posted 11-13-2008 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

I fail to understand the need to create some novel approach to polygraph specifically for testing sex offenders. We are asking them either specific questions about a specific activity which is a specific issue test or we are asking them general questions about past behavior over a period of time which is a screening test. Both types are steeped in defendable research.

---

Right. One complication is the term “specific issue.” In PCSOT, for example, we might have an offender, Mr. Samuel Pull, who had sexually assaulted (sexual relationship) with an underage female while working as a youth pastor. Now, Sam Pull may have a young daughter, Judy, and may intend to enter into a guilty plea agreement, remain on probation for a period from 10 years to the duration of his lifetime, and may agree to participate in (tolerate) sex offense specific treatment. He may also have a young daughter Judy, and may ask to live at home with his wife and daughter. One thing we know, from research, is that sex offenders are generally healthier and safer when they are in a relationship, and not isolated. We also know they will tend to offend against whomever they have access, when they decide to reoffend (and it is a choice).

Our Supreme Court has decided that “family” is a right. Therefore, any effort to restrict Mr. Pull from living at home with his wife and daughter must be based in an imminent and documented threat to the child. That means we have to have a scientific approach – or we're just arguing our opinions with the opposing counsel. Now, lets say Mr. Pull is not a typical antisocial type (most sex offenders are less antisocial than most other criminals – that's part of the problem.) And, let's say Mr. Pull does not exhibit sexual deviancy (arousal to prepubescent children or violence), and does not seem to have other sexual preoccupation or compulsivity issues. The only remaining concern to an risk evaluator is that perhaps he had already assaulted his daughter Judy, though she has made no outcry and denied that when interviewed by DHS. Allowing an offender to live at home with a child whom he had previously victimized, would likely result in continued assaults against her. Even if he didn't continue to assault her, his daily presence in the home would continuously re-victimize her, and would quash any eventual disclosure of the past assaults.

So, we do a polygraph to find out if Mr. Pull has ever engaged in sexual contact with his daughter Judy, though there is no allegation. It is a single-issue or specific-issue test. It is not an event-specific test. It is still a fishing trip, a screening test. Its a narrowly focused screening test. The terms single-issue and specific-issue do not do an adequate job enforcing our clear understanding of the differences between diagnostic/event-specific/investigation polygraphs and screening polygraphs that are done in the absence of a known allegation. The NAS/NCR recognized this and used the term event-specific through their report.

quote:

---

I am of the opinion, based upon what science tells us about the human brain, that any question that creates sufficient salience to the examinee and therefore makes it through the filter of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) becomes relevant to the examinee (listener).

---

OK, except I think we have a tendency to misuse and misunderstand the term “relevant,” which is actually an adjective, not a noun. So, we have to remain clear about the question: relevant to whom. Questions are not “relevant” to the examinee, they are “salient,” which is to say: the subject focuses his attention and response potential to the issue or question.... yada yada yada. Questions are “relevant” to the referring agent, because they provide information that is relevant to an investigation, or relevant to a risk assessment or risk management process. Question do not “become relevant” they are simply salient to the examinee. So, what we are really saying when we assert that a broad/categorical CQ is relevant, is that the CQ is somehow more “salient” to a deceptive examinee than an RQ which describes a specific behavioral concern. It is the referring agent (investigator, risk evaluator, risk manager) that determines what issues are “relevant” to their tasks. It is the examinee who decides whether the RQs or CQs represent a more salient immediate concern.

quote:

---

For example, one might be walking through a busy, noise filled, airport. He is bombarded with thousands of other people carrying on conversations, announcements blaring over the public address system, motorized carts running up and down the walkways, and other stimuli. He might be conscious of all of those signals on some lower level, but his ARAS would filter virtually all of it, classifying most of it as noise. If an announcement is made over the public address system which contains his flight number or his name, the ARAS passes that stimuli through and allows it to arouse the brain to deal with the contents of that message and react appropriately.

---

Exactly. It is the Reticular Activation System that causes us to notice the things are are personally salient. When I buy a Yamaha motorcycle, I begin to notice Yamahas all over town – as if they suddenly appeared – only because Yamahas now hold personal significance or salience. This is why the polygraph works – we've been calling it “psychological set.” While the Hypothalamus regulates temperature, perspiration, sleep, aggressions, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, and all our pleasure-seeking and avoidant vices, including fight-or-flight reactions, it is the Thalamus that filters out 99 percent of the stimulus which our prefrontal cortex (executive control and attentional center) and aphasia-cortex (prefrontal cortex, coupled with language areas, and visual cortex) takes in from the environment. The Thalamus signals the Amydala (the alarm center) which checks with the Hippocampus (which plays an important role in working memory and long term storage) to see if the stimulus represents a threat.

quote:

---

I believe that comparison questions to the innocent subject, create that salience. I also believe that we must create cognitive dissonance with those questions by making them broad, far reaching and subjective and difficult to answer with an affirmative "no" response. If we fully review the relevant questions properly and explain to the examinee that the relevant questions should have no meaning to a person who did not engage in the activity covered by the question, then the ARAS will filter that issue and pass through the more salient comparison question creating greater arousal.

---

Yes!

quote:

---

It seems to me, looking at PCSOT from the outside, we are getting into differing opinions, not based on the science we know which is both futile and dangerous. If it is not scientifically proven, then it can't be defended. Your relevant questions and your comparison questions listed in your initial post appear to me to accomplish the goal of creating both salience and cognitive dissonance differentially to both the deceptive subject and the non deceptive subject. Those questions appear to be basically the same as a typical a periodic espionage screening examination or the TES. If one reacts to one of the RQs, then a break out test should be conducted. If one reacts more strongly to the comparison questions than all the relevant questions, then one is NDI/NSR.

---

The principles and mechanics of PCSOT screening are really no different than the principles and mechanics of any other type of screening – Law Enforcement or Security. They differ primarily in the behavioral details of concern to the referring agents (risk adjudicators and risk managers). These principles are also not very different from the principles of screening tests in other related fields of science.

quote:

---

I guess I just don't understand the need to "gild the lily", a term that means "To adorn unnecessarily something that is already beautiful or perfect". Although I am not saying polygraph is perfect, adorning the proven process with superfluous unproven conjecture and "official" opinions certainly doesn't enhance the procedure or the profession.

---

I believe it makes us more vulnerable, because it replaces thoughtful inquiry and discussion with “confidence,” which is really empty-confidence. We stop trying to study the science, learn, and figure it out, because we are busy pretending that we already know.

I have no problem with the Frame-of-Reference notion. It reminds us in a nice pithy way to refrain from mixing Instant Offense (known allegation) questions, with Sex History (unknown allegations) questions, Maintenance and Monitoring questions. Instant Offense polygraphs are a form of investigative test. Sex History polygraph are intended for risk assessment, based on lifestyle and history. Maintenance polygraphs serve risk-management goals, in part through their deterrent value – which appears to be wholly unstated in the PCSOT training materials. If the goal in government programs is that people with certain security clearances have fewer unauthorized lunches with the Russians, the corresponding goal in PCSOT programs is that sex offenders spend less time having lunch with 12-year-olds. Deterrence is a goal, along with the detection and decision support value of the test results, and disclosure of new information in the polygraph process.

In the absence of research and replicated research, we have to rely on what is called “face-validity,” which depends on whether the ideas or hypothesis are consistent with what is already known in our field of science.

What seems to lack all face-validity is the notion that a test is somehow not a mixed issue screening test just because the RQs and CQs don't have the same Frame-of-Reference and Time-of-Reference.

For example:

C3: Prior to the year 2007, did you ever tell a lie to someone who loved or trusted you?

R4: Since January 1, 2008 did you engage in any sexual activities?

C5: Before the year 2007, did you ever tell a lie to avoid consequences or embarrassment?

R6: Since January 1, 2008, did you ingest any beverage containing alcohol?

C7: Before January 2007, did you ever tell a serious lie to anyone in a position of authorit?

R8: Since January 1, 2008, did you listen to any rock-and-roll music?

Sex, alcohol, rock-and-roll. According to the proposed PCSOT model policy, this is not a mixed-issue test. The questions are maintenance/compliance (non-unlawful acts), and are separated from the CQs by Time-of-Reference. This is absurd.

Now if we use the traditional form: sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, an obvious fact is that “Sex” and “rock-and-roll” are not inherently unlawful, while “drugs” are assumed to mean “unlawful drugs,” and will have different potential consequences.

These silly word-games are not based in science, and will make us look stupid to our detractors. According to the proposed model policy, “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” are a mixed-issue/multi-issue test, while “sex, alcohol, and rock-and-roll” are somehow not mixed-issue test.

Now, a real problem is that the base-rates of illegal activities (drugs) may differ somewhat from non-unlawful acts (we don't really know for sure), and that will affect our observation and experience of erroneous polygraph results. This is the reason that I agree that there is face-validity to the notion that Maintenance (non-unlawful non-compliance) polygraphs should be distinct from Monitoring (reoffense) polygraphs.

The argument that “differing potential consequences” represent the vector of separation will need to be proven to stand up to any kind of legal attacks. Attorneys, in my jurisdiction, know very well that offenders will be resentenced to prison for non-unlawful acts of non-compliance. Offenders are rarely, if ever, resentenced to prison for failing polygraph questions regarding reoffending. Offenders know this too – they'll be sent to prison for non-compliance (some don't get it, and they go to prison – as they should).

These questions include general “lie” CQs with “lifestyle” questions. They are separated by Time-of-Reference. his is not a mixed-issue test.According to the present proposed PCSOT model policy Nonsense! The RQs are: sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. It is a mixed-issue/multi-issue test. It is conceivable that a person can be uninvolved in sex and drugs, while still listening to rock-and-roll music daily (really loud even). They are independent of each other.

It does not make any sense for the polygraph profession to shoot itself in the foot (metaphorically) with the silly and unscientific idea that a mixed-issue test is somehow not a mixed-issue tests – that test questions that have similar Frame-of-Reference are somehow not multi-issue/mixed-issue. The term mixed-issue is synonymous with multi-issue – unless you want to have an argument with silly word-games.

The 2000 terminology reference does not use the term mixed-issue, but includes the distinct terms multi-facet (MGQT investigation polygraphs) and multi-issue (mixed-issue screening polygraph). With the OSS-3 project, we use the term “mixed-issue” only because many examiners still tend to confuse “multi-issue” with “multi-facet,” while the term “mixed-issue” seems easier to keep conceptually distinct. There appears to be some confusion, among examiners about the terms multi-issue and mixed issue, and I wonder whether this is the result of some odd or idiosyncratic training.

Krapohl and Sturm (2000) wrote:

quote:

---

Multi-face test

Tests format in which relevant questions are targeted toward different elements of the same crime. For example, in a counterfeiting case, the PDD examiner might use three relevant questions with a suspect. One could cover printing the bills, the second passing the bills, and the third knowing where the printing equipment is. In such a test the spot scores would determine whether a diagnosis of deception is made, as opposed to the overall score. The Zone “exploratory,” the Modified General Question Test, and criminal RI are three possible formats for this approach.”

(p. 198)

---

In a multi-facet polygraph, an examinee who is involved in one question/issue is involved in the known issue/allegation/incident that is the focus of the investigation. Multi-issue and mixed-issue are the same: it is conceivable that a person can be involved in one issue and un-involved in another. The empirical and mathematical problems are the same regardless of which term you choose, and word-games make no difference to the science. We have an error rate for the sex question, an error rate for the drug question, and an error rate for the rock-and-roll question. The overall error rate for the test will be the aggregation of those three, using the formula: combined error = 1 – (1 – error per question)^number of questions. The error rate per question is both an inferential problem and a Bayesian (base-rate) problem.

r

posted 11-13-2008 05:35 PM         

I'm very old school, and don't like any question with "rub or touch ", or "view or use" in them. Too much wiggle room for an offender. He may have touched and not rubbed, he may have viewed and not used.

IMHO C3 and C5 are relevant type questions, and again you have the word "or". C7 I might be able to use, but not with confidence.

PCSOT testing has really changed since I was involved in it. I don't think I want back in because of questions like these that can confuse an offender as well as give them an escape. I like simple questions, not complex at all.

I'm just an old f--t that likes the KISS (KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID) theory. Test for one item with each question, limit the questions to 3 RQ's and 3 CQ's.

I also like time bars on controls, I am aware of new research that indicates it's ok to not use time bars, and I'm considering the possibility of trying that method to see how it works on "Lab Rats" but not on actual exams at this time.

Is there any reasearch that has been replicated showing Holden's theory of testing is the way to go?

posted 11-13-2008 10:21 PM            

Not only is there no replicated research that shows Holden's way is the way to go, there is no non-replicated research either.

It's clear that Mr. Holden and the PCSOT committee want to avoid a PCSOT-EPPA and want improved uniformity of field practices. What the committee seems to have been negligent of is the fact that declarative attempts at validity will ultimately back-fire and increase the likelihood of a PCSOT-EPPA - because it's clear to smart scientific minded people that the "constructs" are made-up notions whose validity depends on the personality of their proponents when it should rely on scientific principles.

That doesn't mean that I disagree with everything the PCSOT committee has come up with. Some of the solutions seem very worthwhile. Other parts tend to massivey overstate what we know, and will have the effect of preventing us from studying the problem and figuring out the right answer (because to do so would mean we question the proposed model policy).

Here is an example:

Slides 164 to 172 from the UPA PCSOT materials discuss "mixed issue" tests. In these slides a mixed-issue test is defined as any test in which the RQs have mixed Frame-of-Reference (i.e., instant offense, sex history, monitoring/reoffense, maintenance/non-compliance) or mixed Time-of-Reference. What this also begins to suggest that any test for which the RQs do not mix Frames-of-Reference or Time-of Reference are NOT mixed issue tests.

So, this would not be a mixed issue test:

R4: Since your last polygraph, did you physically force anyone for sexual contact?

R6: Since your last polygraph, did you touch the sexual organs of anyone under age 18?

Same Frame-of-Reference. Same Time-of-Reference. This is not a single-issue, or specific-issue, or event-specific test. It is not a multi-facet test of a single known incident. It is a mixed-issue screening test. Mixed-issue and multi-issue are synonymous. Lets not play silly verbal shell games and neglect to get the concepts right. One can not mix Frame-of-Reference and still have a mixed-issue test. Mixed-issue/multi-issue simply means that its conceivable that an examinee may have been involved in one thing and not the other.

This is absurd, and its the wrong path to go down. Mr. Holden, at the MRP Conference began by declaring the "PCSOT is a specific-issue" test." There is no science behind this declaration, and the statement is inconsistent with the publications on screening tests - nearly all of which are Mixed-Issues. To a scientist, Mixed-Issues simply means that it is conceivable that the issues are independent of each other - that a test subject can be involved in one or more issues, while being completely uninvolved in other issues in the same test.

Slide 172 of 267 (UPA PCSOT handout) states that "mixing relevant issues, provides environment conducive to anti-climax dampening."

There is a problem with mixing issues. However, "anti-climax dampening" remains an unproven hypothesis. It is unwise to set in stone any standards or model policies anchored to an unproven hypothesis.

The real problem with mixing issues is a math problem. Holden and the PCSOT committee mangled this - they evidently didn't consider the math problem - and instead confuse the issue of Mixed Frame-of-Reference with Mixed-Issues. They are different.

The math problem is that every distinct issue has an error rate that must be compounded for an estimation of other overall error rate for a mixed-issue test. More issues = higher error rates, regardless of any fancy verbal footwork.

It is probably a bad idea to mix Frames-of-Reference. However, all multiple-issue/mixed-issue screening tests, suffer the same math problem - compounded error rates with multiple distinct/independent behavioral issues. This mathematical phenomena will be true even when the test does not mix Frame-of-Reference.

Aside from that the PCSOT committee has offered the specious idea that maintenance-treatment is a distinct Frame-of-Reference from maintenance-probation; despite the fact the Elizabeth Freitas announced at APA that the content of probation and treatment rules will overlap in many ways.

Sometimes, the PCSOT committee - if we are to infer their product from the UPA and MRP PCSOT training materials - seems to have neglected the studies, even though they seem to have read them.

For example:

The UPA PCSOT handout, on slide 198 of 267 states:

quote:

---

Mandatory use of bars in comparison questions has been challenged by recent research that shows equal levels of accuracy with and without bars…”

Polygraph News and Views, Volume 13, Number 2, March-April, 2005

---

Slide 199 reads:

quote:

---

Horvath (1991)

Compared exclusive to non-exclusive CQs using the Reid test format of 2C’s and 5R’s.

Conclusion: “Non-exclusive CQs produced more effective identification of both guilty and innocent Ss, and they led to significantly greater numerical scores for guilty Ss”.

---

Slide 200 states:

quote:

---

Podlesny and Raskin (1978)

Compared exclusive to non-exclusive using Backster test format of 3C and 3R. Conclusion: “The test using Backster CQ produced significant identification of innocent and guilty Ss. It appears that CQ which are separated from the relevant issue, by age or time of occurrence, have some advantages over CQ which do not have those exclusionary characteristics”.

---

and then, we see on slide 201:

quote:

---

Palmatier (1991)

Compared exclusive and non-exclusive CQ using Reid and Backster test formats. Conclusion: “statistically, no difference between the two test formats…both tests produced the same rate of false negative errors…but the exclusive test format produced significantly greater false positive errors”.

---

These studies, as Holden cites them, suggest that non-exclusive CQs outperform exclusive CQs.

At the bottom of slide 203, Holden declares:

quote:

---

None of the noted research with CQ’s occurred at a time in our professional history when ‘multiple tests over long periods of time are mandatory!” (PCSOT)

New approaches to test comparison questions are necessary. The ZCT as we know it today must change!

---

But then goes on to suggest a bunch of changes and requirements that are not based in science or research.

In slides 204 – 208, Holden cites Krapohl (c. 2004), though I don't know what document this is:

quote:

---

Five Guiding Principles for CQ’s to work:

• “The examinee must believe that there are consequences to being deceptive to the CQ’s that approach, but do not exceed, the consequences for deception to the RQ’s”.
  
• “The examinee must believe that he/she is not ‘entirely’ truthful to the CQ’s”.
  
• “The structure of the CQ must not be evocative it itself ” (cannot evoke emotion/feelings by the mere nature of the question itself).”
  
• “For face validity to the examinee, the CQ must have some tangential relationship to the topic covered in the RQ”.
  
• “The CQ must NOT be explicitly relevant whereas the RQ must be”.
  

---

Which is all good stuff, though it could use more operational definition.

But then we have this, on slide 211:

quote:

---

Position on comparison questions post-convictions tests

The RQ’s must be defined by a Time and Frame of Reference. Likewise, the CQ’s must be defined by a Time and Frame of Reference.

---

and further states:

quote:

---

Slide 212 states:

[quote]Basic rules for PCSOT CQ development

Except for the Instant Offense Disclosure test, PCSOT CQ’s would be considered appropriate if the have:

• the same Time of Reference but different Frame of Reference than the RQ
  
• the same Frame of Reference but different Time of Reference the RQ
  
• and follows the 5 guidelines for CQ’s
  

---

So, we are defining a CQ with a time-bar (Time-of-Reference) even though the scientific studies say they don't work as intended.

If we were to follow the science, we would probably simply require that CQs be separated by RQs by the Frame-of-Reference, and avoid making standards of practice or model-policy around a non-issue.

The bottom of slide 211 states:

quote:

---

If it walks like Grandma, talks like Grandma, looks like Grandma, IT’S GRANDMA! Holbrook

---

So...

If it reads like it's inconsistent with the scientific studies, and sounds like its' inconsistent with the scientific studies, and looks like it's inconsistent with the scientific studies – IT'S INCONSISNTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES!

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

Keep in mind that all of this is simply for the sake of argument and learning.

Holden and the PCSOT committee are aware that an important challenge in PCSOT is to make the PLCs work on the 20th, 30th or 50th polygraph.

I believe this is the reason for the Holden's training, as I understand it, that one can use probation issues as CQs for treatment tests, and treatment issues as CQs for probation tests.

Its a nifty idea, but it requires proof of some vector of separation between probation and treatment.

It does still make sense to define differing Frames-of-Reference for Instant-Offense, Sex-History, Monitoring/Reoffense, and Maintenance/non-compliance exams. It seems more likely that we'll find some real separation between these suggested domains.

The above example, could easily become:

quote:

---

C3: Have you withheld any information regarding any sexual activities?

R4: Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you touch the sexual organs of anyone under age 18?

C5: Have you tried to mislead your treatment team regarding any important information?

R6: Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you view any nude or pornographic images of any underage persons?

C7: Have you attempted to keep any secrets about any behavior that would be considered inappropriate?

---

C3 and C5 are not relevant questions. Relevant question describe a behavior. These do not.

RQs are rifles, while CQs are shotguns (how's that for a metaphor). Which is the bigger problem, it depends on whether you are holding the target/RQ. Involvement in the RQ/target, means the rifle presents the greatest threat. Non-involvement (no target) means the rifle has nothing to aim at, while the shotgun doesn't require such careful aim to cause damage.

RQs are are relevant because they provide useful information to the referring agent, whether the subject passes or fails. Questions about broad categories of behavior (i.e, withholding information from the TxP or PO, twisting the fact for the Tx Group, keeping any secrets about any sexual bx) may sound topically similar to the investigation targets, but actually provide no useful information. Of course there is always something the offender has not told he TxP or PO, there is always something they misrepresented for the TxG and there is always some sexual behavior that is un-disclosed. We'll never know everything, and we're fooling ourselves if we think it possible to do so.

CQs describe broad categories of behavior that would represent “compliance” as a Frame-of-Reference in the context of a monitoring/reoffense exam. Only a neophyte therapist would think they could possibly know “everything” about anyone's sexual behavior. It ain't gonna happen. The concept of “important” in C5 is intentionally subjective. It is supposed to cause doubt. Same with “inappropriate” in C7 – its values-laden. For me, that's OK in CQs, just like “lying to anyone who loved or trusted you” and then jacking someone up over white-lies with their spouse (it's values-laden).

Try an example: Your spouse announces to you one day, you'll have to be 100% completely honest with him/her about everything, money, sex/masturbation/porn, your commitment to the marriage, etc. - or he she is no longer interested in remaining married to you. Do you really tell everything. Good therapists know that every successful marriage is premised on honesty, and on about 1000 unsaid things. Or, what if it were your boss, insisting on 100% complete honesty or you'll be fired... It's a dilemma. CQs are intended to cause problems for truthful persons. CQs also have to be topically similar enough to the RQs targets to appear credible to the savvy non-naive subject.

While I am opposed to the Time-of-Reference requirement for CQs, the Frame-of-Reference hypothesis seems more sound.

The problem is that if we play expansive-Venn-diagram-word-games then we'll have to eventually concede that “are you an honest person” is a Relevant Question, regardless of the crime allegation or concern.

CQs simply need to describe a broad category of behavior that is distinct from the Frame-of-Reference of the behaviorally descriptive RQs, while appearing to be at least categorically similar to the investigation targets.

.012

r

posted 11-14-2008 09:10 AM            

First, I fail to understand the need to create some novel approach to polygraph specifically for testing sex offenders. We are asking them either specific questions about a specific activity which is a specific issue test or we are asking them general questions about past behavior over a period of time which is a screening test. Both types are steeped in defendable research.

I am of the opinion, based upon what science tells us about the human brain, that any question that creates sufficient salience to the examinee and therefore makes it through the filter of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) becomes relevant to the examinee (listener).

For example, one might be walking through a busy, noise filled, airport. He is bombarded with thousands of other people carrying on conversations, announcements blaring over the public address system, motorized carts running up and down the walkways, and other stimuli. He might be conscious of all of those signals on some lower level, but his ARAS would filter virtually all of it, classifying most of it as noise. If an announcement is made over the public address system which contains his flight number or his name, the ARAS passes that stimuli through and allows it to arouse the brain to deal with the contents of that message and react appropriately.

I believe that comparison questions to the innocent subject, create that salience. I also believe that we must create cognitive dissonance with those questions by making them broad, far reaching and subjective and difficult to answer with an affirmative "no" response. If we fully review the relevant questions properly and explain to the examinee that the relevant questions should have no meaning to a person who did not engage in the activity covered by the question, then the ARAS will filter that issue and pass through the more salient comparison question creating greater arousal.

With that said (poorly, no doubt) then we only need to create two sets of questions that don't cover the same specific activity.

Whether the comparison question is exclusive in nature by virtue of time or category or inclusive appears in the literature to be unimportant to our success at identification of condition (DI/NDI or SR/NSR).

It seems to me, looking at PCSOT from the outside, we are getting into differing opinions, not based on the science we know which is both futile and dangerous. If it is not scientifically proven, then it can't be defended. Your relevant questions and your comparison questions listed in your initial post appear to me to accomplish the goal of creating both salience and cognitive dissonance differentially to both the deceptive subject and the non deceptive subject. Those questions appear to be basically the same as a typical a periodic espionage screening examination or the TES. If one reacts to one of the RQs, then a break out test should be conducted. If one reacts more strongly to the comparison questions than all the relevant questions, then one is NDI/NSR.

I guess I just don't understand the need to "gild the lily", a term that means "To adorn unnecessarily something that is already beautiful or perfect". Although I am not saying polygraph is perfect, adorning the proven process with superfluous unproven conjecture and "official" opinions certainly doesn't enhance the procedure or the profession.

posted 11-14-2008 12:07 PM            

PCSOT doesn't require a different set of question construction rules and there is insufficient research to support that it does. If one uses proper test question construction rules that apply to any polygraph examination and uses a validated testing format appropriate to either specific issue or screening type examinations then I think that PCSOT gurus would have a difficult time trying to argue that the test was invalid by applying arbitrary test construction rules that are more a matter of personal opinion regarding PCSOT than a product of PCSOT research.

My PCSOT training left me confused because it appeared to deviate from what I knew to be sound polygraph principles in exchange for this "New" "Better", "More suitable" "MY WAY" of conducting PCSOT. When I took my PCSOT final at the end of testing, I answered the questions on the exam according to the training I had received. When the exams were finally sent to APA, I ended up in a lengthy telephone conversation with the test reviewer regarding the way I had constructed the questions in my sample tests. I was told that my question sheets were wrong for numerous reasons. My response was, “I agree with you, but in order to pass the course I had to write questions the way I was taught.” I fully expected them to fail me on the exam but then as they reviewed all of the other tests from that class they discovered that everyone had written their questions pretty much the same way I had.

Well I received a passing score by writing questions I knew were wrong in order to pass a class in which I was constantly told that PCSOT was different than "Regular” polygraph only to learn that the person who graded my test at APA agreed more with what I knew about test question construction than the people who were teaching me this "special" way of conducting exams.

So $1000.00 later, no wiser, and more than a little pissed off, I found that I lacked the confidence to dive into PCSOT because I had my school telling me one way to do the tests and APA apparently in disagreement with the school and insufficient funds to try to attend another school to discover and correct whatever misinformation I had been given. I take polygraph way to seriously to go into a test unsure that I am doing the right thing.

Confused, YOU BETCHA!!! Ray’s posts really aren’t doing anything to clear up the confusion. I think that he is calling attention to the current confusion generated by not only the disagreement in PCSOT training, but also the confusion inherent in the way the APA policy is written.

OK I’m confused!!! Do you have any suggestions to make things better or clear up the confusion?

PCSOT is either different or it isn’t. If it isn’t then specialized training should not be required beyond initial orientation training. If it is different, and specialized training should be required which includes 8 hours per year continuing education devoted to sex offender testing, then someone should be able to not only articulate the differences but support the existence of those differences with some type of scientific research.

I’m waiting…

If APA wants to have a PCSOT protocol or policy then they need to reach a consensus on the curriculum and mandate the content for the 40 hour school so at least everyone can start on the same page.

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

posted 11-14-2008 12:48 PM            

This is much the way basic polygraph was taught "in the old days". Arthur, Backster, Keeler, Reid and Marcy all taught polygraph differently and each backed up their opinions and "doctrine" on reputation, ego and experience but not science.

This resulted in "ascending staircases" and the like in chart analysis and "psychological set", "global scoring", symptomatic questions, arbitrary question sequencing and dozens of other epiphanies that became polygraph. The APA and now ASTM have changed this, along with the Utah/Boise State folks and DACA.

None of the above folks, however have been inclined to actually research PCSOT, apparently because the government doesn't do it and neither do Dr.s Honts, Raskin, Kircher, Alloway or Barland do either.

I don't have much hope of a change in the near future and PCSOT testing is probably the most dangerous thing we do in polygraph and carries with it the greatest possibility for a new polygraph protection law. Children and their welfare are the most important thing one can dabble in and the first time we have a “major event” made public along with the fact that the perpetrator did so while still "passing" his polygraph and everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

You asked for my opinion of what can be done and my response is simple and therefore probably simplistic. Have someone chair an APA funded and sanctioned PCSOT committee and make sure that the chair IS NOT involved at all in PCSOT testing or instruction. Have that person attend the two or three different schools that are involved. After hearing the approach of each and studying the available current research on polygraph, convene the committee of representatives for the various techniques and make each defend their differences and relate their doctrine to the science. Once the fighting subsides, put together the very few things that are left and create the APA policy on PCSOT. And forward it to ASTM for the same scrub using the same criteria.

posted 11-14-2008 01:06 PM            

I'm not trying to pretend that I have "the" answer. I have some ideas about what I believe we know, and what it seems we don't known. That is all. I also have some experience as a therapist for both offenders and victims, and some experience as a psychodiagnostician and risk evaluator. I've also had experience in committee-work and developing standards of practice in Colorado, and I have some knowlege about testing, psychology, phsysiology, science, and statistical stuff. (OK, I'm just a propeller-headed guy who works as a field examiner, and cares a lot about ethics, science, mental health issues, sex offenders in the community, and PCSOT.)

I too favor keeping it simple, though I'm not afraid of complexity. I am aware that most fancy ideas turn out to be just fancy ideas, when subject to imperical scrutiny. The proposed model policy is loaded with fancy ideas, and I am not at all comfortable with the suggestion of setting un-proven fancy ideas in stone.

It the present training materials regarding the proposed model policy, I can see all kinds of serious problems. The proposed model policy makes declaration about matters of science, and redefines some of the basic principles of polygraph. I don't like that. Some of proposed model policies go against what the scientific studies say. Other proposed model policies lack face-validity, evidence, and logic.

Aside from that, some of their suggestions appear to have face-validity. I would favor keeping those, discarding the unproven fancy stuff, and making a commitment to base model policies on science.

It would make good sense for a model policy to describe a hierarchy of what we know, suspect, wonder about, and don't know.

For example: "principles" should be based on scientific studies (preferably more than one), while "guidelines" might include ideas that have face-validity though they may lack direct studies or evidence of validity. Other notions should be enacted cautiously, as suggestion only, with clear statements about the need for further research.

The long-range problem, is that many people do not easily unlearn their training - even bad training. Most people don't want to admit they were trained badly, because that would mean we don't know how to do our job. Most of us want to believe we know what we're doing - else we couldn't sleep at night. If our trainers are strong-willed, charismatic, and convincing, we will leave the training believing in ourselves, even if they just made the stuff up. (I've never met a graduate psychotherpay intern who didn't have an awesome field supervisor.)

Your candor, about your training, is an exception. You are correct though, a lot of people write for the audience/professor in school. It's an expensive waste of time to do otherwise.

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that I am attempting to shed some daylight on and infer what the PCSOT committee is proposing. Mr. Holden stated that he would like to make the draft available to me and others, but it is not yet available. So, all I have is the training materials, in which he refers to the emerging proposed PCSOT model policies. A lot of the information seems rather dogmatic, and seems to be presented as if it were mandated standards of practice (for which we will be out of compliance with APA if we do not endorse) and not a model policy.

.012

r

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

posted 11-14-2008 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

I fail to understand the need to create some novel approach to polygraph specifically for testing sex offenders. We are asking them either specific questions about a specific activity which is a specific issue test or we are asking them general questions about past behavior over a period of time which is a screening test. Both types are steeped in defendable research.

---

Right. One complication is the term “specific issue.” In PCSOT, for example, we might have an offender, Mr. Samuel Pull, who had sexually assaulted (sexual relationship) with an underage female while working as a youth pastor. Now, Sam Pull may have a young daughter, Judy, and may intend to enter into a guilty plea agreement, remain on probation for a period from 10 years to the duration of his lifetime, and may agree to participate in (tolerate) sex offense specific treatment. He may also have a young daughter Judy, and may ask to live at home with his wife and daughter. One thing we know, from research, is that sex offenders are generally healthier and safer when they are in a relationship, and not isolated. We also know they will tend to offend against whomever they have access, when they decide to reoffend (and it is a choice).

Our Supreme Court has decided that “family” is a right. Therefore, any effort to restrict Mr. Pull from living at home with his wife and daughter must be based in an imminent and documented threat to the child. That means we have to have a scientific approach – or we're just arguing our opinions with the opposing counsel. Now, lets say Mr. Pull is not a typical antisocial type (most sex offenders are less antisocial than most other criminals – that's part of the problem.) And, let's say Mr. Pull does not exhibit sexual deviancy (arousal to prepubescent children or violence), and does not seem to have other sexual preoccupation or compulsivity issues. The only remaining concern to an risk evaluator is that perhaps he had already assaulted his daughter Judy, though she has made no outcry and denied that when interviewed by DHS. Allowing an offender to live at home with a child whom he had previously victimized, would likely result in continued assaults against her. Even if he didn't continue to assault her, his daily presence in the home would continuously re-victimize her, and would quash any eventual disclosure of the past assaults.

So, we do a polygraph to find out if Mr. Pull has ever engaged in sexual contact with his daughter Judy, though there is no allegation. It is a single-issue or specific-issue test. It is not an event-specific test. It is still a fishing trip, a screening test. Its a narrowly focused screening test. The terms single-issue and specific-issue do not do an adequate job enforcing our clear understanding of the differences between diagnostic/event-specific/investigation polygraphs and screening polygraphs that are done in the absence of a known allegation. The NAS/NCR recognized this and used the term event-specific through their report.

quote:

---

I am of the opinion, based upon what science tells us about the human brain, that any question that creates sufficient salience to the examinee and therefore makes it through the filter of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) becomes relevant to the examinee (listener).

---

OK, except I think we have a tendency to misuse and misunderstand the term “relevant,” which is actually an adjective, not a noun. So, we have to remain clear about the question: relevant to whom. Questions are not “relevant” to the examinee, they are “salient,” which is to say: the subject focuses his attention and response potential to the issue or question.... yada yada yada. Questions are “relevant” to the referring agent, because they provide information that is relevant to an investigation, or relevant to a risk assessment or risk management process. Question do not “become relevant” they are simply salient to the examinee. So, what we are really saying when we assert that a broad/categorical CQ is relevant, is that the CQ is somehow more “salient” to a deceptive examinee than an RQ which describes a specific behavioral concern. It is the referring agent (investigator, risk evaluator, risk manager) that determines what issues are “relevant” to their tasks. It is the examinee who decides whether the RQs or CQs represent a more salient immediate concern.

quote:

---

For example, one might be walking through a busy, noise filled, airport. He is bombarded with thousands of other people carrying on conversations, announcements blaring over the public address system, motorized carts running up and down the walkways, and other stimuli. He might be conscious of all of those signals on some lower level, but his ARAS would filter virtually all of it, classifying most of it as noise. If an announcement is made over the public address system which contains his flight number or his name, the ARAS passes that stimuli through and allows it to arouse the brain to deal with the contents of that message and react appropriately.

---

Exactly. It is the Reticular Activation System that causes us to notice the things are are personally salient. When I buy a Yamaha motorcycle, I begin to notice Yamahas all over town – as if they suddenly appeared – only because Yamahas now hold personal significance or salience. This is why the polygraph works – we've been calling it “psychological set.” While the Hypothalamus regulates temperature, perspiration, sleep, aggressions, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, and all our pleasure-seeking and avoidant vices, including fight-or-flight reactions, it is the Thalamus that filters out 99 percent of the stimulus which our prefrontal cortex (executive control and attentional center) and aphasia-cortex (prefrontal cortex, coupled with language areas, and visual cortex) takes in from the environment. The Thalamus signals the Amydala (the alarm center) which checks with the Hippocampus (which plays an important role in working memory and long term storage) to see if the stimulus represents a threat.

quote:

---

I believe that comparison questions to the innocent subject, create that salience. I also believe that we must create cognitive dissonance with those questions by making them broad, far reaching and subjective and difficult to answer with an affirmative "no" response. If we fully review the relevant questions properly and explain to the examinee that the relevant questions should have no meaning to a person who did not engage in the activity covered by the question, then the ARAS will filter that issue and pass through the more salient comparison question creating greater arousal.

---

Yes!

quote:

---

It seems to me, looking at PCSOT from the outside, we are getting into differing opinions, not based on the science we know which is both futile and dangerous. If it is not scientifically proven, then it can't be defended. Your relevant questions and your comparison questions listed in your initial post appear to me to accomplish the goal of creating both salience and cognitive dissonance differentially to both the deceptive subject and the non deceptive subject. Those questions appear to be basically the same as a typical a periodic espionage screening examination or the TES. If one reacts to one of the RQs, then a break out test should be conducted. If one reacts more strongly to the comparison questions than all the relevant questions, then one is NDI/NSR.

---

The principles and mechanics of PCSOT screening are really no different than the principles and mechanics of any other type of screening – Law Enforcement or Security. They differ primarily in the behavioral details of concern to the referring agents (risk adjudicators and risk managers). These principles are also not very different from the principles of screening tests in other related fields of science.

quote:

---

I guess I just don't understand the need to "gild the lily", a term that means "To adorn unnecessarily something that is already beautiful or perfect". Although I am not saying polygraph is perfect, adorning the proven process with superfluous unproven conjecture and "official" opinions certainly doesn't enhance the procedure or the profession.

---

I believe it makes us more vulnerable, because it replaces thoughtful inquiry and discussion with “confidence,” which is really empty-confidence. We stop trying to study the science, learn, and figure it out, because we are busy pretending that we already know.

I have no problem with the Frame-of-Reference notion. It reminds us in a nice pithy way to refrain from mixing Instant Offense (known allegation) questions, with Sex History (unknown allegations) questions, Maintenance and Monitoring questions. Instant Offense polygraphs are a form of investigative test. Sex History polygraph are intended for risk assessment, based on lifestyle and history. Maintenance polygraphs serve risk-management goals, in part through their deterrent value – which appears to be wholly unstated in the PCSOT training materials. If the goal in government programs is that people with certain security clearances have fewer unauthorized lunches with the Russians, the corresponding goal in PCSOT programs is that sex offenders spend less time having lunch with 12-year-olds. Deterrence is a goal, along with the detection and decision support value of the test results, and disclosure of new information in the polygraph process.

In the absence of research and replicated research, we have to rely on what is called “face-validity,” which depends on whether the ideas or hypothesis are consistent with what is already known in our field of science.

What seems to lack all face-validity is the notion that a test is somehow not a mixed issue screening test just because the RQs and CQs don't have the same Frame-of-Reference and Time-of-Reference.

For example:

C3: Prior to the year 2007, did you ever tell a lie to someone who loved or trusted you?

R4: Since January 1, 2008 did you engage in any sexual activities?

C5: Before the year 2007, did you ever tell a lie to avoid consequences or embarrassment?

R6: Since January 1, 2008, did you ingest any beverage containing alcohol?

C7: Before January 2007, did you ever tell a serious lie to anyone in a position of authorit?

R8: Since January 1, 2008, did you listen to any rock-and-roll music?

Sex, alcohol, rock-and-roll. According to the proposed PCSOT model policy, this is not a mixed-issue test. The questions are maintenance/compliance (non-unlawful acts), and are separated from the CQs by Time-of-Reference. This is absurd.

Now if we use the traditional form: sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, an obvious fact is that “Sex” and “rock-and-roll” are not inherently unlawful, while “drugs” are assumed to mean “unlawful drugs,” and will have different potential consequences.

These silly word-games are not based in science, and will make us look stupid to our detractors. According to the proposed model policy, “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” are a mixed-issue/multi-issue test, while “sex, alcohol, and rock-and-roll” are somehow not mixed-issue test.

Now, a real problem is that the base-rates of illegal activities (drugs) may differ somewhat from non-unlawful acts (we don't really know for sure), and that will affect our observation and experience of erroneous polygraph results. This is the reason that I agree that there is face-validity to the notion that Maintenance (non-unlawful non-compliance) polygraphs should be distinct from Monitoring (reoffense) polygraphs.

The argument that “differing potential consequences” represent the vector of separation will need to be proven to stand up to any kind of legal attacks. Attorneys, in my jurisdiction, know very well that offenders will be

These questions include general “lie” CQs with “lifestyle” questions. They are separated by Time-of-Reference. his is not a mixed-issue test.According to the present proposed PCSOT model policy Nonsense! The RQs are: sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. It is a mixed-issue/multi-issue test. It is conceivable that a person can be uninvolved in sex and drugs, while still listening to rock-and-roll music daily (really loud even). They are independent of each other.

It does not make any sense for the polygraph profession to shoot itself in the foot (metaphorically) with the silly and unscientific idea that a mixed-issue test is somehow not a mixed-issue tests – that test questions that have similar Frame-of-Reference are somehow not multi-issue/mixed-issue. The term mixed-issue is synonymous with multi-issue – unless you want to have an argument with silly word-games.

The 2000 terminology reference does not use the term mixed-issue, but includes the distinct terms multi-facet (MGQT investigation polygraphs) and multi-issue (mixed-issue screening polygraph). With the OSS-3 project, we use the term “mixed-issue” only because many examiners still tend to confuse “multi-issue” with “multi-facet,” while the term “mixed-issue” seems easier to keep conceptually distinct. There appears to be some confusion, among examiners about the terms multi-issue and mixed issue, and I wonder whether this is the result of some odd or idiosyncratic training.

Krapohl and Sturm (2000) wrote:

quote:

---

Multi-face test

Tests format in which relevant questions are targeted toward different elements of the same crime. For example, in a counterfeiting case, the PDD examiner might use three relevant questions with a suspect. One could cover printing the bills, the second passing the bills, and the third knowing where the printing equipment is. In such a test the spot scores would determine whether a diagnosis of deception is made, as opposed to the overall score. The Zone “exploratory,” the Modified General Question Test, and criminal RI are three possible formats for this approach.”

(p. 198)

---

In a multi-facet polygraph, an examinee who is involved in one question/issue is involved in the known issue/allegation/incident that is the focus of the investigation. Multi-issue and mixed-issue are the same: it is conceivable that a person can be involved in one issue and un-involved in another. The empirical and mathematical problems are the same regardless of which term you choose, and word-games make no difference to the science. We have an error rate for the sex question, an error rate for the drug question, and an error rate for the rock-and-roll question. The overall error rate for the test will be the aggregation of those three, using the formula: combined error = 1 – (1 – error per question)^number of questions. The error rate per question is both an inferential problem and a Bayesian (base-rate) problem.

r

posted 11-14-2008 02:25 PM            

I think we agree more than disagree on what is happening during a polygraph test as well as those issues that give rise to problems in PCSOT.

posted 11-14-2008 02:54 PM            

I think Skip's idea

quote:

---

Have someone chair an APA funded and sanctioned PCSOT committee and make sure that the chair IS NOT involved at all in PCSOT testing or instruction. Have that person attend the two or three different schools that are involved. After hearing the approach of each and studying the available current research on polygraph, convene the committee of representatives for the various techniques and make each defend their differences and relate their doctrine to the science. Once the fighting subsides, put together the very few things that are left and create the APA policy on PCSOT. And forward it to ASTM for the same scrub using the same criteria.

---

I don't think that merely prohibiting committe members from selling PCSOT training for 2 years would work, because there is always a way to get around rules like that.

What can we, or should we, do to get APA as a whole to recognize our concerns and take another look at the process by which they intend to implement their policy? It it possible to stop this train before it derails PCSOT?

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