posted 01-18-2008 10:26 AM            

Further, the poster "Candy" stated that she spoke with a number of "veteran Examiners" who told her that the stim was ONLY to convince the skeptical examinee. I called her bluff and dared her to reveal those examiners identities. Perhaps she'll name the name(s) if they exist.

With some help, candy can be put on the conveyor belt ...

posted 01-18-2008 12:30 PM            

It could be a family trait, and if her brother's personality is like her's, then he might be one of those intractable self-righteous angry victimy externalizing offenders who is adept at tagging everyone's stuff but their own.

Good job calling the bluff.

This person has a lot of energy, and we'll not wear her out quickly.

Perhaps if we slow down, and do just what you've done. Challenge BS. Ask for facts, and be human.

Candy's "story" is not adding up for me.

Her brother nearly lost his job for failing a polygraph regarding 4 watches stolen from his workplace??? Then convinced the CEO to allow a retest??? And the matter was resolved by CVS, with a signed confession by another employee, which led to the recovery of the merchandise and money???

Can you say E P P A ???

We could point all this out, but then we'd just be educating "her" to be more careful with the next charade.

Candy doesn't write like an newly informed person, or a student. Students cite things, and cite reasons other than personal anecdotes.

All of the information "she" has could be gotten from Maschke's book and website.

Candy could be a shill for CVS or could be a shill for some other cause.

I'm beginning to doubt the story about "her" brother.

I suggest we simply stop interacting with "her," and let her get bored like nopolyforme.

r

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

posted 01-18-2008 01:49 PM            

quote:

---

(b) There is no other reason other then to show the examinee the test works

---

I don't know that is necessary. I think the current wisdom is that it helps the examinee habituate to the process, which gives us better charts. I don't think we really know that's the case, but I seem to recall that doing it without any discussion at all increases accuracy.

posted 01-18-2008 02:44 PM            

Another thing you think about is that if we think of single issue exams as about 90% accurate or so, and if we think of the "accuracy" of mixed issues exams as more complicated than that, and then if we ask two three or four questions in a test, and we test some sex offender 10, 20, 30 or more times, then there might be a fairly high likelihood the subject will have experienced an error first hand at some point. Any offender with an above average IQ might think us stupid if we do anything but stick to the procedure as a neutral fact finder. It might be a good thing that the stim test works even if we don't say much about it beyond that its procedure.

r

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

posted 01-18-2008 04:47 PM            

"Not so Candy.
The stim test is used for the following reasons.
1. To familiarize the examinee with the sometimes nerve-racking"feel" of having the components attached to the examinee. Very important.
2. To familiarize the examinee with the tone of voice of questioning (monotone) versus the more articulate conversational tone of the pre-test.
3. The concept known as "Individual Subject Specificity" is held during the pretest----in that say, an elderly person might have diminished galvanic reactions, so mental notes can be taken. I once tested a professional painter whose lungs were so damaged that his breathing looked like that of a dolphin's. Purely unscorable data noise. Additionally, some examinees have higher or lower threshholds for arousal, so the instrument sensetivity settings are done during the stim test---in order to extinguish "data noise" or to turn up those features which may appear on the screen as being too small---typically because a component is on looser than say, the last test ran. Keep in mind that all arousals are relative to each other, regardless of the individual's own homeostasis (balance.)
4. To demonstrate to the examinee that the instrument can differentiate between stress and memory. I always showed the examinee their stim test---and they were often suprised that despite their nervousness, their charts were quite placid. People, even George himself, seem to be fixated on the notion that mere nervousness is what makes for "heavy ink."
5. To familiarize the examinee and examiner the ability of the examinee to listen and follow instructions. We cannot give IQ tests per se, but the stim test can often times be a revealer of an examinee's mental awareness.
6. And lastly, the stim test is to help get the examiner mentally and logistically ready for the test. Many times during the stim test, I have noticed that I placed a component on the examinee too loose, crooked, or too tight. The stim test is like stretching for a runner. It is the closest to a warm up, or a dress rehearsal that we have. "

These reasons were both taught and they also seem very reasonable. How many times have you seen someone relax a bit after the stim, or caught yourself geting a Vagas Roll which needed to be addressed, or had to turn up or down sensetivity levels.

Ray, you are right. Something is "off" about Candy.

posted 01-18-2008 05:04 PM            

quote:

---

These reasons were both taught and they also seem very reasonable.

---

They may all be correct, but who really knows? Don't forget, GM, David Lykken, John Furedy, all teach that it is reasonable that the truthful would be more concerned about RQs than CQs, and they have anecdotal evidence to "support" their positions. We must be careful not to adopt their flawed logic. We know they're wrong about the CQT not working because we have data to refute them. We can argue about opinions based on aencdotal stories all day long, but they are just that: opinions.

Here's the mantra: "We must be data driven."

posted 01-18-2008 07:24 PM            

I still agree with you wholeheartedly regarding data driven testing. I do have issues with an underwhelming data model suggesting a stim test is valid---then explaining why they think it is valid through speculative measures. I have a hard time being told what I should do to warm up (acclimate) myself, my instrument, and my examinee---provided that I do not harm the process-----a process that is so difficult to quantify, it feeds our detractors as it is.