posted 03-19-2008 09:39 AM            

quote:

---

Raymond,
As a private examiner who accepts requests for fidelity related credbility assessments, I resent your repeted suggestions that I am in some way an unprofessional bottom feeder.

---

wjallen,

I think you are over-generalizing and over-personalizing my assertions about fidelity testing and my cheap-shots at Grogan.

I did refer to Grogan as a bottom-feeder and I have raised discussion about professionalism, as have others. I have also been critical about fidelity tesing practices, specifically those fidelity exams that are self-referred and do not include the assistance of a qualified professional in integrating polygraph data (disclosure) and polygraph results (pass or fail) into the discussion and resolution (which sometimes includes the termination of a relationship or family) of a marital or relationship crisis involving mistrust or infidelity.

I do not mean to disparage you or any other individuals with my comments about Grogan or fidelity testing, and for that I do apologize.

I have done fidelity type tests, when they are referred by a psychotherapist.

I will add though that part of what it means to be a “profession” is to fit ourselves into the practical matrix of other professions, including all forms of counseling social systems intervention, just as part of what it means to be a “science” is to fit ourselves into the matrix of related sciences (including medical, social, and measurement sciences).

I welcome any discussion about the merits, value, and field practices of fidelity testing.

So here is your assignment, should you choose to accept this mission:

• Contact the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Counseling Association, American Association for Marriage Family Therapy, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Association of Christian Counselors. You can also find the associations for nursing psychotherapists and whatever other related profession provides counseling to couples in crisis over issues of infidelity or mistrust.
  
• Take a survey of their positions and attitudes about the value of polygraph testing as an alternative to counseling services for couples in crisis vs, the value of polygraph testing as an adjunct to counseling services.
  
• Let us know the results.

(this message with self-destruct in 20 seconds)

Also, tell us more about your professional position and field practices re fidelity polygraph testing:

Some past questions:

• Is it your professional position or belief that couples experiencing a marital or relationship crisis are prepared to address the complications associated with a passed or failed polygraph test result without assistance?
  
• Do you, as a polygraph professional, endorse the value of polygraph testing as an alternative to counseling, or as an adjunct to counseling, for couples in crisis over issues of trust or infidelity?
  
• Would you, as an individual professional, proceed with a self-referred fidelity polygraph if you knew the couple were attending counseling but you had no contact, involvement, or referral from the counselor?

There are, of course, even more practical questions such as whether you would endorse or require the practice of video/audio recording for fidelity exam, and those dreaded discussions about target selection, question formulation, and numerical scoring.

And some questions for our profession as a whole:

• Do we, as a polygraph profession, want other professions to take seriously the potential value of polygraph testing for couples in crisis?
  
• Do we, as a polygraph profession, endorse the value of counseling for couples in crisis?
  
• If we do not require counseling, as a professional standard of our own, for couples who seek polygraph testing as a means of resolving a relationship crisis, by what standard of assessment to we judge which couples seeking polygraph exams do, and which do not, "need" counseling? Are we, as polygraph examiners, qualified to make that judgment?
  
• Do we, as a polygraph profession, think we are going to win the endorsement or support of other professions if we do not endorse their expertise in there particular fields?
  

I think you can guess most of my answers.

Within a year or two of completing polygraph school, I once watched a well-respected colleague (who has an advanced degree in the social sciences) conduct a fidelity exam on a woman with three children, ages 1, 2, and 3. She was attempting to salvage her marriage in the context of her husbands suspicions that she was being unfaithful. My colleague conducted the exam with all three children present in the room. The infant was in a car seat, which she rocked it with her foot to keep the child calm during the examination (yes, while testing). She held the 2-year old in her arms because the child was fussy or upset. The 3-year-old wandered the room during the exam. She passed. The husband called very upset the following day, sure she had done something to cheat or defeat the test. For this, the examiner charged roughly twice the rate I charge for PCSOT exams. The examiner runs a successful business , and didn't “need” the money.

My present view is that this type of thing occurs because of the lack of standards for fidelity examination practice. (Yah Jim, I know, ASTM...)

Which brings us back to the old adage: “Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.”

So, my last question for us all is whether we believe that it will serve the long-term needs and objectives of our profession to continue the present model of unregulated and unstandardized fidelity polygraph testing?

.02

r

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

posted 03-20-2008 09:21 AM            

I totally concur with your concerns. To me, fidelity testing is like doing PCSOT testing without the treatment provder or the p/p officer in the matrix. Yes, you might get the answer to your questions, but what is then done with the results?

I don't even like the idea of referrals by attorneys in fidelity testing as there is no one to pick up the pieces when you are done.

posted 03-21-2008 11:42 AM            

I also welcome discussion about the merits, value, and field practices of fidelity testing.

After a thoughtful presentation of important concerns about fidelity testing you cite an example of a fidelity exam conducted with children present in the testing room and state it is your view that this type of thing occurs because of the lack of standards for fidelity practice. My observation is that the exam you witnessed was pure fraud. No set of standards will deter an examiner who is collecting data while the subject rocks a baby with her foot and I trust your ethics complaint against him was favorably resolved.

Skip has heard of suspicious spouses questioning the results of fidelity tests. So have I, but I have heard the same questions about the results of LEPET, PCSOT, CQT, R/I and any other technique or format you care to mention.

Barry, in a previous thread, cited concerns that a lack of formal investigation could cause problems for target selection and question construction. A valid concern to be sure, but one that applies to all types of exams. I have seen investigations done by spouses that produced information that would meet or exceed any agency's standard.

Stat is concerned with the potential for domestic violence. Again, that could occur after a failed LEPET, PSCOT, EPPA, or any other format.

All of these concerns are valid and importantbut I fail to see that any are exclusive to fidelity testing.

My professional position and personal belief is that everyone is entitled to the truth and couples who have sought and received an impartial, professional credibility assessment are in a better position to decide for themselves how to resolve their unique situation than the same couple lacking that independent assessment. I always reccommend they seek help but the choice is theirs. Whether they seek out a licensed clinical psychologist, a psychiatrist, a psychic, an astrologer, a social worker, a pastor, an attorney, a trusted family member of friend, or decide to work it out between themselves, as some prefer to do, we as a profession are nor in a position to dictate their choice.

As to your final question, I believe we already have sufficent regulations and standards of practice which, IF FOLLOWED, meet the needs for fidelity testing.

posted 03-21-2008 12:24 PM            

Fidelity testing most often in my experience involves a majority of people who---shall we say, are less than classy. The greater market of that test are individuals who pay very close attention to the refined TV shows such as Springer, Montel, Maury----TV shows which depict the results of the polygraph as being---"99% accurate", completely trustworthy, and the "final say." They come to you wanting closure to a very polarizing marital query. You said;
quote------------------------------
"My professional position and personal belief is that everyone is entitled to the truth and couples who have sought and received an impartial, professional credibility assessment are in a better position to decide for themselves how to resolve their unique situation than the same couple lacking that independent assessment"
---------end quote--------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly, every one deserves the truth. But when couples are ignorant to a host of marital options and strategies, come to you for "the truth" with a multiple issue query, do you tell them that you cannot distinguish "credibility" between the questions? Do tou tell them that the accuracy of such a test is arguably 78%, and as good as 89%? Do you admonish them from taking the familiar "Maury" route of condemning the flunkee and divorcing the tested spouse upon termination of the test? Are you sure that the male spouse doesn't have a history of battery?

I know that in PCSOT and LEPET testing, we examiners have a pretty good history of such behavior from criminal records and psych tests.

Allow me to tell my own war story of a domestic fidelity test.
The husband wanted his wife tested. He told me that he would divorce his wife if she fails---despite my recommendations to the contrary. His wife, in the test (yes, I was a dumbass for beginning a test) told me that she was regularly beaten by the man, and that if she failed her test, he told her in secret that he would kill her.
I terminated the test and called the fuzz.

You sound like a nice guy---and I understand where you're coming from. You make good points. But the sooner you realize the true differences between the measured actions of other modalities and the wilderness of empowering "plain folks" with exercising the consequences of a test that, if it is taken too seriously, will do irrepairable harm to countless generations of that family or worse, be a lynchpin for murder----the better you will be as an examiner.

You are no bottom feeder. In domestic testing, you are feeding far more "on top"---perhaps too much so.

"everyone deserves the truth." Tell'em the real accuracy numbers my brother.

posted 03-21-2008 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

My professional position and personal belief is that everyone is entitled to the truth

---

Can any of us guarantee we can provide that in these situations? We can conduct a specific incident test, that if done correctly, can indicate a high probability of of truthfulness. However, I suspect many are running single-issue (of sorts) screening exams.

quote:

---

...couples who have sought and received an impartial, professional credibility assessment are in a better position to decide for themselves how to resolve their unique situation than the same couple lacking that independent assessment.

---

How do you know that? George Maschke believes we're all charlatans.

quote:

---

Stat is concerned with the potential for domestic violence. Again, that could occur after a failed LEPET, PSCOT, EPPA, or any other format.

---

Let's be real here. What are the chances of domestic violence as a result of any of those issues? If history is any predictor of the past, then it's highly unlikely. How about DV issues with those who have been unfaithful? Well, those of us who do or did work the streets can tell you that many of our DV calls were the result of a fear of unfaithfulness. Those calls are a dime a dozen.

I think you could have issues after a PCSOT, but that's why you have more than just the polygraph examiner involved, so you argue against your point with that one.

If I went to my doctor and said I was having trust issues with my wife (meaning I thought she was cheating), do you think in a million years he'd refer me to a polygraph examiner? No, he'd refer me to a professional therapist because the issue is bigger than what the test can tell me. So, would the AMA, the big APA or any other professional organization in the world with training in the dynamics of this issue support your position? I doubt it. And, that's where civil liability comes in to play.

We have a professional duty to know our limits, and most of us aren't therapists. To send two people out the door with a "Yes, you're right, she's a cheatin ho" - which is what many will hear - is not good.

I consulted on a test once in which a person had been accused of inappropriate contact with another years earlier. He was looking to be ordained in a large denomination. He denied involvement. Long-story short, he admitted the conduct (which was outside the statute of limitations). Neither I nor the examiner left that day until professionals were in place to deal with the guy. He was flown out shortly thereafter to an institution who could help him. (After all, his whole world just crumbled around him. The same can be true when the results of a test could mean the same thing.)

That same test could have been done for his future girlfriend, wife, or whatever, and my guess is his emotional health never would have been addressed.

There are many examiners who don't believe polygraph should be allowed in court because of the errors. (Just ask any guy who does QCing on a regular basis.) Others think it's okay because of the safeguards that are in place to help the trier of the fact determine how much weight to put into the test. (Don't forget, investigators, therapists, POs, etc, all do the dame thing.) Do we educate the parties involved in domestic testing as to how to make those judgements? I doubt it. Instead, polygraph becomes the judge and jury.

posted 03-21-2008 03:44 PM            

I do not market fidelity testing, since I don't market at all, but I have from time to time had requests for them, which I have sometimes honored. I have tested attorneys, medical doctors, nurses, Ph Ds, active and retired military and police, many business owners, a professional bullrider, more than one politician and yes, the husband of a stripper. I take a fidelity test exactly as seriously as any other test. I answer every clients and subjects questions to the best of my ability. The Springer crowd, your term not mine, may call but my quoted fee usually ends that conversation. I have had former clients and subjects thank me years later and have never been told by anyone that my test made their situtation worse. I have never had any incidence of violence in my office and I am not aware of any that have been a direct cause of violence later.

Any failed polygraph has, at least, the potential to provoke violence, domestic or otherwise. My experience with this type of testing has been good.

Barry

I should have written that every couple has the right to seek the truth.

posted 03-21-2008 04:48 PM            

And you tell your clients that the test is 78-89% accurate, right? You definitely wouldn't use the 96%-98% figure right? By using DACA's "credibility assessment" term, you certainly would be consistant and use their more modest research figures, correct?

You also get a third party to check backgrounds so that a batterer or better yet, a mischevious reporter doesn't come between you and the funny pages, right?

I charged $600-$700 for domestics in my time. Funny how "Springer types" can actually come up with a steep fee. I could have charged $1100, and it wouldn't have mattered.

I wonder, do you tell your husband hiring clients about what your wifie control questions were? Have you ever had a client call after a test, steamed, asking why you asked questions on the test that you didn't tell him about?

Do you write reports of your domestic tests? Somehow, I doubt you do most days.

Are you handsome? Do you wear nice suits? Have you ever had a man verbally express jealousy over you having necessary sexual discussions with his wife in his absence/ during the test? Ever have a wife tell you her husband has too small of a penis------do you put that in the report Joe? If not, than if he requests a video, how does he feel when he hears such and you withheld the disclosure? I can go on and on and on, but you have all perfect tests with clean-cut, atypical married couples---all having their "credibility assessed" with a testing modality that not one thread of research backs up.

Just because Tylonol gets rid of a headache, does not mean it gets rid of a stomach ache.

Defending regular 'ol polygraph isn't so easy with the damage that errors OUT OF OUR CONTROL cause, but it IS possible. Defending domestic fidelity testing without great safeguards---like sharing the responsibility with a therapist---is impossible.
I am FOR fidelity testing too. However, we don't need a deuchebag like Maschke to show us that we tend to do silly, unsupported and even dangerous stuff.

posted 03-22-2008 12:02 AM            

I just wanted to put my two cents in here as I do quite a bit of fidelity testing here in the S.F. Bay area, and test every sort of combination of couples, and even an occasional French Menage, that you can imagine. I generally do such tests either on short notice for private couples, or scheduled in advance when a therapist feels that the couple is at an impass in their sessions. As you might imagine the no show rate, or cancellation rate is high. Therefore, I always schedule them for dinner hour, so that if they do not show, I'm out the door anyway.

My observations may be different than yours, but I find them consistent. First, when testing someone who has been accused of cheating / infedelity; by the time I / you meet them they have been sufficiently hen pecked to where the accused is tired of every third or fourth conversation being about their cheating. Further, the other end of the pair is tired of feeling cheated on whether valid or not. So, what is going to compete with that ongoing engrained experience in the way of a Comparison question ? I find Lie type Comparisons (Even your favorites / best ones) are too weak, and will produce too many inconclusives. Therefore, I believe psychologically the only thing that can compare / compete for psychological set is a Sex comparison question. Think about it, the test for the woman is about trust, commitment, sanctity of the bond. For the man, it is about extra sex; pure and simple. What would be worse for the male party benig tested than for their mate to think they have cheated ? Perhaps only that they were in some way otherwise odd sexually !!!

We say in PCSOT testing that we should use lie comparisons as sex comparisons would be too hot for their mindset, so I take the reverse mirror image of that in relation to marital / fidelity testing in that there must be something that can compete with the extra sexual activity queston at stake. Even if the subject did have some unknown sexual deviatio to their partner in the macro, it would not compete for psychological set in our environment when doen right. Only the Truthful test subject will see those as a superior threat and NEW objection by the party they care about, or if they thought that way about them. I usually introduce such C questions as consistent with the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" which few men have read. I have NEVER yet had a women say she has not heard of that book, and it reinforces the value of those C questions in the male subject.
What can I say but that it is a tried and true formula that gets them down to the bottom line truth.

posted 03-22-2008 08:56 AM            

quote:

---

What can I say but that it is a tried and true formula that gets them down to the bottom line truth.

---

When all is said and done that kind of begs the question doesn't it? I'd like to see the study on which you base that conclusion. How many errors do you make? How do you know that? What are the ramifications?

quote:

---

I was only relating my personal experience and opinion. I was not making an argument.

---

Exactly. You used anecdotal data to support your position (i.e. your opinion), and that's an argument. GM does much the same often; however, he actually sites real research to support some of his conclusions.

We've got to get past the days in which we say "It's always worked for me, so therefore it works." Without data we have no way of knowing. There are still people out there who make that same argument (or opine) that 20 question tests work for them.

posted 03-22-2008 10:52 AM            

Seems like a simple best practices would raise the respect for the mdality amongst ourselves. Slam dunk I say.

Some rules, some elementary research, and some uniformity of advertisement---and a printable pdf document to give to couples. Easy peasy.

I realize having a therapist is too much to expect from the industry as a whole, but some simple measures could be taken to patch that hole, I think.

I am afraid I have offended many examiners with my typical brash style----the same style that gets me in trouble at home from time to time. I apologize for insulting the men and women who work very hard to run the best fidelity tests that they can. Effort does count for something.

There are sticky issues surrounding the modality, and with the help of people like Joe and Pat to give advice on what seems to work, I think we could raise the bar on the mode sans the research. Sometimes we have to do what we can with what scant tools we have. It's better than the default alternative.

Here's an idea. How about an APA subcommitee for "Fidelity Testing" specifically, rather than just the broader "private examiner" committee/ president. It might take a year to agree on the structure of best practices, but hell, it's better than never. I can't for the life of me understand why Complete Equity Markets hasn't insisted on such long ago.

posted 03-22-2008 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

I realize having a therapist is too much to expect from the industry as a whole, but some simple measures could be taken to patch that hole, I think.

---

No. It is not. I'm not even opposed to attorney referrals for fidelity exam. Any professional involvement would help.

What we have to think about is not just one exam, but the polygraph profession and how it is either supported or denigrated by other professionals. It earns us no respect to engage in unregulated activity as a replacement for regulated professional activities (counseling).

Joe,

Thank you for your response.

From your answer

quote:

---

My observation is that the exam you witnessed was pure fraud. No set of standards will deter an examiner who is collecting data while the subject rocks a baby with her foot and I trust your ethics complaint against him was favorably resolved.

---

Fraud is a legal term. “Sham” would be more accurate. There is nothing unlawful about the event.

I disagree that no set of standards would deter such activity, though I'll concede that standards of practice will not fix every problem. I believe that the existence of standard practice requirements would deter a number of problems, and that some examiners will do more thoughtful work when standards exist.

quote:

---

Barry, in a previous thread, cited concerns that a lack of formal investigation could cause problems for target selection and question construction. A valid concern to be sure, but one that applies to all types of exams. I have seen investigations done by spouses that produced information that would meet or exceed any agency's standard.

---

If you accept a referral from a spouse, then you are possibly playing into a power-and-control dysfunction in the relationship – something that should be the purview of a counselor, not a polygraph examiner.

You did not respond to my questions about the broader professional implications of fidelity testing in the as an alternative or as an adjunct to the activities of so many regulated counseling professions.

quote:

---

Stat is concerned with the potential for domestic violence. Again, that could occur after a failed LEPET, PSCOT, EPPA, or any other format.

All of these concerns are valid and importantbut I fail to see that any are exclusive to fidelity testing.

---

quote:

---

My professional position and personal belief is that everyone is entitled to the truth and couples who have sought and received an impartial, professional credibility assessment are in a better position to decide for themselves how to resolve their unique situation than the same couple lacking that independent assessment.

---

You just missed the point. Self-referred polygraph exams are arguably not an independent assessment. It does not good to get one's feelings hurt over this. Any police applicant or candidate for a security position could hire a fully qualified and experienced private investigator to conduct one's background investigation. An ethical and independent investigator could save a department a lot of time and expense. Unfortunately, all that would really produce is concerns about the independence, impartiality and ethics of the investigator and the applicant.

The threshold of concern in professional ethics is not “conflict of interest,” but “possible conflict of interest.” To be absolutely sure of the independence or objectivity of the investigation, many agencies employ their own investigators and polygraph examiners. That way there is no need to even wonder about the agenda or independence or ethical concerns of the investigator.

We have somehow managed to miss this point time and time again, in politics, business, and professional work. We have lowered our standards to the point were we tolerate possible conflicts of interest, as long no-one can prove anything and as long as someone disclaims any impropriety. In science, and in many professional boards, it is expected that people openly declare possible conflicts of interest.
Professionals in security settings have not missed this point, and remain alert about the fact that we should never even have to wonder about “possible” activity when a nuclear scientist goes to guest-lecture at the University of Bejing.

Similarly, we shouldn't have to wonder about the activities of a sexually violent predator whose whereabouts were unknown while he was not at work, as scheduled, for three hours.
So, if we are marketing our professional services as professional, independent and objective, then we really should require professionalism, independence, and objectivity. Part of providing those attributes means relieving others of having to wonder about the possibilities.
In many private practice professions these concerns are also mitigated by standards of practice, consumer rights to obtain a second opinion, and methods for recourse in the case of problems.

Private practice polygraphy had has only minimal standards for most forms of testing. That's partly why polygraph got its arse burned in the 80s. But its not just the lack of standards, its also the lack of coherent theory and data that should be able to legitimize what we do. Standards without science and data are unimpressive, and amount to simple professional imprinting.

That we value truth is fine. There are, however, always limits to our entitlement to truth. For example: am I entitled to know the truth about everything, including my neighbor's tax status and marital difficulties, or masturbatory habits. While that is an obvious example, it serves to demonstrate that entitlement to truth is a value that is subject to privacy boundaries and propriety.

Marriages and intimate relationships too are subject to boundaries. Some married couples use separate toothbrushes, keep separate computer systems, and file taxes separately. My grandparents even slept in separate beds, like Lucy and Ricky. If marriages did not include boundaries, then there would be no need for discussion about criminalizing things like marital rape.

Consider this: a number of counseling professionals would endorse the idea that that successful relationship are founded on good communication, but also on about 1000 unsaid things.

quote:

---

I always reccommend they seek help but the choice is theirs. Whether they seek out a licensed clinical psychologist, a psychiatrist, a psychic, an astrologer, a social worker, a pastor, an attorney, a trusted family member of friend, or decide to work it out between themselves, as some prefer to do, we as a profession are nor in a position to dictate their choice.

---

We, as a profession, are in a position to dictate our own activities, which presently include no requirements for video/recording, no protocols for recourse or obtaining a second opinion, and no requirements for a written report. We have an ethical obligation to consider carefully what we do as professionals.

Think about it: we are basically in the business of give someone BAD NEWS. Either an investigator was incorrect in his formulation of a case, or we're gonna tell the test subject he's going his room for a long long time. In PCSOT, we have to tell a PO or treatment provider their client is violating rules, crossing boundaries, or harming others – or they have to give some narcissistic bastard more credit than they are comfortable with. In fidelity testing, either one partner is cheating and extremely selfish, or the other is insecure, punishingly suspicious, or delusional.

quote:

---

As to your final question, I believe we already have sufficent regulations and standards of practice which, IF FOLLOWED, meet the needs for fidelity testing.
Joe

---

And finally, that there is this level of disagreement among us is further evidence that the present minimal-standards approach may be insufficient.

.02

r

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

posted 03-22-2008 01:21 PM            

You can call it a sham. In our state, if a person in a business accepts payment for service and then only pretends to perform that service, and if the amount exceeds $250., they can be charged with felony fraud which carries criminal and civil penalites. What's the statute in Maine, Barry?

posted 03-22-2008 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

It shall be unlawful for any PDD examiner conducting a PDD examination to inquire into an examinee=s sexual preference or behavior or construct any question which by its verbiage may be construed to be sexually oriented, unless the examination is being conducted in the course of either a criminal investigation or in the course of civil litigation where sexual behavior is at issue.

---

posted 03-22-2008 06:41 PM            

I wonder what other states have such a law. Having read your thread many moments ago, I am still in shock. Really? Illegal?

I bet Rays catapult would be illegal there too. And you just know they wouldn't let me fire bottle rockets out my arse either!

CAUTION! This type of nose-picking is illegal in Maine

posted 03-23-2008 08:13 PM            

I see fidelity testing as totally valid and I feel sorry for the flak given to the poster of this topic for voicing out.

A counsellor would be hesitant to refer clients for a polygraph for many reasons namely he/she would be reffering their clients away to the polygraph profession and a polygraph result may undermine their work.

Thats why a lot of examiners shy away from here leaving only the regulars so focused on their fight with looney tunes gm.

posted 03-23-2008 09:51 PM            

You have opinions, but no substance on which to base them articulated in your response. You need to articulate why you "see fidelity testing as totally valid" if you want your opinion to count for anything.

In law enforcement (and the legal community as a whole), we aren't allowed to simply express our feelings, opinions or conclusions (though many do it all the time and don't understand why their cases don't get prosecuted). Instead, we must articulate facts and apply them to the law to justify our positions, or more accurately, to let others come to their own conclusions. (That's not as easy, and we are always looking for the easy way out.)

This discussion is no different. We need to articulate and apply facts to come to reasonable conclusions. We are our own worst enemies. Look at your reply: blame the politicians. That's not the case. We have examiners - with doctoral degrees - opposed to PCSOT, fidelity testing and other issues, to name a few. We in Maine have talked about trying to get the law changed, but not all examiners agree it should be done. It has nothing to do with politicians.

quote:

---

A counsellor would be hesitant to refer clients for a polygraph for many reasons namely he/she would be referring their clients away to the polygraph profession and a polygraph result may undermine their work.

---

Now I could just state a conclusion and say that's stupid, but that does nobody any good. I'll tell you why I disagree and everybody can make their own decisions.

First, how do you know what any given counselor would be hesitant to do? There are many schools of thought when it comes to counseling. Ray said he only does such tests for counselors, so we know your statement is false.

How would it undermine their work? Could you connect the dots for those of us who are a little slow? Doesn't PCSOT involve a therapist? What am I missing? Why couldn't you say the same for lawyers or investigators?

quote:

---

Thats why a lot of examiners shy away from here leaving only the regulars so focused on their fight with looney tunes gm.

---

I guess I missed the the pronoun "that" refers to here. Would it be the "flak"? So a difference of opinion is "flak"? Have you attended any seminars? That's why some people go - just to see the fireworks.

What is my point in all of this? We all have a responsibility to our profession to make it better and forge ahead. That means we've got to learn to defend what we do, and be honest about what we can and can't do. We've been doing nothing but appealing to authority for years, and where's it gotten us? We have little respect from the larger communities to which be belong, because, in what is apparently our arrogance, we know it all.

This is a healthy discussion. We've talked about our limits and ethical responsibilities, among other things. There is clearly a debate in the polygraph community, which means the discussion is necessary. To say it's "flak" is lazy nonproductive. To blame everybody else as not getting it, which is what you imply, is irresponsible.

posted 03-24-2008 06:37 AM            

What then is the solution to the problems of occasionally bad work and our lack of credibility and support from other professions (outside of PCSOT therapists)?

r

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

posted 03-24-2008 09:14 AM            

quote:

---

But if my brothers think I am unethical I am deeply concerned.

---

I don't know that anybody is ready to brand those who do these tests as unethical. I think the issue has raised the question of ethics. None of us wants to hurt anybody, and if these tests can lead to more harm than good (on average), then we have an ethical duty to discuss it and work out a solution. I don't think that we in the polygraph community are qualified to answer that question. I think it would make a nice research question.

At this point, if a person claims harm during a test (for example, mental anguish during a test that was designed to show the other half is still the powerhouse in the relationship), a good lawyer could bring up the model licensing law which would seem to preclude them. That line of attack will hold whether you're an APA member or otherwise because it has the effect of being a national standard. Prior to seeing this, my thought was to leave this one alone (other than our conversations here) as I think a policy has the potential to be more of a liability than anything, but we have what might be a de facto policy now, and that's concerning. Add to that the fact that a lot of examiners refuse to do them, and you have a recipe for a good civil suit.

posted 03-24-2008 10:47 PM            

Your information about fraud is daunting, and I'll presume accurate.

The Maine statutes and prohibitions per proposed licensing laws are, in my view, a bit overly restrictive. I would favor allowing inquiry into sexually related matters under some form of professional referral.

As I said, I have done these tests. Some therapists are not afraid of the polygraph, realize its value and imperfections, and can comprehend how polygraph investigation data and polygraph results can be additive to process and decision in therapeutic settings.

Long term support and respect from other/related professions is possible if we conduct our work according to sound ethical and empirical principles and demonstrate that polygraph testing is largely, if not entirely, consistent with information from neighboring sciences. However, I doubt we'll accomplish much if we approach the matter from a posture of mysticism or bravado, or describe our work in idiosyncratic terms that are inconsistent with other knowledge.

Licensing is an interesting discussion, but any new licensing laws will be met with fierce and vicious resistance. It's possible that any polygraph licensing legislation will be met with alternative anti-polygraph legislation. We stand a better chance of long-term success if we raise our professional expectations ourselves, making it eventually easy for states to embrace a consistently packaged solution that includes: education and training standards, a qualification authority for reviewing individual, and a realistic model regulatory plan. The point is, we may have to put it into place ourselves first, then let states co-opt it.

.02

r

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

posted 03-25-2008 06:44 AM            

We need to learn from EPPA. A move away from compelled testing whenever possible would help with anti pressure. Notice how few complaints about EPPA tests are posted at AP.

posted 03-25-2008 06:44 AM            

We need to learn from EPPA. A move away from compelled testing whenever possible would help with anti pressure. Notice how few complaints about EPPA tests are posted at AP.

posted 03-25-2008 08:11 AM            

Some here are interested in amending our laws to allow asking questions of a sexual nature in certain circumstances not currently allowed. (I actually think a close reading of our statute (and the APA model act) prohibits attorney-client testing in some circumstances.) In any event, the fear is that any change attempt will be met by an attempt from the opposition to eliminate polygraph all together.

posted 03-25-2008 08:19 AM            

Audio starts at 27 seconds or so.

Warning; some profanity.