|
Author
|
Topic: Is it time to dispense with the pre-test?
|
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-06-2012 05:54 PM
 
Dan,
So what is it that you are offering your clients?
An unpolished turd?
A new and improved turd?
An easier to swallow turd?
A turd with no known side effects?
A validated turd?
A more palatable turd?
If you think polygraph is a turd, no matter what you call it, YOU are still in the business of selling turds.
Am I wrong?Ted
IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-06-2012 06:54 PM
Please, Ted, you tell me. Go to my site and look at every page, read every word, go to every link. Process it all, and then YOU tell ME what it is that I'm "selling." Meanwhile, consider these possibilities: Isn't it the examiner who uses sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation really the one who's really selling the turd? What about the Polygraph Scientologist who dazzles his audiences with statistical alchemy of a test that's based largely on manipulation... Isn't he another one selling a turd? What about the industry leader and zealot who claims that polygraph examiners are actually "called by God"? Isn't he also selling a turd? How can a guy who merely removes the curtain and offers a true open-book approach be thought of as selling a turd? Unless, of course, the whole thing is a bunch of... [This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-06-2012).] IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-07-2012 03:18 PM
Dan,The attached video might create some interesting comments!
http://vimeo.com/50455829 Ted IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-08-2012 09:04 AM
Ted,I'm not sure I get your point as it relates to our discussion, but I'll tell you this: That dude is no Fulton J. Sheen! Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-08-2012).] IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-08-2012 09:14 AM
Ray,Re: Testing minors quote:
The APA has recently adopted a policy or suitability – which recognizes that some juveniles are in fact testable. Perhaps you could expand your market access in this area.
I think it's wrongheaded. Let me elaborate on my opposition this way... Juveniles can't (legally) consent to having sex, and for good reason. There can be serious ramifications. Similarly, I don't think a juvie is capable of "consenting" to a polygraph. They don't really understand what they are getting themselves into. Irrespective of the APA's policy, do you yourself condone the psychological rape of a minor via polygraph machine? Dan
[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-08-2012).] IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-08-2012 12:47 PM
"Unless, of course, the whole thing is a bunch of…"Dan, it is and your peddling it. You were Backster trained if my information is correct, you were taught to manipulate the examinee to get no answers to control questions. We all have been taught this. If an examinee keeps answering the controls with a yes, I simply tell them to answer no, thats a directed lie question at that point and I proceed with the test. Amazing that I get reactions to the directed lie control question consistently. I don't do smoke and mirrors with anyone. I am honest and I don't lay on the BS, no need to, polygraph works, why dazzle them with BS? I don't inform them of the Anti site, no need to most have already visited that site. I don't warn them about countermeasures, I do inform them if I see countermeasures being used, and I do end the test if they fail to comply. IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-08-2012 01:01 PM
Dan,There are obvious complications in medicine, psychology and polygraph regarding how to obtain informed consent for juveniles to undergo any procedure. There are also complications regarding the generalizability of presently available research and normative data beyond certain known demographic limits. Would you prefer or recommend that the APA tell every examiner everywhere that they should not ever test juveniles? Personally, I think the conversation would be a lot more helpful without the drama... quote:
...psychological rape of a minor via polygraph machine?
Answering this question and engaging the discussion at this level would appear to endorse the implications that are embedded in the way you ask the question. .02 r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-08-2012 01:53 PM
Bill2E:Peddling it? How can an examiner who encourages prospective examinees to go to the AP site, and the cautionary web site containing the American Psychological Association's view on polygraph, and the full NAS report be thought of as peddling manipulation? Again, I am providing true open-book testing. We live in the Information Age. Traditional polygraph -- i.e., using slight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation -- simply won't endure. Yes, I am Backster schooled. But that was eight years ago and comprised just the first stepping stone of my polygraph education. I can't recall the last time I ran a true Backster-format test. It's been years. I use the MQTZCT, AFMGQT, DoDPI You-Phase/Bi-Zone, Utah single-issue, etc. Even with the MQTZCT I take liberties that I know Jim Matte would not approve of. For example, I like to use situational/futuristic CQs. If I run a fidelity test using my modified MQTZCT, two of the CQs might be: In the future, would you have sex with anyone other than your wife if you could get away with it? Would anyone who knows you well describe you as someone that your wife shouldn't trust? These CQs work well and seldom require manipulation. If the subject pushes back, I move on to a different situational CQ. Like you, I don't do any arm twisting. Yesterday I did a PCSOT test on a frequent-flyer sexual offender. He had been tested by three other examiners before coming to me -- all of his prior tests were inconclusive. There was no need to manipulate him on the CQs -- the dude KNOWS by now that he's supposed to answer in the negative. (BTW, he failed miserably.) Sometimes I need to resort to directed lies. I don't care for them because they are a big fat invitation for the subject to stomp on the reactions with mental CMs. Moreover, scoring DL pneumos means taking a hit on the CQ side.
Ray:
quote:
Would you prefer or recommend that the APA tell every examiner everywhere that they should not ever test juveniles?
Absolutely. I despise any form of child rape. Dan
IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-09-2012 09:12 AM
A timely arrival in my email inbox this morning... Here's an excerpt from the October 2012 NEARI newsletter:
To Use or Not to Use the Polygraph with Children and Adolescents
by Steven Bengis, David S. Prescott, and Joan Tabachnick
Question
Should the polygraph be used with children or adolescents?
The Research
Arsdale, Shaw, Miller, and Parent provide an overview of how
polygraph testing is used with sexually abusive adolescents within a treatment setting and then present the results from their study of polygraph testing with this population. The study focuses on the sexual history polygraph to assist in treatment decisions and disclosures.
Files were randomly selected from 60 case files of adolescent males, 12- 19, in an outpatient treatment program in Florida. All youth had committed hands-on offenses against younger children and/or peers, and were court-ordered for services. The study results revealed that one-third of participants had sexual contact with same-age peers that they had not previously disclosed in treatment. Furthermore, 15% of participants disclosed for the first time that they had been victimized. Many of the disclosures were revealed in anticipation of the polygraph in the pre-testing of participants. The authors conclude that the polygraph helps to increase disclosures and provides information that is extremely helpful in formulating treatment approaches.
Implications for Professionals
This study clearly showed that the polygraph examination process can aid full disclosure of all sexually abusive behaviors and victimization. In our view, the article does not address the controversial and potentially intrusive and coercive technique or the unintended consequences this approach may have on the adolescent in treatment. The increase in factual accuracy--an average increase from 1.5 victims (pre-polygraph) to 2.1 victims (post-polygraph)--while statistically significant may have little, if any, practical significance in changing the course of treatment or improving treatment outcomes. Further, for a given client whose diagnosis might include pervasive developmental disorder, significant neurological deficits, developmental delays, or PTSD, we question whether it is necessary or even advisable to know all the facts "up front" or push for early full disclosures of both victimizing and victimization behavior for all clients. Given the limited information about the impact of polygraph use with adolescents, we believe clinicians should carefully weigh the decision for use by considering the:
potential damage to a professional relationship/ therapeutic alliances;
evolution of disclosures that usually result over time;
alternatives for ensuring community compliance with safety plans; and/or
questionable ethics of "forcing" a victim to disclose his/her victimization history before he/she is psychologically prepared to do so.
This "non-use default position" is particularly relevant in the absence of any research indicating that use of the polygraph produces better treatment outcomes for children or adolescents, as we have reported in earlier editions of this newsletter.
Implications for the Field
Our field is deeply split around the use of polygraphy with children/youth. There are professionals who don't see how they could practice without it and those who refuse to use it. Some of this stark difference may depend on where on the severity continuum professionals practice. For those whose clients may be older, aggressive, violent, conduct-disordered and adjudicated, placement in the community without polygraphy support may seem unconscionably risky. For those working with non-adjudicated, non-conduct-disordered and diagnostically complex youth, the use of polygraphy may be equally unconscionable for ethical reasons.
In our view, it is time for the field to step back from an ideologically based position, consider the assumptions upon which use of a polygraph is based as well as all the adolescent-based research, and develop clear guidelines for its use with the full range of clients. Until such time as the field coalesces around such guidance, the polygraph should remain in the professional toolkit as a sparingly, if ever, used and individually applied practice implemented only when other less invasive techniques can be demonstrated to have failed/be of little efficacy. As David Prescott outlined in an ATSA Forum Article: "More information is not always better information; the polygraph may be re-traumatizing; and disclosure in not always the same as honesty."
Citation
Van Arsdale, A., Shaw, T., Miller, P., and Parent, M.C. (2012). Polygraph Testing for Juveniles in Treatment for Sexual Behavior Problems: An Exploratory Study. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice. pp. 68-79.
Abstract
Post-adjudication polygraph testing for juveniles with sexual behavior problems remains controversial. This study investigated the impact of polygraph testing in a sample of 60 adolescent males participating in specialized outpatient treatment specific to this population. Polygraph testing resulted in a significant increase in the number of victims disclosed. Results suggest that polygraph testing may be used to gain additional information and potentially help to inform specialized treatment.
To print a pdf of this article, click NEARI NEWS. Questions/Feedback
Please email us at info@nearipress.org or call us at 413.540.0712, x14 to let us know if you have a question or a topic you would like us to cover. If at any time you no longer want the e-newsletter, just let us know and we will remove your name from our list. [This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-09-2012).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-09-2012 12:07 PM
Thanks Dan,This really deserves a new topic. Prescott has thoughtful and important questions for us - and there will eventually be no way of avoiding them. quote:
In our view, it is time for the field to step back from an ideologically based position, consider the assumptions upon which use of a polygraph is based as well as all the adolescent-based research, and develop clear guidelines for its use with the full range of clients. Until such time as the field coalesces around such guidance, the polygraph should remain in the professional toolkit as a sparingly, if ever, used and individually applied practice implemented only when other less invasive techniques can be demonstrated to have failed/be of little efficacy.
APA now has a model policy for suitability for polygraph testing. However, when Prescott talks about guidance, he and the clinical community will be very clear about the fact that he means "evidence-based" practice guidelines and not simply a consensus of opinion. It would be wise of us to begin to think about this now. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-09-2012 12:15 PM
Ray,It will probably fall on deaf ears, as the polygraph indu$try wants more and more te$t$. Isn't DV "testing" steadily showing promise as the next CASH COW for polygraph? Dan IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 11-24-2012 09:07 AM
This was a fascinating thread. I don't come around often, but when I do I see similarly repeated themes pop up over time----and this one comes up about every year or two. A private examiner, typically with a busy dancecard, talent, and a flare for sardonic banter appears to be having a rough year either financially, personally, whatever. The work is very caustic and our enemies and naysayers abound, and the business is so fraught with broadcast human error that our ranks as a whole experience intermittent collective embarrassment via google alerts about every 3 months. To top it off, private examiners really don't make much money due to heavy travel and/or overhead, and all examiners be them gov or public really don't receive much thanks for what can amount to be as a career in (sometimes) daily, weekly, or monthly unsung heroics. Broke, smart, and knee deep in caustic bad guys and their determined advocates----examiners can "slip into the dark side" as a wise and (now) aging Ray Nelson once put it several years ago. I suspect he meant that examiners can come to a professional existential brick wall----and perhaps just to keep going they tell themselves it is their "calling"----though that may not be enough fuel for the hill. I personally experienced this trouble some years ago, and I would invite examiners to use this thread to determine a sort of metric for professional frustration. Anyone who hasn't felt the occasional cognitive dissonance might well at least know it when they see it. I feel for Dan's frustration---though I don't agree with him I do appreciate his sharing of sour grapes. The polygraph industry is a bold entity surrounded by a robust (and bellicose) scientific community that has no patience for silliness or lonely theories. Few if any other modern studies besides polygraphy are fighting daily to just exist despite it's published merits. Dan, chin up!IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 11-24-2012 11:40 AM
Stat, Good to hear from you! Are you back in the polygraph racket? Dan IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 11-24-2012 03:30 PM
HOLD ON A MINUTE STAT!
You can't just show up here after all this time and just do a "drive by" post!Where have you been? Did you complete your degree? Are you still sponging off your poor, hard working wife? Are you back in polygraph? Either way, it is great to have you back. Please give us an update on your STATus! Ted IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 11-24-2012 04:05 PM
Stat:Ted's right. (I know, I know, so what -- even a broken clock is right twice a day.) By all means, stat, tell us what you've been up to throughout your hiatus from Polygraph Place. Polygraph Place newbies: Long before I became the poster boy for sardonic contributions on this forum, there was "stat." He was the catalyst for many a spirited and thought-provoking discussion, and he left a treasure trove of great material. The dude even left his mark on the AP site. If you are unfamiliar with stat's writings here on Polygraph Place, I encourage you to do some research. You know what they say -- Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 11-24-2012).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 11-25-2012 08:20 PM
Eric!Great observations about life in the private practice polygraph world. One of the things we need to think about, in addition to being taken seriously when necessary, is how to build a more stable and sustainable professional experience. Let us know how you've been. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 11-28-2012 09:09 AM
Hi guys. I'm doing well these days. I check in on PP to see what's happening from time to time. I have fond memories of the fellowship from this group, and when I see website pictures of my old cohorts here it amazes me how in 6 years since I last looked, you all still look exactly the same. Maybe it's time to update those photos eh? Lol I have been traveling a lot for work over the years, and every so often I stick my toe in the polygraph waters to see what the private field looks (and earns) like. I recently visited the Big Island, and like every other touron, I had a desire to move there. Call it temporary insanity. I looked up the examiners and the association and so forth. Anyway, I suppose I check with you fine folks to see if there is yet some great panacea for some of the unresolved problems with the science. This forum is a great place for open and honest discussion (argument.)"Pool and a pond... Pond be good for you." ------Ty Webb 1980 IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
