posted 02-25-2008 06:26 PM            

I guess when you're a big dog you lift your leg anywhere and anyway you please.

I don't doubt that Mr. Gelb scored the tests correctly, and that the gentleman in question is lying.

The process itself is not very impressive.

The reports are what we in the private practice world call "thin."

There is scant little detail. That's odd, even though the case is well known.

The language in the reports is a little arcane.

DoDPI is now DACA (out of fairness, I didn't noticed the change until someone pointed it out to me.)

DACA federal handbook 2006 (retrieved from AP), doesn't use Backster numbering.

The Bi-Spot Zone technique seems to be referred to now as the You-Phase.

Refering to calibration according to Axciton factory specifications is pure salesmanship. To my knowledge there is no calibration other than the pump bulb. It wouldn't matter if it were'nt calibrated, because we don't use actual blood pressure measurements anyway. It has no (nada, zippo, zero, zilch, none, nothing) affect on the accuracy or veracity of the results, and only affects the numbers displayed to the examiner.

Referring to blind QC is again salesmanship. QC is the purvue of the consumer - to find another expert and get a second opinion. This form of QC, places the examiner in charge of the process. What this really is should be called a "courtesy consultation" with another examiner. Its not QC. Courtesy consulation is still legitimate and helpful, but its not QC, and its not an independent second opinion. Furthermore, the emphasis on blindness is misleading. Blind scorers have not been shown to outperform original examiners. There is nothing to be gained from blindness on the part of a reviewer. Instead, there is something to be gained from contact between the reviewer and examiner. To go further, can anyone ever imagine a situation in which an examiner would include in a report a statement that the reviewer disagreed with the result? No. That would lead us to speculate that polygraph testing can have perfect or near perfect interrater reliability. Wonderful news.

I'm sure I'll regret this later or get my arse kicked somehow, but I'm sick and I'm grumpy.

.02

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

posted 02-25-2008 08:49 PM            

Internal to an agency, a minimal report makes sense. You already have the file information. Professionals in private practice generally write with the assumption that each report should stand on its own in adequately orienting the reader to the subject and purpose, including all of the salient detail that affects the conclusions - else, in real universities, your faculty committee sends you home for a re-write.

posted 02-25-2008 10:29 PM            

I'm with you. I had to reschedule work for today, because someone emptied the vacuum cleaner down my throat while I slept last night.

r

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

posted 02-26-2008 07:04 PM            

quote:

---

WhiteHouse.com has announced that it will post neither its video of Ed Gelb's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair, nor Gordon Barland's review of the results:

Quote:
After the events of yesterday and this morning we will no longer be posting the video of the Polygraph testing or the secondary Polygrapher Expert’s results. To be accused of taking a bribe to suppress this story along with all of the hate mail and messages sent by Larry Sinclair supporters who believe we did something to taint the results has been very disturbing.

No matter what we put up it will never be good enough for his supporters. Mr. Sinclair was also given every opportunity to let us talk to the limousine driver to corroborate his story and he failed to do so. This will be the last post on this matter as this matter needs to be put to bed. We will be going back to regular reporting.

Sadly, WhiteHouse.com's decision to withhold this information can only serve to fuel (with some justification) speculation regarding the true motivations for such a decision and what actually transpired in Gelb's polygraph suite.

---

Reading between the lines a little bit...

The concerns here is that WH.com is being accused of tampering with the polygraph?

Would not a video and QC report stabilize that concern?

So, we might never know, but can still wonder, whether the QC report was not completely in support of Mr. Gelb's exam or results.

.02

r

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

posted 02-26-2008 08:32 PM            

I for one am glad this is over and do not want to see a video and/or QC report at WH.com or any other place other than an examiners only site and/or examiner only training. WH.com should have thought about all these problems before they started this media circus.

posted 02-26-2008 10:26 PM            

Or maybe they are just going to have gay sex.

posted 02-26-2008 11:21 PM            

I like the ASTM Standard 2031-99 (reapproved 2004). Its a good start. Some things could be clarified further for my taste.

I cannot find where it says that QC reports go to the examiner.

I found this:

quote:

---

4.4 The person conducting the quality control review shall
attest, in writing, as to whether the test data supports the
conclusion rendered by the original examiner.

---

Sending the report to the examiner kind of defeats the purpose of QC - unless the purpose is to engage in some form of love-fest or simply provide feedback to the examiner.

QC is for the consumer of the polygraph test and results. So they can know more, and avoid any surprises later (in court), about the merits and weaknesses of a test.

Government agencies, and some police agencies, have QC programs because they know that they are the consumer of the results of agency polygraph exams, and they need to base decisions on exams that consistently adhere to protocol and training.

In private practice, it is the referring professional who is the consumer, who may engage in some form of action or decision as a result of an exam. Any consumer of professional work product, in any accountable profession, is reasonably entitled to a second opinion before proceeding.

It would be extraordinarily limp-wristed of ASTM to create a QC protocol that emphasized a systematic, independent, and objective review, and then gave the review to the examiner to determine whether it should be disseminated.

Polygraph secrecy needs can be met by properly structuring a QC protocol, which allows for feedback for the examiner, and a simple written declaration to the requesting professional consumer.

Let's face it folks. We already know we are not supermen, and sometimes have a bad day. That is inconvenient, and requires extra effort to rectify. But its just plain bad marketing to telegraph it to our consumers when we blow it, unless the potential cost of not addressing mishaps forthrightly exceeds the cost of addressing them properly. The only way to ensure that professionals remain forthright is to provide the necessary structure.

Part of that structure in Colorado, is that we have stated in writing that it is not possible reach conclusions about examiner competence from a single examination. Conclusions are about a single exam, and cannot be generalized beyond that. There are other mechanisms for examiner qualification.

I agree it would be fun to know more, or see charts. However, I would bet that all parties are subject to confidentiality agreements.

r

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

posted 02-27-2008 09:11 AM            

I found this at AP.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/ftp/sinclair-polygraph-barland-review.pdf

Its on a unsecured link at AP, but its on a secured server. Not sure why GM needs a secured server for this, but he probably tracks referrer fields. So I moved a copy to my server so he won't get a bunch of referrer fields from this PP IP.

Its a good example of a QC report. It details the matter and the rerral properly.

Dr. Barland does not hesitate to call it like it is. There appears to have been incomplete access to the digitized data and video.

Geeze, those polygraph reports don't even have the subject's DOB.

It would be most interesting now to see some charts and begin to understand why the computer score disagreed with hand-scores.

Donna's continual point is correct: computers don't make decisions. Professional make decisions, computers give information. Sometimes the information is useful. Sometimes its not.

The thing to keep in mind is that there is a reason the computer score disagrees with the handscore. Its not magic. Its math. Interest in those details will be one route towards incremental improvement.

r

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

posted 02-27-2008 04:58 PM            

I am the chairman of the committee for the quality control standard. I would like to invite everyone to give me any input concerning the revision of that standard. Whether it would be an addition, deletion or correction. When that standard was originally proposed I would be surprised if we had written input from more than 100 examiners. We did have plenty of verbal comments but trying remember what everyone you talked to said weeks or months later is, at least for me, not going to happen.

If I have it in writing I can address it. Keep in mind that I can't reproduce the standard here. That is how ASTM pays the bills. It is also why all the members of the ASTM committee for Psychophysiological Detection of Deception stress that every examiner should belong. You can purchase an individual standard for $8 (?) or you can become a member for $75 and get a copy of all the standards.

You can do as you like either way I and I believe any committee chairman will take your input and present it. Just remember that if you are not a member the main committee does not have to justify to you why they did not take your suggestion. They would if you were a member.

At any rate I would really welcome any input concerning the quality control standard or any standard you might want to discuss. In fact if you have input about a standard you think we need, please send it on.

Now if I get an overwhelming response to this post it might take awhile before I get back to you but I will. I am not worried as I rarely get more than two or three suggestions. Just e-mail me to the address listed. Please let me know if you are or are not a current member of ASTM as it can effect how I deal with the information you give me.

If you just want to discuss it here in this forum that is fine and if you don't want to discuss it at all anywhere that is fine also. Either way you have to live with the end result.

Jack