posted 01-16-2008 08:19 PM            

Chart 1

Chart 2

Chart 3

r

posted 01-16-2008 08:37 PM            

PS Love the avatar Ray. I planted my mountain bike like that last summer showing off for my wife.

------------------
"This is our hill and these are our beans."----
Leslie Nielsen as Lt. Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 1988

posted 01-16-2008 08:57 PM            

Here is OSS-3

and OSS-2

-----------------

r

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

posted 01-16-2008 09:57 PM            

I am one of those that don't like to be attached and ruined alot of charts in my academy due to just general nervousness, even in numbers tests. One time the instructor said "you are messing with his chart, I can see it" and I swear I wasn't.

With the type of people I test, I just don't see them trying that junk. We all played with mental countermeasures in the academy and they plain don't work- or they didn't for us.

So after that prattle-- my question is how do you know that it's countermeaures and not general nervousness?

I need to be educated because I had countermeasures in update training, but even then I may have been fooled in real life with the example charts. That was a different case because the charts the reactions were way to good to be true in the comparisons.

posted 01-16-2008 10:27 PM            

I've seen charts that look to me like CMs, from people whom I would have considered not sophisticated enough to access and utilize the information.

We could use a nonparametric sign test, or a binomial test of proportions.

In this test, we have three charts, three components (treating the upper and lower pneumo together) and three RQs compared to three CQs. Thats 27 RQ scores and 27 CQ scores. We could count the number of suspected CM/artificts for the RQs and CQs (both artifacts and suspected CMs) for each of the components and each of the charts, and then calculate whether there is a statistically significant difference in the number of CM/artifacts at CQs compared to CM/artifacts at RQs. The sign test requires N>=5 to offer sufficient power to achieve p<=.05, so we have plenty of data.

If someone will count the CM/artifacts at CQs and RQs, I'll work on the math.

If the CM/artifacts in the test are not deliberate or strategic (occur randomly), then we'd expect to find no significant difference between the counts of whatever we think we see in the data. A significant difference in the # of CM/artifacts at CQs compared the CM/artifacts at RQ would indicate that whatever we think see in the data is most likely not occurring randomly (by accident).

Would that begin to answer your question about whether this looks like countermeasures or general nervousness?

r

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

posted 01-16-2008 10:30 PM            

The "Vegas Roll" on the 3rd chart looks like the cardio cuff wasn't massaged enough (happens to us all). There just is very little uniformity to those charts. This is a fish.

Suspected Crude Countermeasures----Interrogate.

posted 01-16-2008 10:39 PM            

Even though this guy (I thought it was a male) supposedly didn’t have access to CM’s – can we verify that? He may not access computers but he can surely talk to someone who has.

I find ‘nerves’ generally affect the GSR. Of course there are other elements that show nerves but not to the extent of these. One thing I learned early on is women are chest breathers and men are gut breathers. We women are always trying to hold our guts in and chests out. Most guys don’t worry about holding their chests out unless they have the ‘puff factor’ with other men (totally different topic); men breathe with their stomach.

On the first chart C6 there is holding (not normal). If that would have occurred at the bottom vs the top it may be nerves or trying to control breathing. Think about it. You can release the air in your lungs and sit there for a few moments and then take a normal breath. If you take a breath and hold it with the air in the lungs it is hard and not natural. He is reacting highly to the RQs on the GSR. On the cardio tracings they are not consistent.

Chart 2 – there are late responses on the cardio tracings on the CQ’s vs. the RQ’s being somewhat consistent in the rise from onset. As for the pneumos: There is the panting / hyperventilation going on. Now maybe they will look different if they weren’t crunched. But we are comparing R & C’s at the same regardless of the crunch. If we just look at the bottom pneumos the baseline increases more on the RQ's (men). By the second chart, especially if being truthful, their nerves should be coming down a bit. As for Cardio, again, there is baseline increases on RQs and the CQ’s are rolling. I don’t think the cuff is too close to the body as it is not the vegus roll (did I spell that right?)

Chart 3 the cardio is all over. Bottom pneumo on R6 has good reaction and again panting is going on especially on CQ’s…..too good to be true.

Also with the panting/hyper ventilating, you eventually need to take a deep breath to restore the oxygen in your body.

Well its been a long day and these are some of the things that stood out to me. Remember it is always easier to quarter back a test vs testing and evaluating at the time of the test. Also, we don’t have the CQ questions.

In trying to see the RQ’s on the OSS it appears the RQ’s are: Did you steal that missing dollars? Did you steal that pounds that went missing from the safe? and, Did you steal that pounds that were missing from this office in November?

Maybe he didn’t steal the money BUT profited from the crime? On thefts, I like to use 1) did you take any of the missing money from the safe? 2) did you take any of the missing money from the safe at Walmart? 3) do you know who toke the missing money from the safe? or did you participate in any way with the taking of the money from the safe. or Do you know where any of that missing money is? I usually do a Did you? Did you huh? And then evidence connecting to make sure they didn’t profit from the crime.

posted 01-16-2008 11:08 PM            

Yes it was funny we posted simultaneously. Jinx you owe me a coke.(remember that ol saying? ) I still do "bread and butter" with my boys when holding hands and walking through a pole or barrier with arms up. Silly, good things.

I had the understanding for years now that the Vegas Roll was due to non-uniform air in the cardio cuff bladder. Speaking of non-uniform air in the bladder---I am done posting clumsy crap on anti.

posted 01-17-2008 01:06 AM            

I have tomorrow off - just one meeting with a legislator to get a couple of bills cleaned up. After that I will experiment with the photo bucket....pinky promise

....remember when you go over a bridge you have to pick up your feet and hold your breath so you don't fall in AND if you go under a tunnel or bridge you have to give the peace sign above your head so the bridge doesn't fall on you. My boys are 15 and 17 and still do that on road trips. I guess you will get that coke in Indiana at APA

posted 01-17-2008 03:58 PM            

Here is my artifact table.

Chart 1

, C5, R6, C8, R9, C11,R12
P, A, , , A, A, A
E
C

Chart 2

, C5, R6, C8, R9, C11,R12
P A, A, A, A, A, A
E
C , , , A, , ,

Chart 3

, C5, R6, C8, R9, C11, R12
P, A, A, A, A, A, ,
E
C

Using 9 presentations each for RQs and CQs, we have

Artifacted RQs = 7
Artifacted CQs = 8

which give a binomial probability of .27, which is not statistically significant.

So, if the number of artifacts that occur at RQs compared to the number of artifacts at CQs is indicative of the deliberateness of an attempt to disrupt a test result, then you may be right, Buster, n exercising some caution around a conclusion that this was a deliberate CM attempt.

Now go and look at the same experiment with the charts from the first series with this same examinee.

r

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

posted 01-17-2008 04:50 PM            

I had quite a long post this morning and I dont know what happened to it. I don't feel like trying to recall it. I think it was talking to Donna.

What calculation brings you to .27?

posted 01-17-2008 05:55 PM            

or

n1 = 9
n2 = 9
n = 18
p1 = 8/9 = .889
p2 = 7/9 = .778
p1 – p2 = .111
.778 * (1-.778) = .01
sqrt(.01) = .098
Z = .111/.098 = 1.134
mapped to the normal distribution = .128
and then
.128 * 2 = .26 (two tailed)

OK, so there is some rounding occurring. Its close to .27

Its fine to use the normal distribution because N>=5 (some say N>=8, but either way we are OK), because with 9+9, the binomial distribution will closely approximate the normal distribution.

---------------------

you did ask...

r

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

posted 01-17-2008 06:58 PM            

Check your math, I think you got a little careless with your P.

posted 01-17-2008 07:48 PM            

r

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

posted 01-18-2008 08:50 AM            

quote:

---

No, it just means the examinee wasn't doing things on the CQs only. That's not nerves you see. The person is messing with you. That breathing is controlled. It's not involuntary.

---

Barry's right. All it means is that it would most likely be incorrect to assume the timing and placement of those artifacts is thoughtful/informed/non-random/strategic.

On the first series, the subject hits 8 out of 9 comparisons and 1 out of 9 RQs. That seems not to be random.

r

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