posted 04-11-2008 11:24 PM            

The employee was interviewed only once by the investigator so the date/location/issues had already been set.

In my opinion, asking such a broad question could have easily resulted in a DI, but manual and computerized scoring came up with a NDI.

Based on the charts, the examinee was upfront with his info.

Advice/info

posted 04-12-2008 12:33 AM            

The hypothesis that a broader relevant question would increase sensitivity to deception, is probably an extension of our logic about comparison questions.

There are, however, a couple of alternative viewpoints. First, the word "knowingly" is near and dear to legal minds because its part of mens rea, along with things like intentionally, recklessly, and negligently.

In the practical sense, we field polygraph investigators are not in the business of determining mens rea, but behavior. We don't care why someone one did it or why they didn't do it. We want to know only whether they did it or not. It is up to the adjudicating authority to determine the meaning of the behavior and degree of culpability. We simply find the behavior.

To illustrate the ridiculousness of mens rea as a polygraph target, imagine this one: "Did you intentionally touch that girl's breast/chest area? A lot of sex offenders would love to answer that question as often as possible. The only correct answer is: his hands shouldn'a been anywhere near there, and he's responsible for where his hands go.

Or this one: Did you knowlingly touch that girl's private parts? (of course not, he was too drunk. right?)

Or this: Did you recklessly engage in a sexual contact with that woman? (HIV+ subject)

Maybe this is better: Did you negligently engage in sexual contact with that woman?

Of course, these are PCSOT examples. Sex offenders, like other criminals, are wonderfully great rationalizers.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. PCSOT or not, polygraph is polygraph. If there are valid principles for question formulation, why would the be different just because there is a different testing context?

I don't disagree with the wisdom of broader comparison questions. But consider what really happens inside a deceptive subject who'se excuse (and defense) is "I didn't know that's what I was doing." (there is probably a lot of other fuzziness about these subjects). Ask him "did you do it" and you force him to tell the truth or lie about his behavior. Ask him "did you knowingly do it" and he's beat you before you start the test - because you aren't asking about his behavior but about his motivation for behavior (how's that for psychologizing). He's got the examiner colluding with his excuse - that he didn't know what he was doing - instead of doing his job.

PCSOT questions would be flattly rejected in Colorado if they included any words like "purposefully," "intentionally," "knowingly" - these are excuses. The way we work with dangerous offenders is that we attribute intentionality to everything, 'cause if it ain't about choice then there ain't gonna be no learnin' to make different choices (or at least learning to make different choices will have no bearing on dangerous behavior that is independent from choice)

I know its not your test Fed, I'm just ranting.

Here is what Merriam Webster says about "knowingly"

quote:

---

knowingly
One entry found.

knowing[2,adjective]

Main Entry:
2knowing
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century

1: having or reflecting knowledge, information, or intelligence2 a: shrewdly and keenly alert : astute b: indicating possession of exclusive inside knowledge or information 3: cognitive4: deliberate
— know·ing·ly adverb
— know·ing·ness noun

---

So, we're basically asking whether he knew what he was doing...

In my view, adding this kind of language to test questions is a feel-good exercise in officiousness.

I have further problems with the question about lieing to the investigator. I know that is serious, but its also common. So that could easily be a probably lie question... Aside from that, if he were guilty of the accusation, he has again succeeded at deflecting the focus of concern off of his behavioral involvement in the accusation, and onto a less important concern (unless lying to the investigator is more important than the target issue).

So, I could just as forcefully argue that the broader question could be an easy NDI question. If the technique was an (army) MGQT, with this one in position 8, you have further concerns when you consider that Krapohl & Dutton (2005) found the last two questions on army MGQT exams shifted in a positive direction.

I'm guessing this was a Zone test, though, scored as single issue exam.

The real question is not whether any of us would have done it differently, but whether the test questions would have worked as intended. I would expect the test to work, as as a whole, with that question alongside two question about direct involvement (did you do it).

One way to determine if that question worked, would be to calculate a one-way ANOVA, on the spot scores. You could also use canonical correlation (but that would be brain damage at this hour). With the one-way, you'll have to use a nonparametric method because your N is 9 presentations of the questions. If that or the other question scores differ significantly, then I think you are more sure that the question is not working like the others.

Don't have access to a nonparametric one-way ANOVA? I can help with that. I have a spreadsheet do the job in just moments, using a Kruskal-Wallis test.

If you are able to post the numerical scores for each of the components at each spot, that might be interesting (or it might just put people to sleep).

Is there video to review?

In the end, questions is questions, and charts is charts.

and this all just my,

.02

niters,

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

posted 04-12-2008 01:18 PM            

the question is very broad and general as you stated. Reason would dictate it would have been problematic for the examination.

If he was truly NDI, I say describe it as an overencompassing RQ, but since he "passed", it was not an issue. If he had been DI, then we'd have a different discussion.

posted 04-12-2008 02:47 PM            

Only audio was available.

I'm on the outside looking in, but its my understanding the agency's attorney did not object to the questions. I have a gut feeling the agency's attorney expected the employee to go DI and now he has to battle the NDI results. I think I going to become that little duck at the shooting gallery.