posted 05-10-2008 02:15 PM            

Mr. Nate Gordon was the featured speaker yesterday, at the Colorado Association of Polygraph Examiners twice annual weekend training conference.

Among the pearls of wisdom which Mr. Gordon provided to our statewide conference were that:

• Respiratory Blood-pressure Fluctuation (what we examiners have referred to inaccurately as a “vagus roll”) is a countermeasure signature, and is caused by controlled breathing
  
• Pulse/respiration ratios that are significantly different from 4:1 are a countermeasure signature
  

and this one, which has me perplexed...

• Charles Honts disseminates information via the Internet regarding how to defeat the polygraph.
  

Yep. Here is a graphic of the Powerpoint slide in which Mr. Gordon placed Dr. Honts in the same category and list as Doug Williams and George Maschke.

The website www.caawp is the Dr. Honts' listserve at Boise State University in Idaho, for Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. Dr. Hont's listserve has been defunct for a few years, but the date on Mr. Gordon's presentation handout indicates he has recently reviewed his presentation content. The organization of Mr. Gordon's Powerpoint slide seems to suggest, by hierarchy, that Dr. Honts represents a serious threat to the polygraph.

Wow!

It is my understanding that Dr. Honts was involved in countermeasure research at DoDPI before returning to university work. It is also my understanding that Dr. Honts, after study examiner's ability to detect CMs, and out of an abundance of academic caution, did caution about the efficacy of CQT testing in security settings, many years ago. That is the right concern to raise, if you are a scientist and uncover what appear to be serious training or technological limitations. Fortunately, much has changed in the areas of CM training for examiners, and in the area of technology capable of recording CM activity. Honts & Alloway (2007) published a study which provided some evidence that CMs from Maschke may not work all that well with present training and technology.

I observed Mr. Gordon's presentation last summer at APA. At that time, he made no effort to conceal his dissatisfaction with Dr. Honts regarding some old Polygraph Journal publications. Honts and Driscoll (1987; 1988) had the audacity to publish a report on the reliability and validity of a rank order scoring system. Gordon and Cochetti (1987) also described a rank order scoring system, only they used the term “horizontal,” instead of the more common term rank-order. It is not surprising that Dr. Honts, an academic, would use the term “rank-order,” because rank-order systems are well known to researchers at all universities. Rank-order systems are fundamental to many nonparametric statistical models, such as the Spearman correlation and the Kruskal-Wallis test. I spoke briefly with Mr. Gordon last summer, and he was pretty clear with me that he feels that Dr. Honts had usurped his idea. To me this is silly, Dr. Honts has taken nothing from Mr. Gordon, and seems to have no financial or proprietary goals in his studies of rank order scoring systems.

Mirettelo (1999) and Krapohl, Dutton & Ryan (2001) also looked at rank order scoring systems.

To be fair, the Mr. Gordon's rank system includes defined physiological features, though the measurement of those features is in some ways inconsistent with proper algebraic measurement. Krapohl, Dutton and Ryan actually provided mean and variance parameters for truthful and deceptive score in their sample. With more stable estimates of these parameters, one could begin to formulate statistical estimates of the likelihood that a test result was produced by a truthful or deceptive person.

In our analysis of the feasibility of using rank-transformations for OSS-3 we were stumped by the problem of between-question variance. Between-question variance is a problem fundamental to the challenges of spot scoring (i.e., two-stage rules, multi-facet exams, and mixed-issue exams). I could not find a mathematical solution to these problems – which stems from the fact that rank-order systems replace natural between-question variance with a uniform rank variance.

Evaluating between question variance for statistical significance therefore becomes impossible (unless someone can find a mathematical solution). Mr. Gordon's solution is to neglect the question of variance, and the result of this shortcoming is that the rank-order scoring system cannot provide a statistical estimate. It will be limited scientifically to the status of a sorting algorithm. It is not, and cannot be, a statistical algorithm. Ranking can provide omnibus statistical estimates, but I am not convince they can be used to evaluate between question variance (until some smart person finds a solution to this mathematical variance problem). As a result, there will be no statistical estimate to spot scores in Nate's horizontal system. You will get point totals, but that will not impress statisticians and researchers knowledgeable about statistical decision making. Another problem is that he violates the basic rules of algebraic measurement in obtaining his physiological measurements, and introduces dimensions of data that have no reflection on physiology. I'm not suggesting the Mr. Gordon's system doesn't work, only that, as presently defined, his methods cannot be reconciled with basic algebra or inferential statistics. In the development of OSS-3, rank-transformations were abandoned in favor of traditional parametric inferential statistical transformations based on parametric assumptions of between question variance.

So, what we have in Mr. Gordon's Powerpoint presentation may be a good example of psychological “leakage,” in which one's personal thoughts and personal feelings begin to encroach on the accuracy of scientific thinking.

This may also be an example of the tendency to misunderstand legalistic thinking for scientific thinking. In legal systems, courts rely on the “professional opinions” of subject matter experts when the court itself lacks expertise regarding a matter for which it must make a decision. So, expert opinions are both welcome and valued in court. In science, expert opinions are often found to be of no more value than non-expert opinions. In science, and expert opinion is called and “untested hypothesis,” and it is the role of the hypothesizer (in this case Mr. Gordon) to consider all possible alternative explanations for the phenomena about which he is hypothesizing, and all the ways in which he might be wrong. Then, the scientists is expected to set about disproving his own hypothesis, after which he is to go back to the drawing-board and come up with a new hypothesis which he must also attempt to prove wrong. Scientists everywhere know that it is not acceptable to replace a missing conclusion from data, with a personal or professional opinion. This does occur in court, but it is irresponsible and negligent in science. Pretending we know something which we have not studies serves only to aggrandize ourselves, market services through fictional representations of our science, and prevents us from remaining aware that we have to take the time to actually study the issue (through data, and responsible mathematics). Moreover, pretentious and inaccurate training does long-term damage to the polygraph profession, because field polygraph examiners are diligent and conscientious types who do not easily discard what they were taught or what they think they know.

Here is a graphic of Mr. Gordon's slide depicting a respiratory blood pressure fluctuation “vagus” countermeasure signature.

Say “vagus roll” to any doctor in the country, and they'll think your speaking some foreign language or idiomatic jargon. Then say “respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation” to any doctor at any clinic or hospital, and they will instantly know the phenomena to which you are referring. It's that common to medical professionals, and most likely offers an unusable statistical correlation to CMs.

There is no question that the breathing illustrated here is unusually slow. But to extrapolate the observation of respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation itself as a CM signature seems to me to require argument in the form of data. It is quite possible that there are studies which I don't know about. But it also seems possible that this common form of fluctuation in blood-pressure tells us nothing about CMs.

I had to stop and ask for some clarification on this, and Mr. Gordon confirmed that this countermeasure signature (respiratory blood pressure fluctuation) was not learned from the study of data, but is his personal opinion. Same with the 4:1 pulse respiration signature, for which he provided no citations, and no confidence intervals with which to evaluate the significance of departure from these (opinion-based) normative signatures.

My biggest concern about this is that it should be an expectation that trainers at statewide and national conferences state explicitly when we don't actually know something, and state explicitly when they are providing a personal or professional opinion in the absence of data.

.02

r

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

posted 05-12-2008 08:44 AM            

That's not the first time that Nate's name had a little controversy attached.

I did alot of training up there and had that CM segment twice. I do beleive that the great disparity (4-1) between heart rate and breathing may mean intentional breathing, and that it should be looked at with a little suspicion.

Nates horizontal scoring is very timely, but I have the software. In my opinion, it's the best software because you can adjust out the artifacts. To me, it has so much more to offer then Polyscore and the check-marks. If you are doing it by hand the decimals can be a little difficult, but it is supposed to cut down on Inc's.

I heard from a couple of experienced examiners that it is extremely accurate(besides Nate). I don't have enough tests under my belt to give you empirical studies. Getting down to the algebraic reasons to support the results..now thats out of my league. Although I am seeing more x's and y's, then I would have hoped at this age, because I am studying for the GRE.

From what I was told, an associate of Honts actually came to the academy to study and test the Horizontal Scoring study. They found it to be accurate...then the Rank Order was published shortly after that.

My opinions are partly based on training. Just like when I was trained in my two academies that you will get more respect with a nice shine on your leather. But, I like to stay consistent with my training.
I liked his academy. I was a huge friggin' geek in that class. I would study my notes all night long. What I am getting to is- if I want to Maryland I may have been here supporting the MGQT or MZCT instead.

I can tell you this, obviously without names and academies. I only trained with 20 people because the classes are so small, but 2 people that trained at a different academy credited Nate for saving their career. Both of these examiners adopted his scoring and questions and loved the support they were given.

I always wanted to go to DACA to compare some of this training, but it looks like the military is the only route for that right now. So for now-- I am going to stick with the program.

Nate's partner(Bill-ex FBI examiner) comes here because he recommended the site to me. I guess he hasn't been here lately.

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 05-14-2008).]

posted 05-12-2008 10:39 AM            

Mark Handler

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dr. Charles Honts has had a long and distinguished career as a professor, psychologist, researcher and polygraph examiner. Dr. Honts has been a polygraph examiner since 1976. Dr. Honts’s distinguished employment career includes; Professor of Psychology Boise State University, Associate Professor of Psychology University of North Dakota, Assistant Professor of Psychology University of North Dakota, Research Psychologist -Research Team Leader (GS-14) Department of Defense Polygraph Institute -Research Division Fort McClellan, Alabama., Research Assistant (4 years) / Associate (2 years) Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA., and Detection of Deception Examiner, Various Employers. In all of these positions, Dr. Honts conducted polygraph related research and taught others what he had learned.

Dr. Honts’s thesis and dissertations include; Honts, C. R. (1982). The effects of simple physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Unpublished master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. and Honts, C. R. (1986). Countermeasures and the physiological detection of deception: A psychophysiological analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1761B. Both of these papers are heavily cited in polygraph literature regarding countermeasures.

Dr. Honts has contributed significantly to numerous areas of polygraphy. Some of those areas include; countermeasures, validity and reliability, research and refinement of the Utah PLT technique, test question construction, test data analysis, between chart stimulation and many other polygraph related areas. Dr. Honts has conducted research outside of polygraph but related to credibility assessment.

One of the most significant contributions Dr. Honts has made to the polygraph profession is his writings. An eloquent and extremely capable author, Dr. Honts is able to write for the average examiner. Dr. Honts’s papers are written such that non-scientific people can benefit from them. He is extremely prolific and yet has been able to produce numerous writings that are not “re-writes” of an earlier published work. Dr. Honts has published well over 100 polygraph related professional publications and reports. These include chapters from peer reviewed scientific books, articles from peer- reviewed journals and professional presentations. Dr, Honts was the first author on a paper titled, Honts, C. R., & Peterson, C. F. (1997). Brief of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists as Amicus Curiae. United States v. Scheffer, in the Supreme Court of the United States. In this publication, Dr. Honts defended polygraph to the United States Supreme Court.
The below list of Dr. Honts’s publication alone is an example of his 20 year contribution to the advancement of polygraph.
2006
Honts, C. R. & Alloway, W. (2006). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2006). Automation of a screening polygraph test increases accuracy. Manuscript accepted for publication in Psychology, Crime & Law.
Honts, C. R., & Forrest, K. (2006). A cautionary note for the teaching of psychology and law: Media images may be more persuasive than data. Manuscript under revision.
Turrisi, R., Nelsen, L., Honts, C., Voas, R., Johnson, M., & Lange, J. (2006). Examinations of perceptions of selling alcohol on a university campus. Manuscript submitted for consideration of publication.
2005
Honts, C. R. (2005). Rocky mountain psychological association: Report of the 75th annual meeting. American Psychologist.
2004
Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception, in P. Granhag and L. Strömwall (Eds.) Detection of deception in forensic contexts. London: Cambridge University Press 103-123.
Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2004). Effects of outside issues on the Control Question Test. The Journal of General Psychology, 151, 53-74.
2003
Honts, C. R. (2003). Participant perceptions support the rationale of the comparison questions test for the psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 40, S48. (Abstract)
2002
Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2002). Countermeasures, in M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic (251-264).
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 2). West: St. Paul Minnesota, (446-483).
Otter-Henderson, K., Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (2002). Spontaneous countermeasures during polygraph examinations: An apparent exercise in futility. Polygraph, 31, 9-14.
Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic (1-49).
2001
Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2001). Psychophysiological credibility assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 87-99.
Honts, C. R., Amato, S. & Gordon, A. K. (2001). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test. Polygraph, 30, 1-9.
2000
Honts, C. R. (2000). A brief note on the misleading and the inaccurate: A rejoinder to Matte (2000) with critical comments on Matte and Reuss (1999). Polygraph, 29, 321-325.
Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2000). Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test: Final report on grant no. N00014-98-1-0725. Submitted to the Office of Naval Research and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University.

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Amato, S. L., Gordon, A., & Devitt, M. K. (2000). The hybrid directed lie test, the overemphasized comparison question, chimeras and other inventions: A rejoinder to Abrams (1999). Polygraph, 29, 156-168.
Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Kircher, J. C. (2000). The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations: In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony: Volume 1 2000 Pocket Part (201-217).
1999
Bell, B. G., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The Utah numerical scoring system. Polygraph, 28, 1-9.
Honts, C. R. (1999). The discussion of comparison questions between list repetitions (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy. 28, Polygraph, 117-123.
Honts, C. R. (1999). Flaws detected in polygraph study. The Forensic Panel Letter, 3(11), 1,5.
Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (1999). The automated polygraph examination: Final report. Final report of U. S. Government Contract No. 110224-1998-MO. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University.
Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations: 1999 Pocket Part to Vol. 1 of D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. (pp. 160-174).
1998
Honts, C. R., & Gordon, A. (1998). A critical analysis of Matte's analysis of the directed lie. Polygraph, 27, 241-252.
Honts, C.R. (1998). Louder and longer: A review of the second edition of Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood. Polygraph, 27, 302-304.
1997
Devitt, M. K., Honts, C. R., & Vondergeest, L. (1997). Truth or just bias: The presentation of polygraph testing in introductory psychology text books. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 1, 9-32.
Honts, C. R. (1997). Truth or bias: Psychology and the polygraph. The National Psychologist, 6,
15.
Honts, C. R., & Peterson, C. F. (1997). Brief of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists as Amicus Curiae. United States v. Scheffer, in the Supreme Court of the United States. Available from the author.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). A rejoinder to Iacono and Lykken. Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 629-631).
Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108-115.
Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert
testimony (pp. 565-582).

Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). A response to professors Iacono and Lykken Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 619-627).
1996
Amato-Henderson, S. L., Honts, C. R., & Plaud, J. J. (1996). Effects of misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test. Psychophysiology, 33, S18. [Abstract]
Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., Winbush, M., & Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, 84-92.
1995
Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1995). Legends of the concealed knowledge test: Lykken's distributional scoring system fails to detect countermeasures. Psychophysiology, 32, S41. (Abstract)
Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1995). Polygrapher's dilemma or psychologist's chimaera: A reply to Furedy's logico-ethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 20, 199-207.
Honts, C. R. & Quick, B. D., (1995). The polygraph in 1995: Progress in science and the law. North Dakota Law Review, 71, 987-1020.
Kircher, J. C., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Horowitz, S. W. (1995). Lens model analysis of decision making by field polygraph examiners. Psychophysiology, 32, S45. (Abstract)

1994
Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22. (Abstract).
Honts, C. R. (1994). The psychophysiological detection of deception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 77-82.
Honts, C. R. (1994). Field validity study of the Canadian Police College polygraph technique. Psychophysiology, 31, S57. (Abstract)
Honts, C. R. (1994). Research Report: Termination of Data Collection and Statistical Analyses. Interim report on Science and Services Canada Contract No. M9010-1-F107/01ST, Field validity study of Canadian Police College polygraph technique. Grand Forks, North Dakota:
C. Honts, Consultations.
Honts, C. R. (1994). Final Report: Field Validity Study of the Canadian Police College Polygraph Technique. Science Branch: Supply and Services Canada Contract No. M9010-32219/01ST. Grand Forks, North Dakota: C. Honts, Consultations.
Honts, C. R. (1994). Field Validity Study of the Canadian Police College Polygraph Technique. TR-07-94. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Police Research Centre.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-259.
Honts, C. R., Winbush, M., & Devitt, M. K. (1994). Physical and mental countermeasures can be used to defeat guilty knowledge tests. Psychophysiology, 31, S57. (Abstract)
Kircher, J. C., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Horowitz, S. W. (1994). Generalizability of statistical classifiers for the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 31, S11. (Abstract)
1993
Honts, C. R. (1993). Heat without light: A review of Theories And Applications In The Detection Of Deception. Psychophysiology, 30, 317-319.
1992
Honts, C. R., (1992). Counterintelligence scope polygraph (CSP) test found to be a poor discriminator. Forensic Reports, 5, 215-218.
Honts, C. R., (1992). A laboratory study of the reliability and validity of statement validity assessment: Final report of Faculty Research Committee Grant #1813-2001-2138. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Honts, C. R., (1992). Field validity study of Canadian police college polygraph technique: Interim report on contract No. M9010-1-F107/01ST. Science and Services Canada Grand Forks, North Dakota: C. Honts, Consultations.
Honts, C. R., & Devitt, M. K. (1992). Bootstrap decision making for polygraph examinations: Final report of DOD/PERSEREC Grant No. N00014-92-J-1794. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Honts, C. R., & Devitt, M. K. (1992). Bootstrap decision making for polygraph examinations: Report No. D0DPI92-R-0002. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Honts, C. R., & Perry, M. V. (1992). Polygraph admissibility: Changes and challenges. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 357-379.
Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., & Amato, S L. (1992). Neural network classifiers and the detection of deception revisited: Depth of learning and overfitting. Psychophysiology, 29, S38. (Abstract)
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1992). Effectiveness of control questions answered "Yes": Dispelling a polygraph myth. Forensic Reports, 5, 265-272.
1991
Honts, C. R., (1991). The emperor's new clothes: Application of polygraph tests in the American workplace. Forensic Reports, 4, 91-116.
Honts, C. R. (1991). Converging evidence indicates invalidity for national security screening polygraph tests. Psychophysiology, 28, S30. (Abstract)
Honts, C. R. (1991). Field validity study of Canadian police college polygraph technique: Task 1 report on contract No. M9010-1-F107/01ST, Science and Services Canada. Grand Forks, North Dakota: C. Honts, Consultations.
Honts, C. R., & Devitt, M. K. (1991). Jackknife analyses of discriminant, logistic regression and back propagation neural network classifiers in a psychophysiological detection of deception problem. Psychophysiology, 28, S30. (Abstract)

1990
Barland, G. H., & Honts, C. R. (1990). A laboratory study of the validity of the ZOC: An executive summary. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Research Report. Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Barland, G. H., Honts, C. R., & Barger, S. D. (1990). The detection of deception for multiple issues: An executive summary. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Research Report. Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Honts, C. R., & Barger, S. D. (1990). A comparison of the relative utility of skin conductance and skin resistance couplers for the measurement of electrodermal activity in the detection of deception. Polygraph, 19, 199-207.
Honts, C. R., & Barland, G. H. (1990). A laboratory study of the validity of the MGQT: An executive summary. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Research Report. Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Honts, C. R., & Carlton, B. (1990). The effects of incentives on the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 27, S39. (Abstract)
Honts, C. R., & Carlton, B. (1990) The effects of incentives on the detection of deception: Report No. DoDPI90-R-0003. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort McClellan, AL 36205.

1989
Barland, G. H., Honts, C. R., & Barger, S. D. (1989). The validity of detection of deception for multiple issues. Psychophysiology, 26, S13. (Abstract)
Barland, G. H., Honts, C. R., & Barger, S. D. (1989). Studies of the Accuracy of Security Screening Polygraph Examinations. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Honts, C. R., Barland G. H., & Barger, S. W. (1989). The relative validity of criminal and screening approaches to detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 26, S33. (Abstract)
Honts, C. R., & Driscoll. L. N. (1989). Validity of the positive control polygraph test: Comments on Forman and McCauley. Polygraph, 18, 158-167.
Honts, C. R., & Barger, S. D. (1989). A comparison of the relative utility of skin conductance and skin resistance couplers for the measurement of electrodermal activity in the detection of deception. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Research Report. Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Honts, C. R. (1989). The relative validity of two CSP question series. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Research Report. Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., Horowitz, S. W., & Honts, C. R. (1989). Recent laboratory and field research on polygraph techniques. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility Assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1-24.
1988
Honts, C. R., & Driscoll, L. D. (1988). A field validation study of the rank order scoring system (ROSS) in multiple issue control question tests. Polygraph, 17, 1-16.
Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., & Hodes, R. L. (1988). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 91-94.
Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). Patterns of activation and deception. Psychophysiology, 25, 455. (Abstract)
Horowitz, S. W., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1988). Control questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 25, 455.
Kircher, J. C., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Horowitz, S. W. (1988). Generalizability of mock crime laboratory studies of the control question polygraph technique. Psychophysiology, 25, 462-463. (Abstract)
Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Horowitz, S. W. (1988). Validity of control question polygraph tests in criminal investigations. Psychophysiology, 25, 476. (Abstract)
Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Horowitz, S. W. (1988). A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigations. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, Grant Number 85-IJ-CX-0400, Department of Psychology, Salt Lake City, University of Utah.
1987
Driscoll, L. N., Honts, C. R., & Jones D. (1987). The validity of the positive control physiological detection of deception technique. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 46-50.
Honts, C. R. (1987). Interpreting research on countermeasures and the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 204-209.
Honts, C. R. & Driscoll, L. N. (1987). An evaluation of the reliability and validity of rank order and standard numerical scoring of polygraph charts. Polygraph, 16 241-257.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1987). Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 1, 241-247.
1986
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1986). Individual differences and the physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 23, 442 (Abstract).
1985
Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177-187.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1985). Effects of socialization on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 373-385.
Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., & Honts, C. R. (1985). Computerized polygraph interpretations and detection of physical countermeasures. In Anti-terrorism; Forensic science; Psychology in police investigations. Jerusalem: Heiliger, 179-189.
1984
Honts, C. R. (1984). Countermeasures and the physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 566-567 (Abstract).
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., & Hodes, R. L. (1984). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 583 (Abstract).
Kircher, J. C., Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (1984). Electrodermal habituation in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 585 (Abstract).
1983
Honts, C. R. & Hodes, R. L. (1983). The detection of physical countermeasures. Polygraph. 12, 7-17.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1983). Detection of deception: Effectiveness of physical countermeasures under high motivation conditions. Psychophysiology, 20, 446-447 (Abstract).
1982
Honts, C. R. & Hodes, R. L. (1982). The effect of simple physical countermeasures on the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 19, 564 (Abstract).
Honts, C. R. & Hodes, R. L. (1982). The effects of multiple physical countermeasures on the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 19, 564-565 (Abstract).

Dr. Honts has participated in numerous research project as a principal or associate researcher. Some of those projects are listed below;

Credibility Assessment Research Initiative. Appropriation under Research and Development Defense-Wide (RDDW), Line #171. Appropriation amount, $1,050,000.
Scientific Attitudes Regarding the Science and Validity of Polygraph Testing. Faculty Research Award (Travel), Boise State University, September 2001. Award amount $500.00.
Truth or just bias: The strange mix of psychology, law and the detection of deception. Faculty Research Award (Travel), Boise State University, April 2001. Award amount $500.00.

Outside issues dramatically reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests given to innocent individuals.
Faculty Research Award (Travel) Boise State University, September 1999. Award amount $400.00.
Human v. machine: Research examining the automation of polygraph testing. Faculty Research Award (Travel), Boise State University, March 1999. Award amount $400.00.
Survey of Professional Knowledge and Opinions Regarding Polygraph Testing. Co-principal investigator Susan Amato. Faculty Research Award, Boise State University, November 1998. Award amount $500.00.
Survey of Professional Knowledge and Opinions Regarding Polygraph Testing. Co-principal investigator Susan Amato. Undergraduate Research Initiative Award, Boise State University, November 1998. Award amount $500.00.
The Polygraph after Daubert. Faculty Research Award (Travel), Boise State University, March 1998. Award amount $400.00.

Validity of Outside-Issue Questions in the Control Question Test (DoDPI97-P-0012). Co-principal investigator, Susan Amato. Research grant originated with the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, issued through the Office of Naval Research, 9 March 1998. Award amount $129,042.50.
The Automated Polygraph Examination (APE). Co-principal investigator, Susan Amato. Research Contract with the United States Federal Government. Start date: 11 December 97. Contract Amount, $132,000.00.
Theory Development and Psychophysiological Credibility Assessment: An Application of Structural Equation Modeling to Increase Basic Understanding of a Technique Already in Use in the Field. Research Associate award from Boise State University. Awarded 1 June 1996. Award amount, $3,900.00.
Quantitative Techniques in the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Summer 1993 Research Professorship awarded by the Graduate School of the University of North Dakota, February 1993. Stipend amount, $5,400.
Bootstrap Computer Decision Making for Polygraph Examinations. Grant No. N00014-92-J-1794 from PERSEREC through the Office of Naval Research. Awarded 1 April 1992. Grant amount: $19,994.
Field Validity Study of Canadian Police College Polygraph Technique, Contract No. M9010-1F107/01-ST. Science Branch, Supply and Services Canada. Awarded 18 September 1991. Contract Amount, Phase I, $25,400.

Psychophysiology Laboratory Start-Up Award. Award No. 2015-1806-2001. Office of Research and Program Development and the College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Dakota. Awarded August 1990. Award amount $12,000.

Dr. Honts has helped many other people in the polygraph profession use the polygraph as a scientific tool. He has taught numerous people throughout the past twenty years the Utah PLT polygraph technique. He has helped other obtain advanced degrees. He is always available for consults regarding polygraph.

Dr. Honts is a true scientist and one of the most ardent supporters of fair and high quality polygraph. He has been attacked in the past for his support of good polygraph and has steadfastly maintained his support and dedication for the profession. He believes in treating examinee’s fairly and believes in the results of high quality polygraph. Few, if any, have contributed so much in research and writing as Dr. Honts has to the polygraph profession.

The Leonard Keeler Award is presented for long and distinguished service to the polygraph profession. As can be seen from the above nomination, Dr. Honts is more than deserving of this honor. Thank you for considering my nomination of Dr. Honts for this award.

posted 05-12-2008 04:59 PM            

Nate's MA (or whatever it is) is equal to a US regionally accredited degree. I've read it, and though I think it's weak in many areas, the school is well known and respected in the world. When it comes to Nate's topic, few understand it, and my guess is he used that to his advantage (perhaps unwittingly). I know of some in the US who did the same right here.

posted 05-12-2008 08:51 PM            

------------------
Ben

posted 05-13-2008 12:14 PM            

I'd love to have more of a conversation about a number of things here.

Also appreciated you providing some balanced perspective to my first posting.

Do you agree or disagree that Honts belongs in the same list and category with Williams and Maschke as the "PRIMARY threat to us today?"

r

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

posted 05-14-2008 11:33 AM            

As to my lecture in Colorado, I was told it was well received and there was a great deal of positive feedback from the attendees.

Mr. Nelson chose this forum to attack my integrity and question my intent. My lecture, as all my lectures to my polygraph colleagues, are designed to share valuable information, promote best practices polygraph testing, and foster a collegial atmosphere in our profession. I present my honest opinion based on 30 years of polygraph experience with the clear purpose of making us all, myself included, better polygraph examiners.

In Mr. Nelson's initial posting he claimed I impugned the character of Dr. Honts as being a facilitator of what has become the biggest threat to our profession to date; countermeasures. The basis for this complaint was my handout which listed Masche, Williams and Honts as being online sources of information concerning countermeasures. What Mr. Nelson did not tell you was that the next several slides dealing with these internet sites dealt only with Mashe and Williams who I identified as actively and maliciously attempting to teach individuals how to defeat the polygraph. I understand that Dr. Honts puts out information for academic review and study only. I understand the distinction. I believe other than Mr. Nelson, that the seminar attendees understood the disticition between posting informaiton to obstruct polygraph verses posting information to illuminate and educate. My point is, regardless of the motive, all of these sites are available to people trying to get information about countermeasures and how to beat the polygraph test.

I showed several slides of examinee's charts which displayed respiration rates of 6 breaths a minute, and were in my opinion deliberate distortions. I pointed out that controlled breathing can often cause a cyclic or oscillating affect on the cardio. In fact. there are numerous research studies published where "controlled breathing" is used to investigate blood pressure and blood volume oscillations. A participant identified the cardio as a "vagus roll." I was aware that this is strictly an old polygraph term which has no physiological basis. Mr. Nelson corrected him.

I also showed a slide of an examinee's chart where the respiration rate was 30 times a minute and the heart rate was under 50. I pointed out that normally there is a 4:1 ratio between heart beats and breaths a minute, and that such a great deviation from this norm would raise my suspicion. I never said it was automatically a sign of CM's, even though this was a documented CM test where the examinee ingested drugs that affected his heart rate.

As for the accuracy of the Horizonatl Scoring System or the Academy's ASIT PolySuite, I cannot articulate in statistical terms such as Mr. Nelson. I make no claim to being a statistical genuis. I can say that they have been researched in at least 4 seperate studies and found to be accurate.

As for the sutdents I have trained around the world, I would match them as a group with those of any other training institution. This does not mean that I have never trained a poor practitioner, however, I am very proud of the majority.

Concerning what I have given to this profession as an examiner and innovator who never received grant or research money, I feel very proud.

There is a saying that "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time." I do not have any statiscal proof this is correct, however, I think this is clearly the case here. I would welcome comments, pro or con, about my presentation from other attendees at the Colorado seminar.

Veritas Veritatum!

posted 05-14-2008 01:17 PM            

Ray can defend himself, but allow me to make a point. Here's Ray's summary statement, and the crux of his issue:

quote:

---

My biggest concern about this is that it should be an expectation that trainers at statewide and national conferences state explicitly when we don't actually know something, and state explicitly when they are providing a personal or professional opinion in the absence of data.

---

I - and I think you - agree that we must do just that.

quote:

---

I also showed a slide of an examinee's chart where the respiration rate was 30 times a minute and the heart rate was under 50. I pointed out that normally there is a 4:1 ratio between heart beats and breaths a minute, and that such a great deviation from this norm would raise my suspicion.

---

That is exactly what he's talking about. You may well be right, and you may well be on to something, but we can't say unless we have proof. This is a single data point, and it it purely anecdotal. That's the danger. People look up to you because of your experience and knowledge. Therefore you must be careful to differentiate between suspicions, anecdotal experience and hard data.

Where, for example, do we see the 4:1 ratio? Does that apply to people in general or in polygraph situations? As an EMT, I've never seen such an herustic for normal breathing to HR ratios. Even if accurate, how much variability could one expect before one's suspicions should be raised as yours would? The answer could easily be computed statistically - with the right data to begin with, of course. In other words, 4:1 is meaningless (even if correct, on average) unless we know how much variability is expected (the range, so to speak, of "normal").

posted 05-14-2008 03:16 PM            

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."

------------------
Ben

posted 05-14-2008 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

Mr. Nelson chose this forum to attack my integrity and question my intent.

---

Wow. Kinda thin-skinned there, eh Nate.

I did not attack your integrity or your intent. Neither did I state that you “impugned the character of Dr. Honts” as you wrote above. I alerted people that you disseminated the notion that Dr. Honts is in the same category of reprobates as Doug Williams and George Maschke, and represents the “PRIMARY threat to us today.”

Somehow, the content of your slide seems harder-hitting than this attempt to mitigate your error. The content of your slide suggests that you regard Honts as the “PRIMARY threat to us today.”

While you attacked Dr. Honts personally (your attack has no basis in fact), I attacked your science, because I found it unscientific.

You, I, and everyone else knows that you are world-famous, well-respected and successful. This is not about anything personal. It's about science.

You do encourage the notion that you are interested in science, but it does seem to me that you are reacting personally to Honts, over a 21 year-old gripe. You are also reacting personally to me kin this forum.

quote:

---

Mr. Nelson is a Dr. Honts supporter, and takes umbrage to my statement that Dr. Honts' and his co-author, asked permission to do a validation study of Horizontal Scoring which I and Philip Cochetti developed at the Academy. After giving him and his co-author everything we had done developing this new scoring concept, they published a paper validating Horizontal Scoring, but renamed it the Rank Order Scoring System, conveniently forgetting that it was the Horizontal Scoring System, and it was Mr. Cochetti and I who developed it. I have never said that Dr. Honts made money from his actions. Truth is truth, and if you doubt it please feel free to read our paper on Horizontal Scoring which appeared in Polygraph, Volume16, Number 2, 1987, and the paper appearing in the publication a month or two later by them. Feel free to point out the differences between the two papers and I promise to apoligize.

---

For the record, I have never met nor spoken with Dr. Honts. I am, however aware of his contributions to the science of polygraph, just as I am aware of your contributions.

Just so we're clear, what I “heard” and “saw” was most definitely NOT what I wanted to hear. What I heard and saw was you present to a room full of impressionable trainees that Dr. Charles Honts disseminates polygraph countermeasure information via his website at www.caawp.

quote:

---

I understand that Dr. Honts puts out information for academic review and study only. I understand the distinction. I believe other than Mr. Nelson, that the seminar attendees understood the disticition between posting informaiton to obstruct polygraph verses posting information to illuminate and educate. My point is, regardless of the motive, all of these sites are available to people trying to get information about countermeasures and how to beat the polygraph test.

---

While you do state that his website is by subscription only, you neglect that it is no longer even active and has been inactive for some time.

Everyone is aware that you published a rank order system first. You simply use your own proprietary label for the technique, whereas Honts uses language that is common and recognizable to scientists and researchers everywhere. Rank order systems are rank order systems.

• Gordon, N. J. & Cochetti, P. M. (1987). The horizontal scoring system. Polygraph, 16(2), 116-125.

• Honts, C. R. & Driscoll, L.N. (1987). An evaluation of the reliability and validity of rank order and standard numerical scoring of polygraph charts. Polygraph, 16(4), 241-257.

Your publication in Polygraph 16(2) would have preceeded Honts' publication in Polygraph 16(4) by approximately six months. He did not cite your 1987 publication, but it seems likely that his manuscript was completed in the interim between your submission and publication.

Honts did include this citation and reference:

• Gordon, N. J. & Cochette, P. M. (1981). The horizontal scoring system. Unpublished manuscript. Academy for Scientific Investigative Training.

Honts wrote this on page 242:

This bit on page 243 is probably the part that hurt your feelings:

So it seems there was no real attempt to usurp your glory or intellectual property. In fact, he seems to have cited your earlier work in the manner expected by the publication manual of the American Psychological Association.

A look at Honts' reference list reveals that the Kircher & Raskin (1987) study was the Kircher & Raskin (1988) JAP study on computerized and human scoring, which had been accepted for publication but not yet printed and released. So it seems that Honts' experiment was based on the now common Kircher Features, while your method at that time employed the Weaver (1980) TDA procedures.

The real issue here is that Honts and Driscoll did things a bit differently than yourself and Cochetti. In reality, that's OK, though it seems to have bugged you for a long long time (21 years).

In fact your “Horizontal Scoring System” is both mathematically and scientifically inferior to Honts and Driscol's Rank Order Scoring system. Honts' system uses Kircher features which were derived through all-subsets regression and discriminate analysis as the most diagnostic features (Kircher & Raskin, 1988). Subsequent research by Raskin, Kircher, Honts & Horowits (1988) also reported these features as the most diagnostic indicators. Years later, Harris, Horner & McQuarrie (2000) and Kircher, Kristjansson, Gardner, & Webb (2005) also reported these same features as the most useful. Weaver (1980) features were an evoluationary feature set only, and were not derived from statistical analysis. As far as I know, there is still no published regression or discriminate analysis on your present features – some of which will be difficult or impossible to reconcile with what we know about physiology and algebraic measurement.

So it seems that you are bothered that Honts and Driscoll found what they considered to be deficiencies and attempted to seek improvements. Tell us what is wrong, in principle, with that.

No-one doubts you are in effective trainer and that your techniques work. You do seem to have a tendency to overstate your hypothesis, and neglect to account for the limitations of how confident we should or should not be in the results of small experiments and anecdotal data. I will hypothesize that, like Sigmund Freud, your methods work despite some of your ideas, not because of them. Most of what Freud tried to teach us has been disproved. Still no-one doubts he was a great psychologist and a great psychotherapist who made an incredible contribution. The salient ideas which stand the test of time and scientific scrutiny are often the simple ones.

There are some known complications inherent to rank order scoring systems. Read the literature on test validation and you'll find competent description of a host of mathematical problems associated with rank scoring. Rank order scoring is more correctly called “ordinal rank scoring” because it suspends parametric assumptions and replaces the natural item variance with a uniform variance.

For example: Imagine a one-mile foot-race with five participants. The common way to rank the participants is that the most significant score gets the first rank. The winner is #1. Next is #2, followed by 3, 4 and 5. Ordinal ranks make no attempt to evaluate between item/racer variance. The first two finishers might be separated by mere seconds, while the 3rd, 4th, and 5th cross the finish lines minutes apart. While the time values retain between-racer/item variance, the ranks themselves do not. The rank-order space between 1 and 2 is equivalent to the space between 2 and 3, even though 2 and 3 might be minutes apart while 1 and 2 are separated by seconds. That is the point of ranking systems. They simplify our analysis when data cannot meet normal parametric assumptions. However, suspending parametric assumptions means that you have SUSPENDED PARAMETRIC ASSUMPTIONS. You cannot responsibly discard parametric variance, and then attempt to interpret parametric variance (which is what you do with your spot analysis rules).

There is often a desire to extract more useful data from rank values by weighting their significance. This is often accomplished by ranking the items in reverse order, and this is exactly what you and Honts have done. Miritello (1999) did this also. Reverse order ranks means that the value of greatest significance is assigned the maximum rank value, not the minimum, and each subsequent less value is assigned a value of x-1.

Now consider what happens to the five racers when the 3rd and 4th racers cross the finish line at exactly the same time. First place is #1, second is #2 and the 3rd and 4th are “tied for 3rd place.” This is the correct forumulation of an ordinal rank structure. The 5th finisher is in 4th place. Then consider what happens if you pretent to assume that rank values are parametric values and add them up. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15, while 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 = 13. You have a similar, though slightly different, mathematical error if you assign ranks in reverse order: 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15, while 4 + 3, + 2 + 2 + 1 = 12. Of course this is only a problem if you attempt to make parametric assumptions of nonparametric rank data – but that is what you do.

To be fair, you are not the first to make these errors, but it is evident you did not really study the matter in the scientific testing literature. These are well known issues.

Honts adopted the commonly accepted solution, which is that you average the tied ranks. The problem with tied ranks is well-discussed in related fields of testing (IQ test validation)

Read from Honts (page 248)

Miritello (1999) was also aware of this complication and employed the same solution.

The real problem with rank-order systems is that it does not appear to be mathematically possible to achieve a statistical classifier from the spot scores of a rank system. At least, no-one has figured it out yet. I tried last year, and gave up because I couldn't make it work. Miritello's (1999) rank transformation model is an interesting, but, as far as I know, is still without a solution for a statistical decision model.

Perhaps some statistical genius can figure it out. In my humble opinion, the reason rank-order systems cannot be used to calculate a statistical classifier for spot scores has to do with the fundamental principles of rank-order scoring. Rank scoring is an omnibus method (evaluates everything at once), in which each assigned rank value is only meaningful and interpretable relative to the other values. You say someone finished first place is unimpressive if there is only one participant. However, finishing 6th place is damn good if you just ran the Boston Marathon.

To be clearer about this, both yourself and Honts committed mathematical errors in your procedures.

In polygraph testing an EDA reaction of 43mm holds the linear value of 43mm. If 43mm is the largest measurment in a rank order scoring of a ZCT, the measurement might hold the value 6. However, in a Bizone exam it holds the value 5. See the issue yet?

The solution, historically (in polygraph and other testing contexts) has been to calculate proportional values from the rank values. In this way, the rank of 6 out of 6, would be equivalent to 6/6 = 1, meaning that value is greater that all other values. In statistics we would probably be more likely to say >.99, because there is no 100 % probability. Now look at the other end of the spectrum of ranks in the ZCT. The smallest reaction gets the rank 1, and 1/6 = ~.18. But this is not correct, because that smallest rank is not larger than 18 percent of the other values.

Both yourself and Honts committed this error. Miritello did not, and employed the commonly accepted solution of setting the lowest rank to zero and reducing the maximum rank value to x-1. So in a properly formulated rank scoring of a ZCT exam, the greatest value would be ranked 5, for 5/5 = 1, meaning that value is larger than approximately all other values. Now the smallest rank is 0/5 = 0, meaning that value is larger that none of the other values. The problem now is that the 5th rank = 4, and 4/5 = .8, but the 5th rank of 6 is not equivalent to greater than 80 percent of the data values, because 5/6 = .83 not .8.

This problem stems from the fact that we are forgetting that rank systems are ordinal nonparametric stems. The ranks are actually bin-spaces which exist geometrically between the nodal rank points.

Barry has adequately addressed my concerns about the 4:1 ratio hypothesis (untested hypothesis), and the point about subsituting personal and anecdotal opinions for scientific data.

Please anyone, feel free to alert Honts that I've criticized his work. I'm sure he's a big boy and can handle Ray's .02 worth of commentary without feeling harmed.

But tell us Mr. Gordon, what should Dr. Honts have done? In your view, would it have been more satisfactory to you if he had made the reported alterations to a rank-order scoring system and then used the same name as your techniques? Or, would you suggest he have not made any changes and adhered blindly to your formulation of your rank order system. Or, is the best alternative to make the modifications he felt necessary, and then call it something slightly different, while citing your earlier work? Or do you suggest that no-one attempt replicate or improve on the work of others?

What Honts and Driscoll (1987) seem to have done is to attempt to build on your earlier work. They cited your earlier work as required.

While you are here, you might clarify for us whether you really believe Dr. Honts represents the "PRIMARY threat to use today," and belongs in the same category with Doug Williams and George Mascke.

If I were a spiritual counselor (I am not), I might advise you to pray for those for whom you hold such great resentment, that you might someday get over it.

.02

r

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

posted 05-14-2008 09:36 PM            

------------------
"Truth Seekers"

posted 05-14-2008 10:14 PM         

If we don't challenge the people in our profession, people outside our profession will. This forum is a HEALTHY debate and we should keep the debate alive.

My .02

Ted

posted 05-14-2008 11:30 PM            

FYI, Dr. Honts has been administering polygraph exams for around 30 years. He graduated from Backster in the 1970s and has done many, many "real world" tests, in addition to his research.

As for being a judge and/or observer of human behavior, remember that he earned a Ph.D. in Psychology, and has been Chairman of a university psychology department.

And by the way, he's also a statistician.

So please don't get carried away with the academic vs. "real world" stuff before you know all the facts.

posted 05-15-2008 08:04 AM            

Thanks for reminding us of that we're all in the same fight, and that all learn a lot from being challenged.

I think the great think about this forum is that a little it of high-speed checking and stick-jabs make the game more fun.

I'm even glad Nate came by to spar a little bit. I hope he comes back.

Dr. Honts sent me an email, introducing himself.

quote:

---

Subject: Fwd: pp posting by Ray


Please anyone, feel free to alert Honts that I've criticized his work. I'm sure he's a big boy and can handle Ray's .02 worth of commentary without feeling harmed.

Mr. Nelson,

Someone did pass your comments on to me.

Constructive criticism is always welcome, that is how we learn, and it is the basis of the scientific peer review publishing system.

Your analysis of our early work on ROSS is spot-on. Our hope for the ROSS was that the psychophysical task of rank ordering would be simpler, and possibly more reliable than the psychologically more difficult task of magnitude estimation that is the part and parcel of numerical scoring. Unfortunately, any gains we made in reliability were offset by the loss of sensitivity that occurred when we went to ordinal scaling. Moreover, as you so accurately note, the psychometric problems associated with coming up a statistically based decision rule were/are daunting. Dr. Miritello worked through some of the problems, but not the decision one. However, in the applications in which she was interested, this was not a primary goal, rather I believe she was interest in attempting to determine the topic of greatest concern to a subject in a multiple issue test. In such a case, a graphic representation of the rank outcome provides a visual reference to possibly help guide interrogation efforts. I often look at the Relative Magnitude graph that the CPS system produces, they seem interesting and heuristic, but it is difficult to know exactly what to make of the results. Unfortunately, validation research for the use rank order scoring with multiple issues is still lacking and what data there are on multiple issue testing suggest that such efforts are weak at best. Multiple issue testing is an area that is in need of much work. That said, I think that there may be some non-parametric ways of using the results of the Miritello approach to make decisions, and I hope to have time to work on that in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With regard to my role as one of the greatest threats to polygraph, I had to laugh out loud. Many in the Scientific Psychology community, who similarly do not know me, and who have not actually read my work, describe me as an unabashed apologist supporter of the polygraph. Hmm, neither side seems to likes me, although there are a group who have taken the time to actually read the research and who are coming to see the value of the polygraph in certain settings. We are seeing world wide growth in the use of polygraph, and in a number of countries that is being driven by science.

I see myself as a psychological scientist who studies deception detection in a number of settings, including with the traditional polygraph. I try to be data driven. Thus, I have published data supporting the validity of the polygraph, when we have obtained it (as for specific issue forensic tests) and I have published data showing that polygraph has little validity (as for the CSP test that was used for national security screening). When research showed that people could be trained to beat the CQT with simple physical and mental maneuvers, I helped publish that, and when we found that the primary effect of reading Masche's online book concerning countermeasures (and other things) was to increase false positive errors, I worked with others and published that. Over an academic career that now covers some 27 years, I have over 100 published papers, chapters, and reports, the majority on deception detection, and the majority in main-stream, scientific peer-reviewed journals. I have given well over 200 papers and invited addresses at scientific meetings. If anyone is interested in my actual body of work, it is there in public to be read. I am more than happy to be judged on the quality of that, albeit flawed, body of work.

I have NEVER promoted the use of countermeasures. In fact in a number of places I have published the opinion that to train someone in countermeasures in a real criminal case, or in an effort to subvert official screening techniques, would be unethical and possibly illegal. I have never done so, nor have I ever provided countermeasure how to material for the general public. However, when you publish in a scientific journal, your methods section is expected to include sufficient details to allow an independent scientist to replicate your research, improve upon it, and extend the work. This is the essence of science and is the basis for scientific progress. I have published on the topic of countermeasures, and I have included accurate descriptions of the countermeasures used in those studies. If that makes me a terrible threat to polygraph, than I am guilty. I have always felt that knowledge was more powerful than ignorance.

There never was a WWW.CAAWP There was a CAAWP INTERNET discussion list that was opened in the mid-1990s to be a general discussion board for people interested in Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology research. The list was unmoderated and was open. You did have to subscribe, but there were no admission requirements and no one was ever denied access. I don't recall a lot of countermeasure discussion there. Certainly there was never any advocacy for people to use countermeasures. The list was moribund for a number of years and decommissioned several months ago.

I do still maintain a WWW server http://truth.boisestate.edu that contains an online journal, some information about meetings, and a resource center for Polygraph and Law. None of which has ever advocated the use of countermeasures. The Polygraph and Law site was designed to provide transcripts and opinions that might aid in the admissibility of polygraph results in courts of law. It does contain some transcripts of sworn testimony that make some of the "leaders" of the polygraph profession look a bet less than stellar. Sadly, my other duties and activities have not allowed me to keep the WWW site up to date.

~~~~~~~~

I would have posted this on the WWW List where your comments were posted, but some years ago when I attempted to join, I was told in no uncertain terms, that I was not welcome.

However, if you think my comments have any merit or content, then feel free to share them with whomever you will.

You have my best regards, thanks for your comments, and I hope that we do get the chance to meet some day.

Sincerely,

Charles

---

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

posted 05-15-2008 08:31 AM         

I say we give the good doctor a password and invite him to join our forum.

Ted

posted 05-15-2008 08:41 AM            

------------------
Ben

posted 05-15-2008 08:41 AM            

For those who haven't been to his site, I learned more from those transcripts he's posted than I have from polygraph texts. Be warned though, those transcripts lead the curious to the studies behind them, which means there goes your free time.

I don't think I've ever written Charles and not received a thorough response. (I write a lot of people very often that way nobody knows what a pest I am.) These guys - and count our own Drs. Rovner and Barland among them - didn't study this stuff to hoard knowledge. They enjoy passing it on, and they appreciate those who appreciate their years of work and effort. (There are others who read but don't post - at least not often - but they're paying attention.) Before Nate fades into the background, I've written him as well, and he too has been more than happy to respond - and respond thoroughly.

posted 05-15-2008 08:56 AM            

------------------
Ben

blalockben@hotmail.com

posted 05-15-2008 08:58 AM            

I have consulted him on issues of EDA collection methods and have found him to be honest, forthright and always helpful. I was even invited to come out and spend some time with him at the university.

We need to stop the silliness of "bashing" anyone who disagrees with our methods or assumptions (not backed by much research) about polygraph.

I watched the president of The American Society of Professional Graphologists describe, great detail, the personalities of the various presidential candidates on Fox news yesterday and was embarrassed for him for his explanation of what he "saw" in the handwriting. I then thought about what we do and say about what we see in the tracings of the polygraph chart and was more embarrassed but it was for myself.

posted 05-15-2008 05:04 PM            

Without going into the whole story, lets just say that was about seven years ago (maybe longer) and there was consensus with the core members on the board then that Honts was trashing pre-employment polygraph testing openly and that he might be co-horting with the likes of maschke/scalabrini. I basically made my decision based on the group's desires (however misinformed they might have been)...cause I didn't know anything about the man at that time.

Honts was then flaming mad and sent an email to me saying as much. He has never requested access since then.

Obviously, a lot has changed since then and I have no problem if he registers again and requests access to the private forum. So tell him to have at it. Of course, I still have to process him just like I do everyone else, but it shouldn't be a problem.

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

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

posted 05-15-2008 06:59 PM            

Cliche's may be a bit dorky, but we ARE all on the same team. My god-- some of these low blows are rediculous.

posted 05-15-2008 07:18 PM            

His message yesterday suggests that he seems fully capable of understanding that people can sometimes easily misunderstand his values, including mistaking his interest in polygraph as zealotry, or his cautions about polygraph as disloyalty. We need more people with his interest and commitment to science and telling it like it is.

He'll obviously be fine without this forum. As a collective, we are diminished without his occasional presence.

r

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

posted 05-16-2008 08:35 AM            

I am still very new to polygraph, but I have heard the Honts name and read some of his stuff. I have no problem with him being here.

I do think a couple of you owe something to Nate because he did not say Honts was a major threat, he only stated that his site was suspicious. Now...it does turn out that there were many others who were suspicious enough that they would no longer post if he(Honts) was a member. One member on the archives even did link him to Mashke. The website in question, the exact one Nate mentioned.

You can't blame Ralph; he was protecting his site.

Thanx for the find JB, there is a finders fee. But, if you read those posts it seems there must have been an earlier, detailed discussion and vote prior to that link.

Is there a chance that Honts is so angry about what happened that he would not participate in the site?

posted 05-16-2008 08:39 AM            

I think polygraph is poised to enter an era of a "successful flop." I am of course referring to the fosberry flop, Dick Fosberry's revolutionary high jump technique that was at first laughed at---but became through physics/math the gold standard of high jumping beginning with his gold medal in the 68 Olympics. Honts represented the aspect of academia that only said (paraphrased) that current multiple issue polygraph has hit it's ceiling of usefulness----and that we need a Fosberry Flop (my analogy.)

Check out Dick's revolutionary jump---and how the sport stretched far and above the known possibilities of how high humans could jump.

posted 05-16-2008 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

I do think a couple of you owe something to Nate because he did not say Honts was a major threat, he only stated that his site was suspicious. Now...it does turn out that there were many others who were suspicious enough that they would no longer post if he(Honts) was a member. One member on the archives even did link him to Mashke. The website in question, the exact one Nate mentioned.

---

Nate did, in fact, name Honts as at threat.

He did not simply state that the site was suspicious.

For people who can't read the graphic, it states:

quote:

---

DOUG WILLIAMS: www.polygraph.com
GEORGE MASCHKE: www.antiplygraph.org
CHARLES HONTS: www.caawp (subscription)

• Knows format, how polygraph and how countermeasures work.
  
• PRIMARY threat to us today
  

---

There evidently was never a www.caawp website.

Nate Gordon is a successful and well respected expert in this field. There is no dispute about that. He is, in fact, the kind of knowledgeable expert who would be unlikely to make this kind of error through naivety. That is why I felt it necessary to call the foul. There is more personal history at play. There is also an opportunity to improve our professional unity, and even improve our techniques. Some, though not all, of the mathematical and science/measurement problems I have noted with Nate's technique could be easily remedied.

I don't think Ralph is at fault here. Honts' values are evidently academic. He'll call it the way the data tell it, whether its convenient or not. It is easy, in the heated context of the 2003 discussion, appearances on TV and such, to understand why people felt unsure about what side of the table he sits on. It likely, that as an academic, he doesn't view this the same way we do - as opposite sides of a table - but as questions of knowledge and policy that are best informed by data.

.02

r

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

posted 05-16-2008 12:50 PM            

He also stated that his presentation was based on 30 years of polygraph testing and is his opinion based on his experience-and that we should listen with an open mind and take the information that we find useful.

I think that his presentation was taken out of context and not reported accurately.

------------------
"Truth Seekers"

posted 05-16-2008 01:49 PM            

It is not out of context. It is a powerpoint slide.

So lets try an empathy excercise which we would suggest of an offender in treatment.

Answer these questions:

• How would you feel if it were Nate's name on that list?
  
• How would you feel if it were your name on that list, with a bullet-point underneath, which reads "PRIMARY threat to us today?"
  

Like this:

quote:

---

CK

• Knows polygraph formats, and how polygraph and countermeasures work?
  
• PRIMARY threat to us today

---

Please let us know if that would somehow not bother you.

.02

r

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

posted 05-16-2008 04:08 PM         

You have a distinct advantage over me, as I wasn't there to hear what was said. In terms of what's on the slide, I note that "Mid level" (the topic of the slide) is encircled. Perhaps the two lines below the Honts' name should not have been indented. If so, one could then interptet the slide as indicating that in midlevel CMs, the examinee "knows polygraph formats, and how polygraph and countermeasures work" and that it is mid-level CMs (not the 3 people listed above) which is the greatest threat today.

At least, that's how I characterize mid-level CMs, and many of the other slides seem to parallel my presentations.

Peace,

posted 05-16-2008 04:40 PM            

You are correct about the other content, and that Nate expressed mid-level countermeasures as the greatest threat to most of us non-gummit examiners.

I agree that the slide shouldn't be bulleted the way it is. But it is what it is.

The context is a room full of interested examiners (20-30 persons), who were largely unfamiliar with Honts and his career.

Nate is correct that the following slides address Williams and Mascke in more detail. But he did take the time to detail the content of this slide, including Honts, before proceeding into that material.

So, my question is: what kind of context makes this into an "uninentional" or "innocent" mistake?

Nate is a studied expert in this subject. He's also admitted his disdain for Honts. I, for one, do not view the content of this slide as a responsible presentation of the material. I view it as an expression of Nate's personal dislike for Honts, disguised as training content.

r

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

posted 05-16-2008 06:32 PM            

quote:

---

Ray I see what you are talking about and maybe it is just a case of each attendee interpreting the material and presentation differently.

---

No CK, its not a just a case of of people interpreting the content differently.

Its the content.

Mr. Gordon presented Honts as a "PRIMARY threat to us today."

In fact, Honts is an academic, a scientist, and an experienced examiner, who has contributed greatly to the field of polygraph. That was not part of the presentation content. Instead Nate's personal feelings seem to have superceeded his scientific objectivity.

No one doubts that much of Nate's training is sound. This bit could use some adjustment.

There are other issues with his technique that could be more scientific, and some things that I think are going to be long-term sticking points.

.02

r

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

posted 05-16-2008 06:34 PM            

Nate and others are self appointed treasurers of the secret of CQ polygraph. I wish we had no secrets. In fact, the profession as a whole seems quite obsessed with all things intrepid. Talking to many examiners is like talking to spies---as they all seem very preoccupied with secrets and cryptic occupations. Enough with the James Bond stuff. Just look at THE WORD "countermeasures." It suggest an activity to THWART an ATTACK(!). We don't say that someone uses countermeasures during a math exam---we say that they (tried to) "cheat." Further, stating repeatedly to young examiners that there is a "threat" to polygraph----the word threat is presumptuous----like a goofy bastard in Holland is some sort of leopard in waiting. He is not a threat, he is an opponent. There is a difference.
I suppose our language reveals our collective worldview regarding the professions' role in society. Secretive, intrepid, poised to attack. I am as guilty as anyone for falling prey to the inherent paranoia of our trade. But at times we need to step back and stop running from the shadows. The closest thing to a threat that either Douge, George, or even Dr. Honts poses is that they simply suggest that what some of us do is crappy testing and that the threat lies with the potential of us looking aweful to the public. Again, Skip's claim that polygraph needed better public representation is spot on----and Hont's ascertion that applicant screening testing is not spectacular---even crummy---is a good thing to know. It seems to me thatwhat we are doing poses the great threat, not academics.
With all the sabre-rattling, paranoia, and hyperbole aside, to utter Dr. Hont's name in the same breath (or slide)as the criminally mischevious Maschke is just intellectually lazy.

posted 05-17-2008 12:29 AM            

I know that I have heard more than one good judge address this situation and it is always a quick close.

Points have been made and I don't see this developing into a healthy debate.

I agree with Gordon on the bullet issue.

Let’s move on to better things regarding substantive issues.