posted 02-09-2008 03:06 PM            

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

posted 02-10-2008 05:29 PM            

Nothing says "objective science" like a report that reads,

"On such-and-such date, I conducted a polygraph exam on you..."

r

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

posted 02-10-2008 10:49 PM            

Hey CK. Welcome back again. Ya gotta understand. You are asking advice on how to write a report for a type of test that has so many loaded turds in the barrel, it's tough to have any answers.
I've told couples results while they were together in my office and a Jerry Springer event took place---while I am shouting at them to leave. I have told one of the couples over the phone, only to have them show up at my door the next day----and the next day---2 days in a row, plus phone calls.
I have had men get a report and get angry and ask "what the F___ is this---I know she told you more than this!"

Scary stuff.

I stopped doing domestics years ago. My mentor told me he thought domestics were crap----I thought he was a "polygraph snob" and did them anyway. Eventually I learned he was very right, he just didn't do a good job of explaining WHY domestic testing is crap.

So I hope you don't mind some extra paragraphs from me, because you are asking a loaded question. Self referrals are the very lamest of the domestic variety. One of the last self-referrals I had was a female postal worker who hired me to prove to her husband that she wasn't having sex with a co-worker. She was very specific in her request of what questions I ask as relevants....CO-WORKERS ONLY----as she admitted to me that she was actually having sex with a man on her route, not a co-worker. I never met nor had any contact with the husband----and was unable to tell him anything even if I had a way to do so. I'll never do that kind of HS testing again.

I am a smart ass, but not at this moment. To keep it real with ya CK----as I can tell you like it that way, you're asking how to legitimize (write a report) on crap work.

posted 02-10-2008 11:23 PM            

CK; Hi guys, I was wondering, how do I maintain a Yugo for a cross country rally race?

Experienced Examiner (EE); Well, it's important to know just what sort of vehicle a Yugo is---the weaknesses, mechanical reputation (construction), and pitfalls of relying on such a vehicle.

CK; yeah yeah right....I just want to get my Yugo to have a winning race without any catastrophic failures or injuries.

EE; Well CK, the Yugo is a large, steaming piece of crap...perhaps the worst car ever driven.....and moreover, not the least of which is that it is dangerous, technically inferior, and not at all a proper vehicle for a commute----much less a race.

CK; Say, can you spare me the sanctimonious snobbery and just tell me how to run the race successfully? I thought you were supposed to help!

EE; Hey CK, the Yugo is a big hunk of junk and you will never finish, much less win any mechanical test with that vehicle. There is your help.

CK; whatever.

IP: Logged

posted 02-10-2008 11:44 PM            

It is my opinion that although it's an oxymoron, a "domestic testing best practices" would be helpful to examiners who want to avoid getting themselves shot at a Subway Sandwich shop, or to make attempts at keeping women from being killed by their psychologically unstable lovers----the number one reason for women getting murdered in the US.

CK, the problem with domestic testing isn't that it is "difficult" as you say. The problem is that it is too easy. Christ, you aren't even writing reports on your work! Sounds like a piece of cake man.

Folks aren't jumping you for jump's sake----they are concerned about you, the people you test, and the profession as a whole. As an examiner, you are a brother----like it or not.

posted 02-10-2008 11:56 PM            

til morrow
E

posted 02-11-2008 08:22 AM            

Anyway, I want to thank those several examiners that did send me example reports that work well when conducting a domestic issue test. I appreciate it.

Coo, Coo, Coo I love it, I love it!

posted 02-11-2008 11:20 AM            

quote:

---

What I do not want is an overblown explanation as to why these are "crap" tests. I know they are not ideal tests to run. Are we supposed to be helping each other out as examiners or constantly telling everybody that if they are not doing certain exams they are doing "crap" exams. Who decides what is "crap" and what isn't?

---

Might I just point out here that you want to separate the inseparable. I think Stat has given you some good illustrations as to why that is the case.

Let's look at the AAPP's Standard's and Principles of Practice:

quote:

---

BASIC USES OF THE POLYGRAPH

The polygraph examination should be a supplement to, not a substitute for, a field investigation.

The effectiveness of the polygraph examination, to a large extent, will be based upon the thoroughness of the investigation, prior to having the person take the examination.

To maximize the effectiveness of the polygraph examination, the investigator and the polygraphist must work together as a team.

---

Should you include that type of information in your report, i.e., that you had no independent investigator with whom you consulted prior to the test?

How about the APA's standards? This would be an "investigative" exam:

quote:

---

3.2.3 Investigative Examination: A polygraph examination for which the examination is intended to supplement and assist an investigation and for which the examiner has not been informed and does not reasonably believe that the results of the examination will be tendered for admission as evidence in a court of record. Types of investigative examinations can include applicant testing, counterintelligence screening, and post-conviction sex offender testing, as well as routine multiple-issue or multiple-facet criminal testing. Investigative examinations are required to be conducted with a testing and analysis technique that has been validated through published and replicated research.

---

What investigation did you "supplement"? Should you include language as to why you did or didn't run the exam according to those standards or principles?

I'm not taking a position here, but I don't think the question is a simple as you pose, and we could write at length as to what should be in there.

Should you include that the test is "crap" is that is the consensus of the polygraph community? I think that's a legitimate question.

posted 02-11-2008 12:42 PM            

just curious; what makes a specific issue fidelity test "crap" polygraph?

posted 02-11-2008 02:33 PM            

quote:

---

stat, et al,
just curious; what makes a specific issue fidelity test "crap" polygraph?

Jim

---

OK, try this:

A Law Enforcement applicant interested in the most favorable outcome to his job search and hiring decision, might approach a background investigator to inform that he had taken the initiative to save the BI a lot trouble and completed his own polygraph examination. The applicant has a written report, from a qualified examiner who graduated from an APA accredited polygraph school, and the test results verify that he has been completely truthful to the investigator.

Impressive?

How's this one:

A young adult block-head knows he will be suspected by this probation officer for using marijuana. Intent on making a good impression, he contacts a laboratory and arranges for a UA test, and forthrightly hand-carries the test results to his PO at the next supervision meeting.

Better yet:

An applicant seeking employment as a language translator in a government intelligence capacity that has geo-political importance knows that he will have to undergo lengthy and tedious background screening for security purposes. Eager to be of service to his country, the applicant contacts a polygraph examiner, successfully passes the examination regarding undisclosed contact with foreign nationals and submits the written test report to the agency to which he is applying.

Or this:

A juvenile with a history of delinquency is identified as a suspect in the investigation of several stolen car stereo in a local neighborhood. Wanting to avoid a further brushes with the law, and demonstrated that he has changed his ways, he hires a private investigator to verify his whereabouts at the time of the crimes.

Another one:

An adult male is experiencing chronic back pain and fears becoming less effective and jeopardizing or losing his employment. He contacts a physician, whom he informs of his difficulties, and requests prescriptions for Vicodin and Oxycodone. (In California, we'd say: a patient has chronic discomfort from cancer or glaucoma and requests a prescription for marijuana.)

And another:

A gallbladder surgeon is contact by a patient to schedule surgery. As the patient is paying out of pocket, he wishes to forgo the expense of evaluation by a general practitioner and simply schedule the surgery.

Does any of that work for any of us?

Doubtful.

The problem is that the subject of the test or investigation is attempting to control the process.

The one major missing piece is a professional referral source to whom the interventionist/investigator/examiner will answer and be accountable. Yes we are ethically accountable to our subjects, but we cannot permit them to put themselves in the possition of micro-managing the process. To be sure, any of the above situations could result in completely competent and ethically responsible work on the part of any of those professionals. But do we think the process itself is adequate? Do we thing that type of process is adequate to reduce, eliminate or elucidate shysters to the extent possible? Do we think that type of process adequate to ensure the long term viability and respectability of a profession?

I have no real problem with domestic polygraphs that are referred by a professional.

.02

r

(CK, I was trying for 20 paragraphs, but don't think I made it.)

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

posted 02-11-2008 02:58 PM            

quote:

---

Good point Sackett. If a person or couple is looking for our professional opinion on a specfic issue as to whether an extra-marital afair or similar issue has occurred and the examiner is willing to conduct the exam, then so be it. If an examiner is so concerned with the "shock" effect it is going to have on the relationship, then it is his choice not to conduct the exam.

---

The bigger and broader point is whether we want to have an unregulated and unstandardized profession, how we fit into the matrix of other professional activities, and whether we think neglecting these concerns will help our professional prevail against the arguments of anti-poly foes.

r

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

posted 02-11-2008 03:12 PM            

you gave a lot of effort in not answering my question.

You know as well as I do that without control (or oversight) of the examination process, the results of any reported investigative or polygraph effort can not be relied upon by another organization, dept or even examiner.

Additionally, in a single issue fidelity test, no-one but the examiner is controlling the process. So why introduce that as a disqualifier?

Besides, what makes you think that a referral by a "professional" is any more qualified or legitimate than a self or spousal referral? Information obtained is only that which is provided by the individuals involved anyway.

Thoughts?

back to my question. "What makes a specific issue fidelity test "crap" polygraph?" Your guys' words, not mine...

posted 02-11-2008 03:26 PM            

quote:

---

You know as well as I do that without control (or oversight) of the examination process, the results of any reported investigative or polygraph effort can not be relied upon by another organization, dept or even examiner.

---

posted 02-11-2008 03:34 PM            

I go to one of you and I tell you I want such a test. When we sit down for the pre-test (and you have my money), I tell you I want you to ask me if I ever had intercourse with anybody besides my wife / girlfriend / whatever. You want to ask me if I've ever had sexual contact with anybody else, but I tell you I'm paying the bill and this is what I want. What do you do? Do you give my money back, or do you play counselor and decide what I need in that report to help my relationship situation?

That doesn't happen when an unbiased therapist, PO, counselor, investigator, lawyer, etc, gets to the point at which he wants a polygraph.

Can you argue that you could end up with the same questions when all is said and done if the examinee approached you on his own? Sure you could. Would that be a "crap" test? I don't think so. Do we want to put ourselves in the position we could, and I'd guess often would, get into without an independent investigator of some sort?

posted 02-11-2008 03:35 PM            

"crap" is a bit of emphemistic hyperbole that may be hindering this conversation.

Lets go with "what it wrong with single issue fidelity exams?"

Or would that still not be answering the crap question?

A single issue exam is probably the best approach whenever possible. We all know that. Or, are you getting at something else? Of course they are not actually "crap" in the sense of dung and all that. So I want to avoid conveniently between metaphor and description. Are you asking what exactly is wrong with the fidelity test, or what would be wrong with the single-issue approach to the fidelity test?

Keep in mind that "control" and "process" refer not simply to the examination process, but larger process of referral, resolution of the referral issue, and who guides that process.

If you disagree that "control" and "process" refer equally to the larger macro-processes and about systemic control, and insist our concerns involve only whether the examiner controlled the real-estate inside the examination lab, then I'd ask whether you, in a law enforcement capacity, would accept, without requesting more information about the overall process, the results of a self-referred examination as resolution (or even as a single piece of information worth considering) with regard to some matter of investigation.

Yes the examiner can control a self-referred examination, just as the examiner could control the examination if a subject self-referred for LEPET examination before applying to the PD. But the bigger process is appropriate left to the control of the referring professional (investigator, therapist, supervision officer) That is the difference. To do otherwise is to attempt to usurp the role and authority of those professionals.

In the case of fidelity tests, there are inherent risks to the persons involved. Fidelity can be an inflamatory issue in some marriages. Trust and suspicion are also hot-buttons for some. In the worst of cases, these are accompanied by or associated with acts of domestic violence.

r

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

posted 02-11-2008 04:32 PM            

I should not have used the term "crap" when referring to domestic/fidelity testing. Although I won't lie, the fact that such serious professionals are typing the word "crap" repeatedly has some gratification----I am afraid I have debased the debate.

Domestic testing is "sketchy."

yeah, I like that word "sketchy."

And when you do sketchy types of work, it makes one feel like crap.

posted 02-11-2008 04:35 PM            

allow me to stop my aggitation of the subject.

I get it! Fidelity tests are worrysome and fragile. I was not the one who referred to them a "crap" I simply repeated, for the sake of argument and clarification, the need to understand why we, as a profession, have a hard time accepting single issue fidelity tests as legitmate and supportive, when engaged.

Barry, in your example, the test is run to the exclusion of other 'sexual contact" and the report or results are given with that very same caviat. While testing was performed to determine if "sexual intercourse" occurred, it does not rule out potential other sexual activities. Remember the golden rule of private practice, he who has the gold makes the rules... This, of course, is one of the reasons why we do not blindly accept the test results of other examiners; since many times do not know what exactly was reported for consideration of the test and test questions.

I ran a test like that once and it worked out fine. Of course, the wife didn't care if he was getting something on the side, as long at did not involve another woman's vagina...(Don't ask me to explain it).

Every test we perform is subjected to influence and risks. As long as the test is a legitimate format and the known situation (case) information is taken into consideration for pre-test questioning and question formulation, then I say go for it.

It seems to me that fidelity tests are immediately impactual on so many levels and that is one fact behind the reason we have so much disagreement in performing them.

Have a nice day and thanks for the input,

Jim

posted 02-11-2008 04:38 PM            

I like the word "crap." But of course, it is because I am "anal."

LOL

Jim

P.S. OK, now I'll stop.....

[This message has been edited by sackett (edited 02-11-2008).]

posted 02-11-2008 04:51 PM            

63 yr old man comes to me, saying that his wife of over 40yrs and himself while on vacation, got drunk---whereby the wife admitted that before they met, she had "made out" with another boy in a hotel room while with friends playing hooky in high school. Wifie maintained that she was never penally penetrated at that time.
The hubby was told throughout the marriage that wifie was a virgin. Now he has grave doubts. Hubby has had a series of bed-ridden health problems over the years, and wifie has taken magnificient care of hubby ----in fact, hubby admits that wifie is and has been the perfect wife.
$650 later, I am testing wifie ; "Before you dated your current husband, did you engage in sexual intercourse with any other person?"----he insists on this question---demanding that he "isn't interested " in whether she has had sex with ANY OTHER MAN EVER.
I smell a rat. Turns out hubby is a voyeur, and has insisted that wife have sex with young males while he watches over the years-----she admits this to me in the test mind you. He failed to tell me of such.
The test comes out Inconclusive. She admits in the post test that her and a girlfriend had fooled around as teens---digital stuff (bare in mind that this old lady LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE MY MOTHER---SAME HAIR, AGE, DEMEANOR-----YEECK.

Hubby gets the results, plus the admissions and goes into a rageful tailspin----cussing me---telling me that he knows she told me more than what I told him. I feared for my life at one point. He insisted that he view the video----I showed him the video for an extra fee and while I was present----and in the video wifie admits in the test that hubby is "scary" and is a "sexual deviant." He yells at me for not reporting that she called him such a label in my report. I reminded him that I just figured such a label was a given---being that he WAS A SEXUAL DEVIANT AND ALL.I threw him out of my office 2 or 3 times----only having contact with him out of the hopes that I could give him some form of closure or partial satisfaction.

To this day, I suspect that hubby just wanted to get off on details of his wife's young-days sex life----not for reasons of righteous indignation as he earlier conveyed. Who knows.

Domestic testing, while somewhat interesting (we are all a bit voyeuristic, eh?) is on my experienced opinion, sketchy work that makes us, our profession, and our clients look and feel like crap.

preemptive answer; I needed the money. After all, it was only a single-issue, researched and approved ASTM format and test, right?

yeah, right.

posted 02-11-2008 08:27 PM            

Barry those guidelines are great; however, check out AAPP – Hire an examiner – MOST of the examiners listed there (including myself, Ted Todd and AAPP President Imbordino) list fidelity/domestic exams. I didn't even look at the APA side.

I personally do not run a fidelity exam unless the couple is in therapy. But the bottom line is - ckieso came here for help. If he feels like everyone is jumping down his throat, he won’t be back and that doesn’t help our profession at all.

If there is a problem we should take it up with the associations that help regulate this profession. Then we can bitch about all those non-members that are making the big bucks!....lol

posted 02-11-2008 09:04 PM            

At one time people were running a dozen tests a day for pre-employments, but that didn't make them right. I'm not saying these are wrong. I've avoided that for some time, but I am saying that just because some of our best known examiners do them doesn't mean we are going in the right direction.

We could use the support of the "big" APA and some of the other groups out there. What do you think they would (or do) think of fidelity tests such as what we've been discussing here? Are we creating allies or enemies? Are we just uneducated and dangerous folk with computers and a few physiology sensors, or are we professionals who have their respect? Again, I don't know all the answers, but I think we should consider the questions and take a unified stand.

Anyhow, he got his answer, and he thanked those who provided them, but the discussion that has spun off still remains, and where better to toss it around safely than here? And just to add my take, I'd keep the report oh so simple: On such and such a day I met with so and so for the purpose of... I asked the following relevant questions..., which the examinee answered X. After scoring (or whatever you write)...NDI and done. The more simple the better is my opinion. (But my other questions - the bigger picture, if there is one - we should tackle at some point.)

posted 02-14-2008 10:27 AM            

I use the ZCT format initially and if I have to conduct a second series, I use the MGQT.

You'll have to reformat the report when you cut and paste it into word.

POLYGRAPH REPORT

Synopsis: FNU LNU, requested a polygraph examination for (state reason - allegation).

On (date), FNU LNU was administered a Polygraph Examination to determine…

The results of the Polygraph Examination for Examinee LNU were (NDI, DI, NO - spell out).

Examinee Data
Name: LNU, FNU SSN: 000-00-0000

DOB: 00/00/00

Instrument Data
Type: Lafayette LX4000 Serial #000000 Calibration Date: 00/00/00

Examination Data
Authorization By: Date: 00/00/00
Exam Location: Date: 00/00/00
Type of Case: Time In: 10:00 AM Time Out: 2:10 PM
Type of Exam: ZCT Series: 1 Charts: 3 ( or 4 if necessary)
PFFolder:
Observers:

Examination Results
No Deception Indicated

Quality Control Results
The Quality Control Review of the Polygraph Examination concurred with the above listed examination results.

Reference is made to all previous Reports of Investigation under investigative case number 0000000000.

Restate synopsis.

On 00/00/00, FNU LNU agreed to be interviewed and submit to a polygraph examination regarding …

Examinee LNU was advised of his/her Constitutional Rights under MIRANDA (if applicable) by Polygraph Examiner John Smith. A written waiver of those rights was then obtained. Examinee LNU also signed a Polygraph Consent form, consenting to be interviewed and submit to a Polygraph Examination.

LNU advised Polygraph Examiner Smith during the pre-test interview that he/she had …

The Polygraph Examination was then administered to Examinee LNU consisting of the below listed Series I Relevant questions which were answered as indicated:

R5: Question. Answer.
R7: Question. Answer.
R10: Question. Answer.

(For DI Exams- Use the following language)

An analysis of the polygraph charts for Examinee LNU revealed physiological responses indicative of deception to the above listed relevant questions and were deemed to be DECEPTIVE. When confronted with the results of the polygraph examination, Examinee LNU made the following statements:

(For NDI Exams – Use the following language)

An analysis of the polygraph charts for Examinee LNU revealed no physiological responses indicative of deception to the above listed relevant questions and were deemed to be NON-DECEPTIVE.

(For NO Exams – Use the following language)

An analysis of the polygraph charts for Examinee LNU revealed insufficient physiological criteria and NO OPINION could be made as to the veracity of Examinee LNU regarding the relevant issue.

Quality Control Review

On 00/00/00, Polygraph Examiner John Jones reviewed the polygraph charts of FNU LNU and concurred with the Examination Results that Examinee LNU was (call) to the relevant questions.

_______________________________ _______________________________
Polygraph Examiner Date Quality Control Reviewer Date

------------------
Warmest regards,
Elvis Acosta
President/CEO
Eagle Resolutions & Resources International, Inc. and subsidiaries
Toll-FREE Phone/Fax: 888-351-9051
>FREE> Subscribe to the "Tradecraft" newsletter and receive monthly tips and advice from private investigators, polygraph examiners and tactical firearms instructors in the field. Improve your witness testimony, evidence collection techniques, report writing, plus much more.
Visit our website NOW at: http://www.errii.com

posted 02-16-2008 09:07 AM            

I think you are misunderstanding a couple of things. In an earlier post you advised that examiners “follow your state standards.”

The point is: there are no standards regarding fidelity testing. Approach a state regulatory board (not association) with a suggestion to standardize practices pertaining to the assistance of couples in crisis, and smart folks will point out that is already regulated and its called “counseling.” Our challenge is whether we want to standardize polygraph practices intended to assist those professionals who assist couples in crisis.

quote:

---

Here is a copy of what I use.
I use the ZCT format initially and if I have to conduct a second series, I use the MGQT.
You'll have to reformat the report when you cut and paste it into word.
POLYGRAPH REPORT
Synopsis: FNU LNU, requested a polygraph examination for (state reason - allegation).
On (date), FNU LNU was administered a Polygraph Examination to determine…
The results of the Polygraph Examination for Examinee LNU were (NDI, DI, NO - spell out).

---

It would make more sense to approach the the other way around. The MGQT, as a multi-facet or mixed issue exam is broader than the single-issue Zone exam (Senter, 2003), and so has more complicated inter-question variance. Krapohl and Stern (2003) described the successive hurdles approach, in which it is useful to begin with a broader searching test, and follow with a test of greater diagnostic power.

quote:

---

Examinee Data
Name: LNU, FNU SSN: 000-00-0000
DOB: 00/00/00
Instrument Data
Type: Lafayette LX4000 Serial #000000 Calibration Date: 00/00/00
Examination Data
Authorization By: Date: 00/00/00
Exam Location: Date: 00/00/00
Type of Case: Time In: 10:00 AM Time Out: 2:10 PM
Type of Exam: ZCT Series: 1 Charts: 3 ( or 4 if necessary)
PFFolder:
Observers:
Examination Results
No Deception Indicated

---

A lot of this detail is interesting mostly to a QC reviewer not a consumer. Its probably OK to have it in a report. But PFFOLDER?

Also, do you conduct exams with observers?

quote:

---

Quality Control Results
The Quality Control Review of the Polygraph Examination concurred with the above listed examination results.

---

You might be misunderstanding the role of QC in a private practice world. QC is the purvue of the consumer. In the case of an agency (not a private practice agency), the agency itself is the consumer. Reporting QC results oneself appears to be a distortion of the QC process. QC reviewers, if independent, should write their own conclusions. Do you give the QC report to the consumer? If not, this is not real QC accountability, but the illusion of QC accountability.

quote:

---

Reference is made to all previous Reports of Investigation under investigative case number 0000000000.
Restate synopsis.
On 00/00/00, FNU LNU agreed to be interviewed and submit to a polygraph examination regarding …
Examinee LNU was advised of his/her Constitutional Rights under MIRANDA (if applicable) by Polygraph Examiner John Smith. A written waiver of those rights was then obtained. Examinee LNU also signed a Polygraph Consent form, consenting to be interviewed and submit to a Polygraph Examination.
LNU advised Polygraph Examiner Smith during the pre-test interview that he/she had …

---

Among all this impressive stuff there is no mention of any video/audio recording.

Do you record these exams? If not, then why not?

quote:

---

The Polygraph Examination was then administered to Examinee LNU consisting of the below listed Series I Relevant questions which were answered as indicated:
R5: Question. Answer.
R7: Question. Answer.
R10: Question. Answer.
(For DI Exams- Use the following language)
An analysis of the polygraph charts for Examinee LNU revealed physiological responses indicative of deception to the above listed relevant questions and were deemed to be DECEPTIVE. When confronted with the results of the polygraph examination, Examinee LNU made the following statements:
(For NDI Exams – Use the following language)
An analysis of the polygraph charts for Examinee LNU revealed no physiological responses indicative of deception to the above listed relevant questions and were deemed to be NON-DECEPTIVE.

(For NO Exams – Use the following language)
An analysis of the polygraph charts for Examinee LNU revealed insufficient physiological criteria and NO OPINION could be made as to the veracity of Examinee LNU regarding the relevant issue.

---

OK.

quote:

---

Quality Control Review
On 00/00/00, Polygraph Examiner John Jones reviewed the polygraph charts of FNU LNU and concurred with the Examination Results that Examinee LNU was (call) to the relevant questions.

---

QC should be independent. Do you offer to provide the referring agent with the examination materials and recording for an independent QA review? Or, is there any advisement of the referring agents right to an independent QC review. Independence, means the sense that the original examiner is not the sole switchman for the selection of the reviewer and the dissemination of the QC results. I'm not advocating the need for blind QC, but emphasizing QC in the way you do seems to be intended to improve the confidence. However, the model portrayed here (thought the info is limited) seems like it might be inconsistent with the principles of QA practices.

The point of QC is that a lot of professionals, though good people, might not advise a customer when they blew it. Independent QC assures that professionals will alert a referring agent of an examinations limitations. That is because the independent reviewer would surely point them out, so its better to be forthright.

.02

r

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

posted 02-16-2008 10:34 AM            

quote:

---

All can deduce that a liberal-leaning FDResque dude such as myself is no fan of faith-based social services, but I must admit that due to cost-prohibitive counseling ($75/hr) for the under-classes, ministry counseling fills a nice niche.

---

I depends on who's doing the counseling. A person with a doctor of ministry degree has taken a lot of counseling courses, and s/he is usually eligible for license of some sort too; though few see the need since they are often exempt.

Think about the road to a D.Min. degree: fist a undergrad degree in which the basics are learned, which includes the same general studies we all had to deal with. Then it's on to a 90-credit M.Div. degree, which usually includes a counseling track in the program because that's what a person with such a degree with be doing much of the time. Ninety Credits for a Masters degree! That's more than required for some doctorates! Then, another 60 credits (or more) are required to finish the doctoral degree, and again, they contain a lot of counseling courses. (Compare that to the SW with a 60-credit or fewer grad degree who, once licensed, can believe and practice most anything that comes down the pike.) Many go the PhD route and do research, but the D.Min. degree is more practical, like the Psy.D.

I can only speak for Christian counselors because I don't know what others teach, but we believe that God created an orderly universe. Because of that, science and the scientific method works for us. (That is only an unproven assumption of science, but (educated) Christians believe it based on others ways of knowing truth. We've referred to epistemology here before though, I think.) We can therefore apply what we learn from psychology insofar as it is consistent with our theology (based on the Bible.)

For example, go to the NAMBLA website (don't really, it'll make you sick) and you'll see that they report "scientific" studies that support man / child sex is not harmful. Well you can give me all the studies you want, and I'll never have to argue how poor the design was, how the methodology was flawed, etc, to know that's not true (as the already says it is harmful). I may have to do those things to argue with the secular scientific community, but my non-existent counseling practice wouldn't have to change by NAMBLA's revelations.

posted 02-16-2008 12:18 PM            

There is obvious thoughtfulness in Elvis' report and approach to that work.

People who've spent a lot of time and money earning degrees don't like to hear it, but there is evidence that years of schooling and lots of LMNOP after our names and i-seek-approval credentials after our signatures doesn't seem to differentiate counseling effectiveness. Paraprofessional counselors workking under supervision have been shown to be as effective as professional counselors, except in the case of more complex problems such as differential diagnosis and treatment planning (and a few other things.)

Its not worth quibbling over pastoral counseling. Most people with graduate or postgraduate degrees in ministry will have taken counseling courses. They may have even done some work under supervision. Often, they are decent people who understand their role and obligations.

The only time I've seen problems is in the case of severe personality disturbance, in which a professional without adequate connectedness and experience to others gets triangulated and manipulated against other. There have been a few cases in which mandatory disclosure of child abuse was not adhered to.

Bottom line is pastoral counselors can and do help people. Some churches have more organized service delivery systems than others.

So, I mostly agree with Barry.

but this,

quote:

---

I can only speak for Christian counselors because I don't know what others teach, but we believe that God created an orderly universe. Because of that, science and the scientific method works for us. (That is only an unproven assumption of science, but (educated) Christians believe it based on others ways of knowing truth. We've referred to epistemology here before though, I think.) We can therefore apply what we learn from psychology insofar as it is consistent with our theology (based on the Bible.)

---

A lot of science is based on teasing out the difference between randomnes (i.e., chaos/disorder) from that which can be understood according to orderly principles. Modern robust statistical methods are based, in part, on the premise that randomness and variability cannot be completely eliminated, and seek instead to use randomness in the quest to understand that which is not random. Its a yin/yang thing. You can't have one without the other. So, the idea of an orderly universe is a point of interesting conversation, but not always agreement.

Also, a lot of Christians will tend to use the term "truth" in a manner that is very different from what scientists and philosophers (the non-theological type) mean by the term. Its very easy to replace the concept of "truth" with "belief." Truth, outside of theological contexts, exists in the correspondence between what is said about a thing or event, and the actual thing or event. Truths can be verified by empirical observation, measurement, experiments. They cannot be proved by theory or speculation alone, but require evidence. Beliefs, therefore, are not truths, unless they attempt to describe a thing or event that can be verified.

I'm not trying to discount the value or importance of belief and faith, just pointing out the difference, so that we are communicating in a common language of science and philosophy. Otherwise, we would reassign meaning willy-nilly, and we're back to the old psychopathic con-game of "that's not what I meant when I said that."

quote:

---

A strong argument could be made that asking examiners to get referrals from counselors is asking too much. Couples in real therapy typically don't need polygraph, and with all due respect, the polygraph offers little (in my anecdotal experience) in the way of treatment, closure, or finality----the very things we sell couples a test for.

---

This is a little ambiguous. The first sentence seems to lean towards advocating for the unregulated status-quo. The second seems to suggest there may be no value in that.

So name that tune.

Go ahead and make the strong argument.

Some couples in therapy might benefit from a polygraph, as a form of decision support tool or closure seeking.

But to simply sell a polygraph, because we can, as a form of solution to a couple's trust, communication, or fidelity difficulties, without the guidance of an experienced helper who can assist in the determination of whether a polygraph may or may not help, and then how to think about and respond to positive or negative test results.

No professional referral = "we're not here to help you with your relationship problem, just to accelerate the conversation by pointing out which of you is either unfaithful or delusional."

Polygraph examiners are not in the business of helping people find soluations to problems. Our role is to access information and give it to others to make use of. We're in the business of giving people bad news. The very need for a polygraph test suggests that two parties are in disagreement over the truth about someone's behavior. Our test results are often bad news for someone.

The only ethical way to throw gas on this fire is to do so through a carefully modulated process of searching for solutions to whatever are the very real problems in that relationship. Those solutions can sometimes be informed by results from a polygraph test, and may include changing attitudes or behavior, or improvement of skills in communication or other areas. Solutions may also include the termination of a relationship.

.02

r

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

posted 02-16-2008 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

So, the idea of an orderly universe is a point of interesting conversation, but not always agreement.

---

Ah Ray, now that would require a conversation about a confounding variable: the fall of man in what once was a completely orderly universe.... So yes, if we bored everybody with this discussion, I suspect we'd agree in the end.

quote:

---

Truth, outside of theological contexts, exists in the correspondence between what is said about a thing or event, and the actual thing or event. Truths can be verified by empirical observation, measurement, experiments. They cannot be proved by theory or speculation alone, but require evidence. Beliefs, therefore, are not truths, unless they attempt to describe a thing or event that can be verified.

---

This would seem to preclude the means of proving truth (again, we could argue a high probability, I know) in our courtrooms everyday: the historical method. If the truth is in fact that A shot B and at the time said "I don't like the look on your face," in a scenario in which we have no forensic evidence we can test empirically (which still couldn't explain the whole story anyhow) and 10 of us saw the whole incident, would our testimony of the facts not then be the truth?

We can't do scientific tests on our memory of the event, nor can we do anything scientific to bring back the words spoken (motive). The truth is still that A killed B because A didn't like the look on B's face.

We can do scientific tests to learn how much confidence we might want to put into one's recollection, I know. We would use that info to determine how much weight to give the testimony of those involved. None of our theatrics ever changes the truth though.

quote:

---

Beliefs, therefore, are not truths, unless they attempt to describe a thing or event that can be verified.

---

posted 02-16-2008 01:38 PM            

quote:

---

No professional referral = "we're not here to help you with your relationship problem, just to accelerate the conversation by pointing out which of you is either unfaithful or delusional."

---

posted 02-16-2008 01:44 PM            

"Silly words...oh, silly words we speak"--(Eric Johnson, trying to sound like I was quoting an historic figure).

As Barry said, at the end of the day, you both probably would agree, provided that you speak the same language.