posted 07-19-2008 03:46 PM            

I was hoping to get some help. I'm trying to put together all polygraph techniques into logical categories and organization. Since graduating school, I realize I've limited myself to 3 or so techniques so all the others have largely dropped off my radar and I am admittedly confused about which techniques fall under which category. With that said, if you can help, please answer these questions after viewing my layout below.

1. Are there any techniques or variations of techniques that I have missed? What are they? How would you categorize them?

2. Are the 3 overall categories of R&I, MGQT & ZCT sufficient to handle all techniques or is there a category(s) I am missing? If so, what?

3. Of the techniques I already have listed, which ones need regrouping and why?

4. What techniques are you personally very well acquainted with and would you mind if I contacted you outside of the forum for specific questions as I put this chart together?

Thanks in advance for your help.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-19-2008 04:49 PM         

There are several approaches to the taxonomy of tests. One I like is to start off by subdividing all tests into two superfamilies: hidden question tests versus direct question tests. In the hidden question tests, the innocent person cannot identify the relevant question(s). These can further be subdivided into the CIT family and POT family.

In the direct question tests, both innocent and guilty know which questions are relevant; at some point they are asked, "Did you do it?" These, in turn, can be subdivided into two major families, the RI family (further subdivided into screening (usually multi-issue) and criminal (usually multi-facet) and the CQT family.

If you'll tell me what program you used to create the colorful table, I'll try to work up the taxonomic structure I use.

posted 07-19-2008 05:01 PM            

Thanks for your response. Wow, it would great to see your taxonomy of testing techniques. what you see in the post is just a table created in ms word with a bit of formatting. nothing special. Feel free to put that in whatever format works best for you. I have most commonly used software programs.

My end goal with this organizational attempt is a 'loose' logical grouping of techniques that the average examiner would easily recognize and understand. I don't want too many layers...or too few, somewhere in the middle will be great.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-19-2008 05:13 PM            

It's called a IZCT.

posted 07-19-2008 06:03 PM            

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-19-2008 09:40 PM            

I beleive it's on Matte's Disk and in his book.

I think I have the Matte disk buried somewhere and could probably cut and paste it if you don't have one. Or, I could write a quick example out.

posted 07-20-2008 08:04 AM            

The Integrated Zone Comparison Technique was developed in 1987 by Nathan J. Gordon, William M. Waid and Philip M. Cochetti.

This technique has the most significant
departure from the original Zone Comparison Technique developed by Cleve Backster

l. Irrelevant Question
2. Symptomatic Question
3. Sacrifice Relevant Question
4. Irrelevant Question (Optional)
5. Non-Current Exclusive Control Question
6. Relevant Question
7. Irrelevant Question (Optional)
8. Non-Exclusive Control Question.
9. Relevant Question
10. Irrelevant Question (Optional)
11. Non-Current Exclusive Control Question
12. Relevant Question.
13. Countermeasure Question (i.e. Did you deliberately do anything to try and beat this
test?)

posted 07-20-2008 09:40 AM            

Cheers,

posted 07-20-2008 10:22 AM            

-this is the only test I am aware of that rotates relevants opposed to controls

-Symptomatic is much easier then Backster. {Do you understand I will only ask you the questions we reviewed?}

-You do not have to use the Horizontal. Personally, I use this technique with the 7 point.

posted 07-20-2008 12:01 PM            

You've got the Utah MGQT, the Canadian Police College (MZOC) A-Series (single-issue ZCT) and B-Series (multi-facet MGQT), Backster SKY, Backster Exploratory, Backster You-Phase, in addition to the Matte Quadri-track, there's the Quinque (or whatever) track (MGQT), the Virgina school's ZCT (which they call a "modified Backster") and more I'm sure. I had such a list at one point that I got from Elmer Criswell.

posted 07-20-2008 12:55 PM            

- I don't believe that DACA recognizes the GQT anymore unless they have changed their mind lately (Imagine that!);

- Under ZCT for #1 – the most commonly-accepted handle is the Federal Zone Comparison; at one point the "SKY" add-on disappeared - but seems to have returned - Backster said it was worthless 3 months after he introduced it to the Army - that was back in the 50's and then he went on and developed the full-fledged format (mentioned below);

- Under #4 - the Backster formats include the “You Phase” – which had a 3-spot version (similar to the Utah Single-Issue ZCT and the original Utah formats) and 2-spot version (from which the DACA “You Phase” (finally) evolved); the SKY which is a complete format – not the 3 question “add on;” and the Exploratory which includes only secondary relevant questions;

- #5 – Matte’s “Inside-Issue” can be used with any of the 3 Backster formats;

- The LEPET – “Liedoctor” already explained;

- The Reid Technique is what we now know as the Army MGQT – Reid would not allow the Army to use his name in the format because they did something to it he didn’t like – Reid had a single issue test, but it wasn’t known as the Reid ZCT as far as I am aware and was not one of his better known formats – so his technique should be in the MGQT slot, except for the single-issue version which I don’t know, but I believe Don Krapohl does;

- The Arther Technique Specific Accusation Test evolved from the Reid (MGQT) so should be in that slot – the major differences are that he eliminated the irrelevant questions, except for #1 and included his 2 Known Truth Crime questions ( the first one used similarly as a Sacrifice RQ but scored as a CQ and probably the only true “control” questions ever developed) which serve as specialized comparison questions – the 3 secondary RQ’s and the 1 primary RQ and the CQ’s are all in the same spots as what is in the Reid and the Army MGQT framework;

- Marcy has a variety of formats, mostly patterned after the MGQT framework, with his Introductory Stimulation question used similarly as Sacrifice RQ but also may serve as a CQ, and he uses a Symptomatic question as well –again, he has a single-issue format, but I don’t think it is patterned after the ZCT framework;

- You should also include the Utah Multi-Issue format under the MGQT slot since it is similar to the Navy or Secret Service version of the MGQT (although I don’t know that DACA is categorizing the various versions anymore in their writings);

- You should also include the Canadian Modified ZCT – they have a single-issue version – “A” Series – like the old Backster 3-spot “You Phase” and some of the old versions of the Utah (3 primary relevant questions) and the “B” Series which is all secondary RQ’s in a ZCT framework; they also have what is called their “Universal Lie Control Question” which is supposed to be used in all tests and they sometimes use a Stimulation question in place of the Sacrifice RQ; there was one validation study completed on this technique published by Charles Honts; also there is a memorized pre-test required with the technique as well; regardless – this should be in your ZCT slot;

- As “Ckieso indicates, Nate Gordon has the IZCT which, like some of the older Utah formats, can be a single-issue test, or a test framework similar to the Federal ZCT (multi-facet – 2 primary RQ’s and one secondary RQ), or 3 secondary RQ’s like the Canadian “B” Series; also, he runs the first question sequence as a Silent Answer Test and uses a countermeasures question in the test as well; Nate has, I believe, published the validation study or studies on this – again – it belongs in the ZCT side as mentioned by "Ckieso;"

If there are any I have missed, I apologize - I did this in a hurry. APA did a survey on the number of different “polygraph techniques” several years ago, and they stopped counting at 190+ - which indicates that we have some really serious problems out there. Since doing QC on a more regular basis over the last 10 years, I have collected 100’s of examples of simply horrible polygraph examinations – particularly in the area of examiners who have decided to “freelance” their own “techniques,” so there is no reason at all to wonder why we cannot get more respect and acceptance in the legal field.

posted 07-20-2008 02:01 PM         

How much difference must there be between two question lists before one is a different test – or at least a true variant? Some of differences between the tests on some of the lists seem trivial in terms of the impact on the accuracy or effectiveness of the test.

When I formed the research division at DoDPI in 1987, one of the first policy decisions we made was that we simply didn’t have the resources to validate every existing variant of every technique. We focused instead on those few formats which were in wide use within the Federal government. When it came to supporting the admissibility of the polygraph in court, we decided to support those tests which followed sound psychological and psychophysiological principles, regardless of whether there were minor changes which would not be expected to significantly affect the results. Krapohl’s “best practices” approach based upon continually-evolving research findings seems a reasonable approach to the proliferation of variations of variants.

Ralph, I do believe you need to include the POT and CIT on your list. These are important tests backed up with solid research (especially the CIT), and they are too often overlooked by examiners. The CIT is the only test in our armamentarium in which we can predict the precise probability of a false positive error on an individual. This puts it on a par with other forensic tests which are routinely admitted as evidence.

Just my two cents.

Peace,

posted 07-20-2008 02:47 PM         

Don't forget to include my famous "Louisville Slugger Fib Dectectin'" test. I am not sure where it will fall into here but I think it should be included.

posted 07-20-2008 04:51 PM            

Confrontational Irrelevant:1. Are you some kinda moron?

Symptomatic: Am I missing something here?

Comparison: Are you telling me you are some kinda saint?!

Relevant: Did you do it?

Comparison: Are you scared of that baseball bat leaning up against the wall?

Relevant: Do you deserve to be bagged with that bat?

Irrelevant: Did I just turn the camara off in this room?

Irrelevant: Are the lights off?

Scoring is done by the "Joe Pesci Algorythm."

posted 07-20-2008 08:40 PM            

Scoring is pretty much the same, but any complaints are written off as an hallucination or psychotic break by the treatment provider.

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

posted 07-21-2008 05:33 AM            

Confrontational Irrelevant:1. Are you some kinda ultra maroon?

Symptomatic: Eh, what's up, doc?

Comparison: Do you happen to know what the penalty is for shooting a fricaseeing rabbit without a fricaseeing rabbit license?

Relevant: Did you do it?

Comparison: Are you allergic to carrots?

Relevant: Do you realize that of course This means war?

Irrelevant: Didja ever get the feeling you was being watched?

Irrelevant: Gee, ain't I a stinker?

Scoring is done by the "Joe Pesci Algorythm."or Fudd A.S.S. 2.0 Animated Scoring System.

And so having disposed of the monster, exits our hero, stage right through the front door-none the worse from his harrowing experience.

So long, Screwy! See you in St. Louie!
You know? Sometimes me conscience kinda bothers me... But not this time!

You'll be fine if you remember t'ree things. One, your adversaries have tapioca for brains. Two, always eat your carrots. And three, villains always fall for cheesy disguises

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

[This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 07-21-2008).]

posted 07-21-2008 01:13 PM            

IR 1 - Okay okay okay
IR 2 - Okay okay
IR 3 - Okay Okay
IR 4 - Okay Okay, listen okay
IR 5 - Okay Okay Okay
R1 - Okay okay did ya do it? okay.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-21-2008 07:35 PM            

Thanks for all the responses, this really helped me realize I was opening too large a can of worms the way I was doing it. I have narrowed in on what I'm really looking for.

I'm going to use only these two levels of categorization.

High Level - Comparison/Non-Comparison
Secondary Level - Single Issue/Multiple Issue/Both

I don't think trying to get the form filled in on the board will be very easy, so I've decided to email the word document with instructions to anyone who will volunteer to pick 15 techniques based on criteria i've chosen and put them in the form. After filling it out, just email it back to me.

If you are willing, just post a big "I'll Help" here on this topic and I'll email the form to you. Thanks in advance, I really appreciate it.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-22-2008 09:00 AM            

Acquaintance Test
Zone Comparison Test
You-Phase Zone Comparison Test
Comparison Test Formats
Peak of Tension Test
Relevant Irrelevant Screening Test
Specific Issue Relevant/Irrelevant Test
Test for Espionage and Sabatage
Law Enforcement Applicant Screening
Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph Test

The Comparison test Formats either have 2,3 or 4 reelvant questions with an irrelevant, Sacrifice relevant and bracketing comparison questions around the relevants.

posted 07-22-2008 09:30 PM            

We could organize the taxonomy by family (MGQT, Zone), by the generally accepted polygraph mechanisms (RI, CQT, POT), or by the signal detection paradigm (classification, discrimination), or the statistical approach (MLE, Bayesian, equivariance gausian, unequal variance gausian, addition-rule/bayesian, multivariate, or combined approaches). Or we could organize a typology of technques according to the psychological/psychophysiological constructs (recognition, deception, orienting, conditioned response, fear, habituation, stress, anxiety, nervousness cognition, memory, attention, saliency, dissonance, and all the psychobabble).

With 190 or more the advantages of standardized techniques has become lost. Those advantages would have been the ability to develop a research base of validated classification accuracy estimates for a well structured and faithfully-adhered-to technique. Even in the absence of construct validity around the protocol, the empirical validity can become reliable. Unfortunately, we have polygraph techniques that are overly psychologized, and not well-structured (in terms of what makes a well structured scientific test). Then everyone and their cousin wanted to modify their own technique - which is indicative of the excessive psychologizing that goes on - and most are not properly validated.

This is a genie that ain't goin' back in the bottle. People will not suddenly forgo their favorite tried and true techniques which they have come to depend on.

It will be important to eventually begin to describe our techniques in accurate description that is not overly dependent on unproven metaphors like the present bunch of methods - inside track, outside track, etc. There are no real "sides" or "interiors" or "exterior." Nor are their any real "tracks." These are rather concrete metaphors that make a point, but cannot and should not be taken literally.

What we need are simple ideas, built around simple and provable and proven constructs that explain why the test works.

All the fancy-schmancy polybabbly has to go. It must be replaced with scientific principles that are recognizable to other fields of science.

So, while we're simplifying our theoretical explanations and aligning them with existing knowledge, it will also be necessary to develop the ability to understand and contend with the real complexities of scientific study. This is not done with bravado, strong beliefs, or forceful personalities - its done by studying the principles of science, and by studying the data.

The best alternative to rectify the present chaos is to begin to seek better construct validity around the common principles that underlie and support why the tests work. This will mean we become more interested in how all of these techniques are similar, not different. It will also mean we become less interested in the cloistered and idiosyncratic techniques that depend on unique and unproven construct mechanisms.

In the meantime, I suggest organizing this interesting hierarchies with a mind-mapping tool - like the one we use to map the advanced option in OSS-3.
http://oss3.info/mm/OSS-3_advanced_user_options.html

You'll need a java-enabled browser and it will take a short bit to load. Once loaded you can click on the nodes to fold or unfold them.

More later. I'm still cleaning up the house - having been away for 10 days, only to return to find someone entered the home through an egress window while I was away.

r

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

posted 07-23-2008 11:53 AM            

I couldn't agree with you more...I especially like the comment about finding what is in common rather than what is different.

However, my motivations and purposes weren't nearly as complex or noble as what you are describing.

I'm not trying to solve THE problem at this point, but I am trying to solve A problem and for my needs, I simply want to get an idea of the top fifteen techniques we use now based on...

1st. importance - 1. popularity
2nd importance - 2. necessity (no other technique will accomplish it)
3rd importance - 3. does it have validity studies.

I've had a couple of 'takers' email me to help me fill out the form. I don't think it requires more than a few minutes because it is really based on your opinion. shoot me an email detector@polygraphplace.com if you want to participate. thanks.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-23-2008 12:29 PM            

Just as a "not-so-extreme" example, one I inspected recently (not enough information for a detailed QC) and included in my QC presentation at AAPP was a test where the examiner ran one chart on the examinee on one day using the "World-Renowned Orion Technique" (which must be well-known in some other world)- then a week later, ran the second chart (because of a computer difficulty)using the "Backster Technique" which was the exact same question type and order - just with Backster's numbering system instead of the prior #1, #2, #3, etc.
(for those who don't know teens, 20s, 30s, and 40s). Unfortunately, the format did not reflect any of Backster's ZCT's but more of a Federal ZCT. Also, the upper pneumograph was not activated in either chart (must be an element of the WR Orion Technique and the new Backster ZCT format).

As a side note (not related to this discussion), the examiner's conclusion was NDI (no handscore). I,and 5 others I had enlisted to do a "blind score," each had the score at -10.

Unfortunately, I get a lot of this type of "work" which would be difficult to categorize anywhere, except the "Recycle Bin."