporting to law enforcement?

"Lay on, Mc Duff, and damned be him who first cries 'Hold, Enough!'"

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

posted 11-17-2008 10:28 AM            

quote:

---

Don’t most of these exams include a question like:
Q. Did you falsify or omit any requested information in your sexual history disclosure packet?

---

I forgot to add that Rick Holden, on slide 244 of 267 from the UPA PCSOT training materials wrote:

quote:

---

broad based RQs about truthfulness of and/or withholding from the SHQ in total not recommended

---

Slide 244 relates specifically to the General Sex History, so we might have to inquire about how exactly this applies.

However, it does seem like the PCSOT committee is moving away from these broad questions. That's probably good.

A question that describes, and implies direct involvement in, a behavior that is correlated with increased risk would seem to do a better job stimulating a reaction to that issue, compared with a broad/general question about overal truthfulness yet neglects to describe the behavior of concern.

My question would be: if these broad questions (overal truth verification questions) are troublesome in the General Sex History, would they be somehow less troublesome in the Sex History regarding victims.

I'm beginning to wonder that this type of question was once taught and advocated as a "valid" approach.

Which raises another complication pertaining to the present declarative approach towards validity...

Are we to assume that those past exams are now "in-valid?" What if one of those cases comes up for some type of staffing or court review? Do we tell the community supervision team that a test that was once "valid" is now "in-valid?"

This is exactly why we need a scienific approach, in which we start at the beginning, verify our assumptions along the way, and scaffold new knowlege onto our existing base of intelligence. To do otherwise puts us out on some limb that may become unsupportable with some new committee decision or scientific study.

.012

r

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

posted 11-17-2008 11:24 AM            

quote:

---

"Lay on, Mc Duff, and damned be him who first cries 'Hold, Enough!'"

---

I'll hopefully be able to keep my head after this, unlike Macbeth.

quote:

---

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. According to the APA policy:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The role of the polygraph examiner in the containment approach is to verify or refute information provided by the offender and to serve as a deterrence tool.

---

Fair enough. If that is what the present policy states (I haven't checked), then you are correct, in a declarative sense.

quote:

---

Verification of disclosure is exactly what the polygraph examiner is doing. "facilitating a more accurate risk assessment and treatment plan", is what the treatment provider does with the information.

---

We're getting deep in the weeds here. Strictly speaking, treatment providers provide treatment, evaluators assess risk. Evaluation/risk-assessment are increasingly regarded as an ethically distinct clinical activity, compared with providing treatment. So, evaluators don't “facilitate” a risk assessment they “do” or “complete” a risk assessment. Polygraph examiners assist, help, or facilitate that effort by accessing information, verifying non-involvement, and sometimes testing the limits of involvement in certain behaviors.

quote:

---

In addition, the PPG is NOT part of PCSOT.

---

OK. But it's helpful to understand our role in context. Our role, though unique in some ways, is not unlike that served by other forms of testing.

quote:

---

Let me ask you a question or two.

If you were conducting a sexual history examination, and your examinee admitted to you that over the last 20 years he had committed previously unreported chargeable lewd acts with a dozen or more young girls between the ages of 8 and 12; would you then interrogate him to discover the identity of those victims?

---

This is the operational detail I was referring to earlier.

I wouldn't interrogate during a pretest, but there is nothing wrong with asking for the name of those persons, or the nature of his relationship to them (how he knew them). I would also inquire about how he gained their compliance at the time of those offenses.

This is exactly how it is done in Colorado. Offenders usually only provide a first name and a general statement about his relationship to the victim. Some offenders don't provide names. Most do.

He will have already been informed that he does not have to provide completely detailed information, and that polygraph examiner will report all the information to the community supervision team members, who are mandatory child-abuse reporters.

quote:

---

If so, and he disclosed the names or information to render them readily identifiable what would you do with that information?

---

Polygraph examiners, in Colorado, are not listed in the statues that define who are mandatory child abuse reporters. As a result, we are also not immune from civil liability for making child-abuse reports. Our SOMB regulations require we give all information to POs and Therapists, who are mandated reporters, and whom are immune from civil liability for making those reports.

quote:

---

Do you personally take any steps, including intentionally not asking specifics, or are you aware of any steps taken by the treatment provider to avoid identifying previous victims to the point that it triggers mandatory reporting to law enforcement?

---

We have to learn to work in a mandatory reporting context. Mandatory reporting is a good thing. It also potentially places the polygraph in a vulnerable legal position, because we risk centralizing the polygraph in legal decision about people's rights.

The Sex History disclosure materials here in Colorado, in addition to providing clear operational definition to every behavioral activity of concern, will have also provided an advisement of mandatory reporting. The requested information, in the packet, is mostly clinical and risk-related info, and is a little short of what would be necessary to launch a mandatory report or investigation, but that still happens. It very rare that someone is prosecuted for disclosures, though I am aware of three cases (not mine) in which that occurred.

We are told by our AG's office, based on their assessment of previous case experiences, that we can compel offenders to take polygraphs, and we can make decision that affect their rights based on whether they do/don't take the test or do/don't pass. It becomes more complicated and vulnerable when we do both of these (affect their rights and compel them), so we attempt to avoid that. We are also told that offenders still have 5th Amendment rights against answering questions about unknown crimes – but not about probation/treatment rule violations – which is another argument for the separation of Monitoring/reoffense questions from Maintenance/compliance questions.

I generally ask for each persons “first name,” age, and how the offender knew the person. Most of the time they tell me. Sometimes they don't.

Offenders don't show up un-prepared as often as they used to. In most effective programs there is a therapeutic culture that helps instruct new offenders in navigating disclosure in a mandatory reporting context. It's a balancing act for the offender, who will have learned that if he discloses more information he's more likely to pass and be done with it. If he plays his cards close to his chest (which he can), he's less likely to pass, and he's handicapping his teams confidence that they know the whole scope of his activities – which will then result in a slower process and progress through treatment, fewer activities and permissions, and all carrot-and-stick motivation that treatment and probation provides.

.012

r

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

posted 11-17-2008 03:51 PM            

In sifting your response it appears in fact that examinees are warned against reporting details that could lead to a mandatory reporting situation. What do you do if this fellow gives names, ages and relationships that identify his {the previously discussed} victims as his nieces and girls who attended his wife's daycare? I presume that you would report all of this information to both the P.O. and the treatment provider and then they would be required to report to Law Enforcement. So here we have a guy that is trying to be truthful about his past so he can get the tools he needs to keep him from engaging in behaviors that will keep him out of jail in the future and his reward for being honest is back to jail. His options become:
1 Be truthful- Go back to jail.
2 Lie and get caught go back to jail.
3 Lie and don't get caught stay out of jail.

He only has one option that keeps him out of jail. The truth is , the treatment provider doesn't want to have to report past crimes to L.E. and subsequently prefers that examiners not extract information sufficiently specific to lead to additional charges from examinees in a sexual history context. Most treatment providers that I have discussed this with pretty much regard pre-conviction behavior as "water under the bridge" extremely useful in forming a treatment plan, but not something for which they want the justice system to hold their patients accountable.

Regardless of all of this, what is wrong with the protocol currently being taught in which the sexual history exam covers a pre-conviction time of reference considering that any paraphilias identified will probably disregard any TOR and a monitoring exam will more specifically target reoffense or post conviction behavior?

In yon strait path a thousand may well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,and keep the bridge with me?’

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

posted 11-17-2008 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

So there is a polygraph loophole in that Colorado Mandatory Reporting Statute. Would that loophole still exist if the examiner also held a license or certification that placed them in one or more of the enumerated categories? Or would a physician still be a mandatory reporter if he saw suspicious behavior while looking into his neighbors back yard?

---

Excellent question.

It's not a loophole. Polygraph examiners are not listed among mandatory reporting professionals, and I don't think we want them to be. I would guess that polygraph examiners are not named in mandatory reporting statutes of many states. There has been some legal precedent supporting the idea that some professionals were different hats at different times, the court has upheld this as long as they are clear about what ethical requirements they are required to adhere to for a role. For example; as a therapist I am a mandated reporter; as a polygraph examiner I am not. The same might apply for police officers, but I don't know what their off-duty ethical requirements are.

quote:

---

In sifting your response

---

Geeze, you make it sound like work....

quote:

---

it appears in fact that examinees are warned against reporting details that could lead to a mandatory reporting situation. What do you do if this fellow gives names, ages and relationships that identify his {the previously discussed} victims as his nieces and girls who attended his wife's daycare? I presume that you would report all of this information to both the P.O. and the treatment provider and then they would be required to report to Law Enforcement.

---

Yep. We report to the PO and TxP, and they report to DHS and the Police or County Sheriff's office. Mandatory reporting is the right thing to do. If we get the information, then we don't hide it.

The legal and ethical complication has to do with: 1) compelling the offender to disclose the information, and 2) using the information to make decisions that affect his rights. It's only a problem when we do BOTH of these at once. We can compel them disclose. Or, we can use any information to make decisions that affect their rights. We have a problem only when we do both at once. Because of mandatory child-abuse reporting seems to be a good thing (better off with it than without it), we want polygraph policies that compel the use of polygraph and the provision of information relevant to risk assessment and risk management tasks, without compelling the disclosure of information that automatically results in mandatory reporting.

quote:

---

So here we have a guy that is trying to be truthful about his past so he can get the tools he needs to keep him from engaging in behaviors that will keep him out of jail in the future and his reward for being honest is back to jail. His options become:
1 Be truthful- Go back to jail.
2 Lie and get caught go back to jail.
3 Lie and don't get caught stay out of jail.

He only has one option that keeps him out of jail.

---

It's not as desperate as you make it seem. Sure, it's a dilemma, in part because we reduce the likelihood he'll not get caught lying by requiring the polygraph. There are clear advisements, procedures and structure that would allow for his satisfactory participation in and compliance with polygraph requirements without being compelled to provide enough information to automatically result in mandatory reporting. To the extent that those guidelines are reiterated in official policy and written documents, there is no argument for compulsion. Furthermore, the growing base of experience among various prosecutor's offices helps. Most jurisdictions in Colorado do not file cases on disclosures made in treatment, unless there is a victim outcry. This is not the same as an immunity solution. However, the documentation and description of operational procedures that clarify the non-compulsion requirements within the disclosure requirements.

What is necessary, is that we are clear about what behavioral signals we want to use to inform our risk assessment, risk management, and treatment planning efforts. Then we formulate a Sex History Disclosure Packet that requests that info and refrains from requesting information that would be of sufficient quantity or quality to trigger a mandatory report.

quote:

---

The truth is , the treatment provider doesn't want to have to report past crimes to L.E. and subsequently prefers that examiners not extract information sufficiently specific to lead to additional charges from examinees in a sexual history context. Most treatment providers that I have discussed this with pretty much regard pre-conviction behavior as "water under the bridge" extremely useful in forming a treatment plan, but not something for which they want the justice system to hold their patients accountable.

---

OK, but there are times when being held accountable is the correct thing to do.

quote:

---

Regardless of all of this, what is wrong with the protocol currently being taught in which the sexual history exam covers a pre-conviction time of reference considering that any paraphilias identified will probably disregard any TOR and a monitoring exam will more specifically target reoffense or post conviction behavior?

---

Another excellent question.

Is this what is currently being taught – that any paraphilias identified with probably disregard any TOR? If so, it would be consistent with the scientific studies that indicate time-bars don't do much. Why then should we bother with TOR? Answer: because it defines the period of concern for maintenance and monitoring polygraphs. Sure the Sex History Exam is about pre-conviction – but do we really want to see offenders passing that exam if they have reoffended? Do we really think they will pass it because we've added a time-bar to the questions? These are questions that deserve to be answered by the principles of scientific study, not personality-driven opinions.

What is really wrong with the FOR/TOR notion that is currently being taught, is that the PCSOT committee is suggesting we take this unproven and flawed hypothesis and set it in stone as if it is a validated construct.

It is wrong to require a definition of a CQ has having a FOR and TOR, when the scientific studies tell us that time-bars do nothing, and CQs seem to perhaps work better without them. Why define a CQ with a time-bar, except to gratify someone's unproven and unprovable fancy idea.

It is wrong to require that RQs and CQs be separated by either FOR or TOR, when time-barred CQs seem to make no difference. It would make more sense to require RQs and CQs to be separated by FOR only. That may require discussion, because I believe some polygraph training programs advocate or require that CQs be categorically or topically similar to the RQs. This may apply more the investigative polygraphs. I'm not sure. I

It is wrong (probably a dumb idea) to require a TOR on prior-to-conviction offenses, because assisting an offender to compartmentalize a new offense and therefore pass the Sex History Exam (prior to conviction) will increase the likelihood of a painful False-Negative event that will make us look incompetent to the community and to our detractors.

Where is the model in other polygraph screening contexts? Do LEPET programs or security-screening programs use a TOR for “prior to your date of application.” No. this is a fancy idea that has its idiosyncratic origins in the notion that PCSOT testing is somehow scientifically “different” than other types of screening polygraphs. It is not. The mathematical and empirical principles and problems are identical. These programs differ primarily in the behavioral details of interest to risk adjudicators and risk managers.

It is wrong to require a fictitious and artificial separation of Treatment-FOR and Probation-FOR, when the committee members have recognized and admitted there is substantial overlap to the content of treatment and probation rules.

It is wrong to replace decades of research on the basic construct of the CQT (psychological set or salience – whichever term you prefer) - which shows that polygraph seems to work fairly well when we posit a behaviorally descriptive RQ next to a broad categorical probable or directed lie - with a fancy idea that is inconsistent with both PCSOT goals (drawing attention to high-risk and dangerous offenders) and inconsistent with the scientific studies (time-bars).

It is wrong to cast the future of the polygraph profession in a mold that is so obviously flawed.

It is also wrong for polygraph professionals to be so desperate for some immediate sense of security and relief from PCSOT-EPPA anxiety that we act like lemmings and neglect to think through the details.

It is also wrong for the the polygraph profession to enact fictitious word-game solutions to real problems that deserve answers based in knowledge gained from scientific studies.

That said, there are still some things about the proposed model policy that seem to be worthwhile.

quote:

---

In yon strait path a thousand may well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,and keep the bridge with me?’

---

I don't know this one. Is it from Herodotus?

r

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

posted 11-17-2008 11:26 PM            

The quote is from "Horatius" by Thomas MCCauley most often called Horatius at the Bridge.

Its kind of an obscure metaphor on the containment approach. According to legend, In 509 BC a Roman Captain by the name of Horatius Cocles held the Sublician bridge across the Tiber River against the entire Etruscan Army aided by only 2 other soldiers, Spurius Lartius and Titus Herminius, as the bridge was dismantled thus saving Rome.

The poem is inspiring even though it is a bit tough to read.

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

posted 11-18-2008 12:53 AM            

quote:

---

It almost seems like you are advocating dismantling the current formalized structure or "rules" of PCSOT in favor of a more liberal approach that would allow the examiner to construct polygraph exams based solely on validated techniques targeting History, Instant Offense, or rules/re-offense, as needed, and allowing the mixing of treatment rules/probation rules/and re-offense since the issues on this third type of exam likely overlap anyway.

---

No. Not dismantle, and not more liberal. In fact, I would favor more a more conservative set of model policies. One that doesn't pretend to "know" things we don't really known and, doesn't attempt to micro-manage "validity" through unproven operational requirements.

I believe policies that are set in stone should be based on science. I don't believe matters of science should be dictated by policy - we have historic examples of abusive things occurring when we do that. I'm not opposed to making policy in the absence of science, based on face-valid ideas, when there is an imminent risk.

I do not believe there is any real or provable vector of separation between non-compliance with treatment and probation - at least in my jurisdiction.

I think there is face-validity to the notion that monitoring/reoffense questions should be handled distinctly from Maintenance/compliance questions. My opinion is due to both differences in base-rate and error estimation, and differences in 5th amendment privilege regarding new crimes and non-compliance.

However, the proposed model policy, as exemplified by the UPA PCSOT training materials does not seem to prohibit mixing reoffense questions with maintenance questions. Slide 256 of 267 states that a Monitoring Exam is indicated "following a DI (SR) Maintenance examination that includes sexual re-offense RQ." I think this is a mistake. It might make sense to use a Monitoring test following an unresolved Maintenance exam, but I think it would be a mistake to routinely include reoffense questions in Maintenance/compliance tests. Base-rates are different (presumed lower) for reoffense, compared with non-compliance, and 5th Amendment rights are different for reoffense questions (there is to 5th Amendment right re Maintenance/compliance questions).

It is inevitable that a Maintenance or Monitoring exam will have time-bars, because those exams are defined as regarding recent time periods.

I don't mind the idea that a Sex History exam is intended to investigate behavior prior to sentencing, but I have no naive expectation that a new offense while on probation will somehow (or should somehow) not interfere with a Sex History exam. It wouldn't bother me of an offender couldn't pass a sex history exam as a result of a new offense - polygraph will have done its job, in prompting a conversation about why the reactions to the test questions.

I agree there may be face-validity to the ideas about the Instant offense, and the differences between investigating denial of known allegations, and testing the limits of admissions.

I do not see the value of amplifying interpersonal drama by emphasizing the notion of “conflict.” There is enough drama surrounding the polygraph already. What is gained by throwing gas on this fire? It is less dramatic, to simply focus on the facts – is there a known allegation or discrepancy.

I think there is face-validity to the requirement to separate Sex History exams regarding victim from the “general” (not a great word) sex history. Questions about victim selection, victim access, and victim contact prompt better question formulation – with emphasis on behaviorally descriptive language. Questions about the “general sex history,” will inevitably be about sexual deviancy and compulsivity activities. Because there will sometimes tend to be a lot of these behaviors, when there are any, this will inevitably become a test that is a complicated attempt to “test the limits” of admissions. There will be times when verifying the limits of admissions is neither reasonably achievable (we'll never know everything) or even necessary because we may already know the answer – he did it a lot – too many times to accurately account for). Testing the limits of deviancy admissions will be most productive when the offender denies any involvement or when the admissions are minimal (verifying non-involvement).

To the extent that known allegations are part of what defines the difference between a diagnostic and screening polygraphs, there does seem to be face-validity to the idea that prior unresolved offense allegations (POSE) present a special problem to Sex History testing, and perhaps should be be resolved first. Test known allegations before unknown allegations.

I do not agree with the silly proposition that PCSOT exams are a "specific issue" exam simply because the questions have the same FOR or TOR, or whatever. Sexual contact, pornography, unsupervised contact with minors are distinct and separate issues. It is conceivable that an offender could lie regarding involvement in one activity while being truthful about the others. Mixing distinct issues creates compounded error and inconclusive rates, according to basic statistical principles (mostly the addition-rule) involving dependent and independent probability events. Polygraph math is, of course, omnibus math. “Omnibus” is just geek-speak for “all or nothing,” - you have to pass them all to pass the test. SR to anything, and all-bets-are off with the other questions that are not also SR. They are INC.

I think there are some important and missing operational details about what will be considered an acceptable solution to integrating all these requirements.

For example, imagine an offender with an instant offense against Judy, an previous conviction against Jane, and an un-charged prior allegation against Jenna. Now image he makes an admission of one additional underage victim while preparing and reviewing his written sex history. Do we use:

A: Not including the victim of the instant offense, that previous conviction, or the prior offense allegation, and besides that one person, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else who was under age 15?

But we want to make sure he doesn't fail his sex history just because he's reoffended while on probation, so are we to ask:

B: Prior to your date of conviction, not including the victim of the instant offense, that previous conviction, or the prior offense allegation, and besides that one person, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else who was under age 15?

That is a chunky and complex questions that could evoke a reaction due its structure alone. It also includes a number of specific stimulus elements – instant offense, prior offense, one admission, etc.

Or, is this acceptable:

C: Prior to your date of conviction, and besides whom you already reported, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else who was under age 15?

Or, if we decide that we don't want to assist him passing a Sex History exam while concealing a new offense, could we do this:

D: Besides whom you already reported, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else who was under age 15?

Alright, enough for now.

(maybe time for a little light reading of some ancient history)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

r

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

posted 11-18-2008 12:28 PM            

I'll agree that is a silly propsition.

If you were to write a model policy for PCSOT, what would it be?

The present policy is just short of 2500 words, but I am prepared to award brownie points for brevity and plain english so that not only can the rules be understood by examiners, they can be understood by treatment providers, P.O.s and reasonably intelligent offenders as well.

Do you know this one?
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.

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

posted 11-18-2008 08:40 PM            

'cept 2500 words is a kind of starvation diet, innit?

quote:

---

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.

---

some fuzzy-headed math guy...

useless trivia: in e = mc^2,

e refers to Euler's number

Like pi, e is irrational, in that its value cannot be calculated as a finite or repeating decimal.

2.71828182845904523536...

e is the base of the natural logarithm, without which we would have neither Polyscore nor OSS-3.

r

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

posted 11-19-2008 12:47 PM            

quote:

---

If you were to write a model policy for PCSOT, what would it be?

The present policy is just short of 2500 words, but I am prepared to award brownie points for brevity and plain english so that not only can the rules be understood by examiners, they can be understood by treatment providers, P.O.s and reasonably intelligent offenders as well.

---

OK, I tried... stayed up late... Integreated content from the present model policy, the UPA PCSOT material, and some bits from the Colorado SOMB.

Couldn't get less than 12 paqes and 4700 words.

(no brownie points, and I'm sometimes better at WONK than plain English)

At any rate, here's more gas on the PCSOT fire.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/pcsot/Ray's_PCSOT_draft_11-19-08.doc

.012

r

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

posted 11-19-2008 05:50 PM         

We are heavily regulating what was once a rather simple process. 5 exams in one day? If you can do more than 2 your exhausted.

I do not conduct PCSOT exams at this time, and with the "regulations" being proffered as a "model policy", I will not do PCSOT exams in the future.

I'm not sure anyone can abide by all of the suggested "regulations". You state that the examiner is responsible for the questions asked, then you state that the examiner will question in specific areas determined by the "Treatment Team" and you include the examiner in the treatment team.

PHD's are responsible for "Treatment". Probation/Parole Officers are responsible for monitoring convicted persons. Polygraph examiners are responsible to ensure convicted persons are telling the truth regarding both Treatment Rules and Probation/Parole rules, in addition to discovering sexual history.

Three distinct responsibilities with distinct purposes that work together to reduce recidivism.

Where are the "regulations" for PHD's and Parole/Probation Officers?

posted 11-19-2008 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

A masterpiece to say the least. What happened to the old way? Questions related to the offender and his/her "Complete" sexual history in one setting,

---

The PCSOT committee, as indicated by Holden's UPA PCSOT training materials, has wisely decided to move away from those broad questions that neglect to describe a behavior that would itself indicate the presence or absence of particular problem.

The old-way questions are troublesome. Do we ask...

R4: Have you withheld any information...

First, If they pass, we are to naively assume we know everything. In fact, it's not possible to know everything. To avoid underreporting (because it'll never be just right) the offender would have to err on the side of over-reporting - which our critics call making false-admissions to pass the polygraph.

Second, if they don't pass, the question is not usable to an evaluator because it doesn't even attempt to tell us about any particular behavior. Sure, the date tell us the polygraph may not do a great job pinpointing the correct issue of deception, but evaluators still have an obligation to specify what behavior they are interested in, and we still have an obligation to try to inform them whether we can or cannot rule-out involvement in that behavior.

Confirmatory questions are even worse...

R6: Have you been completely truthful about...

Again, what does it mean if they pass, having briefly summarized a lifetime of sexual activity. Do we allow ourselves to naively assume we now know "everything." We sure don't and can't know everything.

Then, if they don't pass, what does the question point to that is useful to anyone outside the examination room? Nothing.

Behaviorally descriptive questions make the polygraph more consistent with actuarial risk prediction methods, and get out out of the bid'ness of some silly pretense that the offender is not somehow still withholding "anything." They will always keep secrets - it's their nature.

With behaviorally descriptive questions, focused on behaviors with operational relevance to risk-assessment and risk management, the question confirms an issue as present (in need of management/treatment) or not present (denied involvement). It is still probably useful to gather information about whom the offender has assaulted in various ways. Behaviorally descriptive questions remind us to focus on the sciences of risk prediction and therapeutic treatment.

To neglect the task of focusing on behavioral descriptions and operational descriptions of our concerns is to keep ourselves anchored to the sinking ship of values-based treatment methods that are both indefensible and ineffective in forensic settings. Values based counseling is quiet fine and satisfying for safe, stable ambitious folks who don't hurt others and want to explore and learn all they can about themselves. Offenders are basically externalizers who can barely manage the task of introspection long enough to remember their probation rules when no-one is looking over their shoulder.

quote:

---

monitoring behaviors that are risk behaviors for the offender, and obedience of probation/parole rules?

---

It's not really so different. It's just that monitoring now means "reoffending." I have pointed out the massive fallacy of any separation between probation rules and treatment rules. Without probation treatment doesn't happen. They only show up for treatment because probation says they have to do so.

quote:

---

We are heavily regulating what was once a rather simple process.

---

Except is wasn't as simple as we may have thought.

What we're really interested in doing is aligning PCSOT testing with good basic science, including psychology, physiology, inferential statistics, and risk prediction.

quote:

---

5 exams in one day? If you can do more than 2 your exhausted.

---

Yeah. Sex offenders' jobs are to wear us out – and they got a lot of time to do that.

If it were me, I'd change it. I left that from the existing model policy.

quote:

---

I do not conduct PCSOT exams at this time, and with the "regulations" being proffered as a "model policy", I will not do PCSOT exams in the future.

---

A "model policy" is a lot easier to stomach than some arbitrary "standards of practice" that attempt to pretend the APA is an agency and not an association, and have little applicability to jurisdictional differences that seem sometimes to have a lot to do with the personalities of the local judicial bench.

quote:

---

I'm not sure anyone can abide by all of the suggested "regulations". You state that the examiner is responsible for the questions asked, then you state that the examiner will question in specific areas determined by the "Treatment Team" and you include the examiner in the treatment team.

---

There is always room for clarifying language.

Simply: the team dictates the issues of concern (preferably picking investigation targets that are informed by actuarial risk prediction schemes), and the examiner still has to adjust the language with the examinee.

quote:

---

PHD's are responsible for "Treatment". Probation/Parole Officers are responsible for monitoring convicted persons. Polygraph examiners are responsible to ensure convicted persons are telling the truth regarding both Treatment Rules and Probation/Parole rules, in addition to discovering sexual history.

Three distinct responsibilities with distinct purposes that work together to reduce recidivism.

Where are the "regulations" for PHD's and Parole/Probation Officers?

---

Probation departments generally have their own set of standard practice regulations. Treatment providers are subject to the standards of practice dictated by their local licensing agencies, and the ethical standards and model policies of their own associations. Therapuetic professions have been at it for a while, especially with professional lobbies, so their is a lot of consistency in standards of practice and ethical guidelines from state to state. Still there are differences between jurisdictions.

It's not just Ph.D.s. There are a number of different types of licensure options for therapists with varying credentials.

Another thing to think about is that some therapeutic and risk-prediction professionals are de-emphasizing the need to reduce recidivism. Yep. We're hitchin' our wagon to an old horse here. They say that recidivism rates are actually lower (it's still debatable, but this is the dialog) that we thought - lower, in fact, among sex offenders than other types of criminals. In part it has to do with definition and visibility. But this is what we're up against. Increased emphasis is being placed on rehabilitation (as if that's possible), and promoting "health." Another thread of concern is the poor outcomes in sex offender treatment and supervision programs, and the numbers of sex offenders stacking up in prison due to technical violations.

So, values systems notwithstanding, can we describe a system of PCSOT activities and PCSOT goals that is useful to all of these objectives: reduced risk and harm, increased health, and improved treatment and supervision outcomes.

People are a little tired of banging the drum. I saw a news story on Halloween, in which a reporter asked families out trick-or-treating whether they were worried about encountering sex offenders on that dangerous holiday. The families all said 'no,' they know sex offenders are everywhere and they planned on staying with their kids.

These days, no-body seems to show up for community notifications regarding sexual predators in the neighborhoods.

We'll be best off taking a science and data-based approach that can withstand the capricious tides of legislative, clinical, and community attitudes about sex offenders.

None of this is intended to suggest that sex offenders are somehow not dangerous or somehow not deviant. They are both. We've simply got to think forward along with the other sciences and other professional – or we'll be left behind to engaging in activities that are considered arcane and irrelevant.

The 1998 JPCOT document was important in it's day. Prior to that there was a lot less structure in PCSOT thinking. It's 10 years later now, and would be a mistake for our profession to remain anchored to a 10 year-old solution.

quote:

---

More than two cents, but an outside opinion. Polygraph is polygraph, treatment is treatment and parole/probation is parole/probation.

---

Nothin' wrong with opinions. There is an old saying about opinions... 'pinions are like certain parts of the anatomy - everyone's got one, and anyone without one is probably full of s^&*(

Keep in mind this is all just my,

.012

(now hauling my tired and opinionated carcass off for some introspective activity on the treadmill)

r

posted 11-20-2008 09:20 PM         

I did not ask questions such as "have you been completely truthful", I asked questions regarding specific rules that may have been violated both in treatment and probation/parole.

I am interested in a set of questions, "standardized" for PCSOT exams. If there is a specific problem, then we have a single issue exam, otherwise we have a screening exam for all intents and purposes.

posted 11-20-2008 09:40 PM            

quote:

---

I am interested in a set of questions, "standardized" for PCSOT exams.

---

Yes. A lot of us, including the PCSOT committee, seem to want better standardization.

The difficulty will be in achieving that standardization properly.

If we simply make up something, just because we want it now, we're likely to lose a lot more respect from our critics (some of whom are not dumb).

quote:

---

If there is a specific problem, then we have a single issue exam, otherwise we have a screening exam for all intents and purposes.

---

Exactly.

Pretending that PCSOT exams are not mixed-issue screening exams - that they are somehow a "specific issue test" - simply to try to co-opt claims of 98% validity will be a ticking time-bomb.

The proper way is to do our homework. Study the problem, and pursue an evidence-based solution to standardizing a PCSOT approach that has actuarial relevance to sex offender risk assessment, risk management, and treatment planning. We need to do this for both disclosure and maintenance type exams. We also need to become more involved in the research pertaining to denial as a risk issue.

It is a mistake to endorse made-up solutions supported by nothing but charisma. That will not win the long-game.

There is quite a lot that we do know, right now, that can improve our standing in the sciences. But it will require learning some vocabulary and constructs, and it will require challenging ourselves to demand that we integrate polygraph testing concepts into the broader field of testing, measurement, decision theory, inferential statistics, psychology, and phsyiology. A lot of this is achieved by simply re-visting our vocabulary, because vocabulary has a massive influence on our conceptual understanding.

We're not far off, but we've got to be careful, right now, not to go down the wrong path (the path of fictional poly-jargon).

.012

r

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