posted 10-09-2008 01:41 PM            

IMHO
If the rest of this issue is half as good as this first article this promisses to be the most infomative issue in a long while.

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

posted 10-16-2008 08:01 AM            

Mea Culpa. As ebvan points out I missed spelling out the abbreviation for CSP. I contacted the editor to inform him but it was too late as the journal had gone to print. I started a new post regarding the DLST in hope of additional comments. It is through thought provoking dialogue and civil discussion we are able to envision and achieve improvements. I believe much of the work has been done before us and we just have to amalgamate that work and test our hypothesis.

Sometimes when we write these pieces we miss the forest for the trees. While I make every effort to be thorough, I surely miss things. I often will ask others to review the papers prior to sending them out to an editor but they are usually reviewing those for us to determine if they are comprehensible.

I am grateful to ebvan for both the positive review and for pointing this out. I take full responsibility for the mistake. I do, however, share responsibility for any potential positive contribution with my co-authors and the many knowledgeable friends who helped us by reviewing and commenting.

I have had correspondence with Laura de Wells Perry of the Arizona Polygraph School and Ben Blalock regarding the application of the DLST to their work. Both have told me they experienced favorable results as compared to alternative, multiple issue techniques they employed in the past. Ben told me he has used the technique in over 100 law-enforcement pre-employment exams and Laura has used it in the PCSOT milieu.

Thanks again ebvan for your comments. Much work goes into writing these pieces and comments like yours make it worth doing.