posted 05-17-2008 10:05 PM
Hi Ben. Sorry I delayed in responding. I'll shoot some thoughts here---as I have thought about DLCT testing in the pcsot arena a lot over the last few years. First, we all are quite concerned about what those men yack about in their groups---the coaching, the exagerated horror stories--the general BS sex offenders often times discuss amongst themselves during their smoke breaks---aka "subgroup."
A concern is that some offenders will be fine by CQ testing--only to have notes compared with DLCT offenders---who then in theory become outraged at the difference of testing procedures. It's bad enough when some offenders are ran a monitoring test while others (the majority) keep getting maintenance tests----the maintenance guys getting angry that they never get to prove they are not reoffending sexually, while the monitoring guys never get to prove their , say sobriety or porn abstinance. So many sex offenders are such classic adherents to Dr. William Elliot's "12 Criminal Thinking Errors"----and righteous indignation over percieved inequality and pecking order is high on that list (along with criminal uniqueness).
So I s'pose the only thing stopping the DLCT from being accepted ----as long as various APA pcsot figureheads accept the accuracy statistics---is the notion of test protocol conspicuousness and how savvy sex offenders will respond and be responded to. Some may feel that the DLCT is a primer for countermeasures----others might feel the research being less than clear regarding the pcsot modality with respect to DLT. Of course, there is scant research into pcsot anyway---so I hardly think that would be a good platform to argue against.
Alternatively, the issue of (challenge really) of having to maintain "psych set" test after test---using fresh comparisons --if there is a such thing as "fresh comparisons" after 12-20 polygraph tests---is daunting. But the DLT can remedy that for sure.
Oddly enough, it seems that there must be a higher level of "trust" of your examinee when you run a DLCT----which sounds silly really---but it's kind of true. Sex offenders are so good at banking tidbits of apparent need from people---and the need for such a "cognitive cooperation" is bound to stir up additional paranoia from examiners who already trust sex offenders (90% of em anyway) as far as they can be thrown.
What do you think Ben? Thoughts?
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 05-16-2008 05:02 PM
posted 05-17-2008 10:05 PM
