Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
posted 09-18-2008 03:42 PM
Hi people. i work in latin america, almost all my examinee have low education and its seems to me, that the stim test (i probed many of them) just confused them.
i tryied to run test without stim and it seems to me, i got better results.
A mi me pasa lo mismo. El STIM test lo uso para asegurarme que los electrodos estan bien colocados y que se obtiene un registro adecuado. Tambien lo uso para ver como es la respuesta del sujeto cuando miente , ej. ver si es mas electrodermal o cardiaco , etc.
Lo que yo haria seria hacerle un registro de Line base de 1 o 2 minutos sin que hable o se mueva. Sirve mas o menos igual.
posted 09-18-2008 04:43 PM
My Spanish isn't that good, but I think you said you're finding the same thing. Anecdotal stories to support practices isn't wise, especially since we've got research to show otherwise.
If you're running evidentiary tests or paired-testing, then the APA requires a stim test. If you're running a Federal ZCT or a Utah ZCT, then part of the testing protocol is that you run a stim / acquaintance test.
posted 09-18-2008 05:09 PM
I run Utah ZCT. i know that its part of the protocol, but when you explain to an a half indian (may be more than half) that you need to "calibrate" and they need to lie to one of the answers, they always answer: " ... but i¨m not a liar" then i explain again they said ok and when i run the test they answer "yes" insted "no". im not racist, but they looked me like my dog looks me when i ask him to send an e-mail. i always run a stim test, but the last week i tried without it and i receive better charts, that was the reason i asked about similar experiences.
posted 09-18-2008 05:15 PM
Don't tell him you have to "calibrate." The numbers test is very simple. You tell him you want to know what it looks like when he does lie so you can make sure none of the test questions look the same later.
posted 09-18-2008 06:20 PM
I use CVOS and give the following 3 reasons for the test. #1 provide an opportunity for the examinee to get used to the way the components feel on their body. #2 Insure that we can hear and understand each other during the test. #3 Make preliminary sensitivity adjustments to the instrument to insure that I am getting clear tracings for the test.
Can you post some of the STIM Test research? I have found that a proper explaination of human physiology and how the polygraph works, does just about the same thing to the examinee. If there is research out there that can improve what I do, I am all ears! A STIM Test is not going to make any difference if you have not done a proper Pre-Test Interview.
Although I am a Backster Grad, I beleive that there are better ways of doing things that Cleve may or may not agree with.
quote: I have found that a proper explanation of human physiology and how the polygraph works, does just about the same thing to the examinee.
That's an empirical question for which you offer no empirical evidence, so you can't really know if that's true. How do you know you wouldn't have done better overall had you done so.
Do we really know how the polygraph works? Do you think we'd all agree on what a proper pre-test is?
From Don Krapohl's "Validated Principles" session Skip bragged about earlier:
"Principle 2
Conduct an acquaintance (stim, demonstration, card) test first"
cites:
Bradley & Janisse (1981) Kircher, Packard, Bell & Bernhardt (2001)
I know I have the second one around here some place. I'm not sure if I have the first handy, but Don would.
posted 09-19-2008 08:21 AM
Hi Dayok, I am not going to call you a racist-----but I gotta say that the word "chobos" is on the tip of your tongue (for gringos, that means "dirty Indian.")This word is of course HIGHLY racist in Latin America--and has the same effect as using the "n" word in the states. We have all tested individuals who are less than sharp listeners when it comes to following our instructions. However, part of the challenge (see fun) is communicating to people of all sorts of cognitive abilities. This means no two tests are exactly the same regarding the level of communication. If an examinee did not understand my stim test instructions or interprets them as being something they are not------than I the examiner take the blame for not properly explaining them. An examiner must be able to explain almost anything to anybody at any time. If an "Indian" thinks the stim test or any other instruction is for the purpose of maligning him or her, than the examiner must kick up the effort a notch rather than blaming the examinee for being el stupido.
I certainly have poorly explained things to examinees who then screw up (like forget to lie on a stim target)---but it was always my fault.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-19-2008).]
posted 09-19-2008 08:33 AM
I test adults that are developmentally disabled and have committed sex offenses. These offenders are very low IQ and they are able to understand how the STIM test works as long as it is presented properly.
Also the STIM test is a great way to see a person's physiology before starting the actual examination and to ensure that the offender is able to follow basic instructions.
I don't think the fact that someone is Indian or half-Indian has anything do with it. I suspect you feel the same. Being dumb or substantially uneducated may have more to do with your observations. That's different.
What I got from PK's spanish was tha the purpose of the test is to ensure adequate placement of the component sensors and adequate physiological signals.
As Ted points out, this can be accomplished with the CVOS.
Generally speaking, most communities in the US are somewhat educated, somewhat science-minded, and somewhat psychologically-minded. So, it makes sense that a STIM test would improve the test results. It is also conceivable that the STIM test might not have the same effect, and could be confusing to an under-educated and decisively non-psychologically-minded/non-science-minded person.
Barry is right. We should establish basic practices around knowledge gained from scientific study. Without good science, we are vulnerable to becomming overly impressed with our own creative brilliance, and being imprinted with out anecdotal experience. Then we'll tend to come up with all kinds of "fancy ideas." Fancy-ideas - like fancy-tests, fancy-rules, and fancy-questions - are often found to be just fancy ideas. We should know by now that polygraph has often worked in spite of our fancy ideas, not because of them.
Ted is right. If you need a STIM test without all the confusing "wow," then just use a STIM test. Simplify the math problem if you have to (e.g., 3 + 4 - 5 = ?) or even tell them the problem in advance. Replace the drug question with a general CM question (e.g., have you made any plans to fake your test results today). I did this for maintenance polygraphs on low-functioning sex offenders, and one smart narcissistic pedophile whose level of functioning changed substantially after his brain 'sploded during a double aneurysm.
Just do a stim.
.02
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
posted 09-19-2008 11:53 PM
In defense of Cleve Backster, he is sensitive to total chart minutes and if I understand him correctly, why waste chart time on a stim and loose the end of the third chart. (You need to understand his theory regarding total chart minutes). I do use a stim test with everyone, and I was trained in the Backster Method. Current research supports its use.
posted 09-20-2008 08:14 AM
And there's no research to support the "Total Chart Minutes" concept, and I think Cleve has even backed off there, but I'm not sure.
[This message has been edited by Barry C (edited 09-20-2008).]
posted 09-20-2008 08:41 AM
It has been 9 years, but if I remember correctly, Cleve's beef with the STIM Test was that it involved "trickery". There were also consequences for getting it wrong. I think the CVOS elinimates those fears and I will probably start using it on a regular basis. Thanks for the input all!
posted 09-20-2008 08:53 AM
Here is an f-test and graphic of our experiments investigating the between chart habituation question. "Total chart minutes concept" is arcane polybabble to express the concern that examinees might habituate within an examination, between charts, and respond less to later charts. http://www.oss3.info/Habiatuation_between_charts_crossvaliation_sample.pdf
Those f-test numbers are no-where near significant. No-body will notice the a between chart effect in numerical scores.
Seeing a difference visually is not the same as observing a testing effect. Numerical scoring (even Cleve's exceedingly complex system, and the older "score-anything-that-moves" systems) will negate sensitivity changes through the comparison of CQs and RQs. That's the point. Magnitude of general reactivity is noise. The signal of interest is still the difference between CQs and RQs. That's the point of CQs and RQs.
Its good to wonder about things like this, but serves only to hold back the progress of science to bring them up when we know the answers. Like cars with carburators, and centrifugal ignition systems - they are should be of interest only for their collector value and historical interest. You wouldn't want to actually drive one at high altitude.
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
posted 09-20-2008 05:51 PM
I can appreciate the science every bit as much as the next examiner. But science aside---yes---science while still the king, can defer to queen pragmatism----the stim test at the very least makes for a "check one two...check...check" {into the mic}. Ashamedly, I can recall several times that had I started the gig without a "sound check", chart one would have been ran with either upside down cardio cuff, or worse, no cardio cuff at all. I s'pose data could show otherwise---that the stim test "takes" more than it "gives." But it will take an unambiguous study to convince me that the negatives of a stim outweigh it as a wonderful opportunity to discover that the examinee has a late-detected giant wad of gum in his mouth or perhaps the cuff decides to have a leak---too many 11th hour gliches to list really----all discovered in the check-one-two phase. Consequently after a brief stim and due corrections/adjustments, chart one has far fewer artifacts and surprise botchkins. That's not trickery, that's called a hot lap at 1/4 throttle.
I hereby decree more car metaphors (and Star Wars metaphors too.) Now excuse me while I change the oil in my ATAT.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-20-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-20-2008).]
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 09-18-2008 03:42 PM
posted 09-18-2008 05:09 PM
