posted 02-02-2008 01:17 AM         

Needless to say, I dropped him for using CMs. His CMs were more indicitive of Doug Williams than Boy George.

In the post test, the applicant said he alters his breathing intentionally to reduce his stress when "a co-worker" is in his face or when he is under stress. He denied that this technique was something he got off the net. He told me that although I was never in his face, he was under a lot of stress about the polygraph exam.

I got home and received an E-Mail from another agency requesting an exam on the same applicant. The applicant also told the other agency that I would be testing him today for a different agency.

My question is this; Do I have an obligation to tell the new agency about the previous test? Should I re-test the applicant as though I have not tested him before??

Any thoughts, photoshops, or out right slams would be appriciated because I respect all of your opinions.(most of the time!)

posted 02-02-2008 07:35 AM            

I would simply inform the hiring agent that the client scheduled with a test presents with a conflict of interest and that due to confidentiality, you are not at liberty to give details.

If there is no other examiner who can test him, than I guess you'll have to test him. Who knows, it might be a worthwhile experience.

....and that, is one to grow on.

posted 02-02-2008 08:33 AM            

I've tested people who've used CMs and then didn't use CMs after they admitted and debriefed themselves.

Its odd, but it can work.

Here is a link to some data from a smart gentleman who has a very high level of knowledge about the polygraph and countermeasures.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/111304.html

The more interesting question to me would be: is it necessary to retest him if he had passed (without CMs).

In the medical profession, if one gets and x-ray or blood test for a doctor, and then switches to a different doctor, one simply sends the x-rays or blood test results to the new doctor. That is, if they are of any usefulness. Similarly, in psychology, if one completes an neuropsychological evaluation on a drunken airline pilot, to determine and treatment needs before he returns to work, we would send the evaluation to multiple treatment providers without repeating all of the testing. On the other hand, if the evaluation was not helpful (i.e., could not achieve a clear diagnostic impression or treatment recommendations), then further testing might be in order.

So, this situation might be one of whether he has yet made any disqualifying admissions, and perhaps a situation of how many times he's attempted to defeat the test results with CMs. Persistence of CMs, after debriefing his past CMs, might be diagnostic.

Ethics is a matter of: 1) what bad things happen, and 2) what ethical declarations must we follow.

Utilitarian or consequential ethics (upon which our communities and legal systems seem to be built) state that the evaluation of "bad" is a matter of how much bad stuff and how many people that bad stuff affects. So, even though it might be bad for him, if he's made disqualifying admissions, or is otherwise unsuitable for LE work, it might be "good" for the larger agency and community to disseminate the information.

Deontological ethics states that we have some duty or obligation to each person with whom we deal, and that it is not OK to do bad things to anyone. (Aside: helping criminals take responsibility and stopping them from further harm to the community is "good" for them.) One might argue that it violates his right to participate in the application process and the second agency. One might also argue that he has an expectation of confidentiality around his polygraph, with the exception of stipulated persons or agencies to whom he has authorized the release of information (assuming no waiver of such confidentiality).

Which brings us to declarative ethics, or professional ethics. If there are administrative policies that dictate the dissemination of such information, then it is entirely ethical to do so. In the absence of such policies, the general ethical principle of confidentiality around testing might be worth considering, even if it is not explicitly declared.

I have two exams from some recent experience with a CM savvy subject.

stat,

The Oprah pic is giving me a cavity.

r

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

posted 02-02-2008 09:33 AM         

As a general rule, "what happens in my polygraph lab-stays in my polygraph lab". The results are only provided to the agency that paid for the test. Test results are not passed around to different agencies.

I like the suggestion that I tell the second agency that I have a conflict due to a previous test. That sounds professional and they should understand. Let's kick it up a knotch.

What, if anything, would be different if the applicant had been NDI?

posted 02-02-2008 11:52 AM            

The only thing I can't think of that would be different if he were NDI would be the form of rapport or hostility between yourself and the examinee. Polygraph rapport not the same as clinical rapport (more like being willing to eat your own young), which is why therapists and psychobabbler-types should never test their own clients, but its still a type of uniquely constructed rapport.

In polygraph, at least PCSOT, we're kind of cavalier about it, and rarely concern ourselves with retest rapport.

It would parallel the common practices in other professions if we had a helpful or informative test result and simply had the subject authorize the release of that information to the next agency to which he had applied.

The PCSOT version of this occurs when a subject completes a sexual history polygraph in one treatment agency, and for some reason moves to a different agency and is required to re-do the disclosure polygraph. It doesn't happen often, but we do still see this kind of silliness. Of course, all this isn't so silly if we truly think the previous agency did it all wrong, but when its the same examiner the argument becomes specious.

r

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

posted 02-02-2008 12:04 PM            

Life is too short to test people you really don't want to test. Here's a question:

posted 02-04-2008 09:39 AM            

'I give permission to Quest 4 Truth LLC to have another polygaph examiner quality control check these records if necesasary. Furthermore I give permission to Quest 4 Truth LLC to release the contents of this examination to another licensed polygraph examiner that conducts any future polygraph examinations on myself.'