posted 08-28-2012 09:05 PM         

Personally, I sense a gathering momentum that the pre-test, at least as we know it, is on its way out.

Why would that be?

It's an interesting question... There is some suggestion that automation is the endgame.

But, automation aside, if the pre-test phase is not an essential part of the polygraph test (as the incoming APA president so strongly asserts), then perhaps it is time to revisit the minimum time requirements for polygraph tests -- and the maximum number of tests that can be done in a single day.

Without the standard pre-test, a single-issue polygraph exam could be reduced to, what, an hour? Maybe even less.

Depending on an examiner's motivation and/or energy level, it's conceivable that one could run eight to ten such tests per day.

Is this a healthy direction for polygraph?

What say you?

Dan

posted 08-29-2012 09:07 AM            

I don't think Barry or anyone else has actually suggested we should or could get rid of the pretest.

But you do raise an interesting question about the need for an intensively choreographed rain-dance.

There seems to be no question about the general assumption that the pretest interview is important to the effectiveness of the polygraph test. What exactly do we need to accomplish during the pretest interview?

We need to debrief all of the information we can about the relevant questions topics. And we can interview and debrief some additional topics as well.

There is nothing too controversial about withholding some information about exactly how a test works. There is something controversial about a test that depends on the provision of misinformation and psychological manipulation in order to be accurate. For example: we have serious concerns about at least one neuropsychological test of pre-front executive functioning for this reason - the test is frustrating and confusing to people with executive functioning deficits.

In the past, it was assumed that we had to convince the examinee of the infalibility of the polygraph. Writers from Stan Abrams onward have pointed out that the evidence does not seem to support this notion, but we still hear it. The assumption seems to have been that the accuracy or the effectiveness of the test depends, in part, on the examinee's belief in the perfect or near-pefect accurcy of the test. Today in the internet age we would be naive to assume that any examinee has not read about the polygraph on the internet (even if they deney doing so), or that any examinee actually believes that the polygraph provides perfect or near-perfect accuracy.

What then do we accomplish if we try to convince them of that the polygraph is invincible? Think about the context. Nobody takes a polygraph about any important matter simply because they think the test is nifty. They take is because the circumstances require it, and given the other options the choice to take the polygraph seems to be the best or correct thing to do. It is still a choice and there are alternatives. But the examinee would probably not choose to take the polygraph if the other options were not more adverse.

So the examinee wants to take the test and wants a good report from the examiner. Any sensible examinee, whether deceptive or truthful, will be reluctant to engage a power struggle with the examiner and will allow the examiner to engage whatever schtick they decide to engage. Some examinees may naively believe in the polygraph schtick. Many programs with not-so dumb examinees and not so naive examinees will encounter a larger number of people whose posture is one of superficial tolerance. They let us do what we need to do. They evaluate us to determine what form of response or attitude we want from them. And they show us the response or attitude and response they think we want. There compliance and belief in us is a behavioral veneer, and it is likely that we have not convinced them of much. Yet the polygraph still seems to work as well as ever.

Is it possible that we may not need to engage a lot of dramatic schtick to conduct an accurate or effective polygraph? Would the polygraph test be accurate if we engaged only in discussion that was accurate and provided only correct, if incomplete, information to the examinee? Would it be ineffective?

Again, I think at this point the move towards complete automation is a laboratory discussion. It will be discussed and studied. However, it is unlikely that we are anywhere close to abandoning the value and importance of the information we obtain through human interaction during the pretest. It is likely that there is still more to learn (we never seem to know everything) about how to make the most effective use of and how to gain the most valuable information from the polygraph pretest.

We need structure for consistency and reliability. When we talk about structure, the potential for automation is instantly evident. And we have understandable human reactions about being forced into molds that extinguish the importance and value of individual differences. But we have to be a little careful about characterizing the alternatives as either complete automation or no structure at all. Right now we have more structure than in the past, and the test seems to be more effective and defensible. Yet we have not yet lost the human value and differences provide opportunities to learn new things. Is it possible to make more effective use of automation and still not lose the importance of human interviewing? Probably.

.02

r

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

posted 08-29-2012 09:10 AM         

I don't know what percentage of all polygraphs conducted in the U.S. are CIT tests, but I suspect it's under 10%.

You raise a good point about public perception. I wonder how the public would take to fully automated polgraphy...

Even if accuracy is purported to be improved, I can't imagine the general public -- or the scientific community at large -- putting much faith in the "push-button polybot."

But public perception will not deter the government from implementing automated tests for its own use.

Back to the elimination (or drastic reduction) of the pre-test for traditional CQT polygraphy, I look forward to observations on how reducing the overall time for the process may effect the current thinking on minimum time requirements and on the maximum tests per day.

Dan

posted 08-29-2012 10:04 AM         

quote:

---

There is something controversial about a test that depends on the provision of misinformation and psychological manipulation in order to be accurate.

---

I agree. That's why I've been experimenting with a concept I'll call the "open-book polygraph test."

When I get a retail inquiry about polygraph, there are typically two key questions:

How much is the test?
How accurate is the test?

The fee is easy to dispense with. As for accuracy, I make no claims. Instead, I refer them to three web sites:

* NAS Executive Summary
* APA Meta-Analysis
* A-P's TLBTLD

Unconventional, I know. And it comes at a cost: Roughly one half of the leads evaporate.

But the other half continues with the process.

The pre-test phase of my "open-book" exams usually runs longer, because the subjects have questions stemming from their reading.

But there is no deception, and no manipulation on my part.

Exposing polygraph's controversial and highly debated accuracy claims serves another purpose: In those highly charged fidelity cases, where the emotions can run dangerously high, it provides an "out" for both parties -- regardless of the outcome. Even more beneficial, perhaps, it helps to set the stage for what the couple should have done in the first place: get counseling from a licensed, reputable therapist.

The ratio of DI to NDI appears to be no different from that of my traditional "closed book" examinations.

Of course, I don't know what I don't know, so if anyone beat the test using CMs, they aren't about to tell me. That said, I haven't been proven wrong yet by evidence revealed after the tests, either.

Dan

posted 08-29-2012 06:36 PM            

Scathing comments from the other APA on this issue:

"A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector."

For the full article outlining the APA's contempt of the polygraph see: APA

posted 08-30-2012 09:42 AM         

Nothing new there.

And the beat goes on. Check out this late-breaking news story -- lauding the rewards of a newly implemented PCSOT trial program -- from across the pond...

quote:

---

The study identified that offenders were two to three times more probable to confess to potential breaches of their licence, often before they had even undergone the test procedure.

---

Here's a link to the article: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/30/282-Polygraph-tests-of-sex-offenders-reaping-rewards-in-UK.html

posted 08-30-2012 11:06 PM            

We all know that a criticism of polygraph is the lack of a firm connection between deception and chart tracings. Explaining positively why there is a connection is not simple. However, I trust Ray and many others who have used scientific methods that produce results which support the simple statement: Deceptive charts look differently than non deceptive charts ,more often than not.

So anyway , this is a good topic though. I think it's fine to discuss altering the pre test and introduce automation, so long as research supports it.

posted 08-30-2012 11:51 PM         

quote:

---

I don't agree with the sentiment that pre exam admissions negate the underlying science of polygraph though.

---

clambrecht,

Underlying science?

Do tell.

Kindly refer us to some independent blind or double-blind field studies that prove polygraph's validity.

While your pro-polygraph enthusiasm is understandable, you may want to look at the bigger picture.

Polygraph is an indu$try, not a science.

posted 08-31-2012 12:00 AM         

I appreciate the issues you raise and the discussion they elicit. What I don't understand is what you mean by a double blind field study. How would you design that?

Peace,

posted 08-31-2012 09:01 AM         

That's precisely my point. Real-life polygraph doesn't lend itself to such rigors of scientific methodology. Therefore, the true accuracy of polygraph in the field is virtually unknowable.

LEPET and PCSOT tests are pure utility. Or as Don says rather euphemistically, "practical polygraph."

How about doing an experiment on polygraph's "practical" accuracy in the field...

1) Hire a real-life sexual offender (an actual child molester with a lengthy record, but who has maxed out). The SO, who should be chosen in large part because he has good acting skills (easy enough) then solicits ten private polygraph examiners to test him so he can "clear his name" amidst a new allegation.

2) The bogus allegation is that he's molesting his live-in girlfriend's 10-year-old daughter.

3) On the morning of each test, a female actress calls the examiner, and in breathless wailing tones, paints a gut-wrenching picture of how the SO must be up to his old tricks.

4) The innocent SO gets tested by ten different examiners.

How many examiners, do you think, would clear the skinner?

I know CBS did something similar decades ago. But it would be interesting to see how today's "new, improved" polygraph would fare.

Any predictions?

Now, of course, the Polygraph Scientologists will chime in again, saying such an exercise would be worthless.

Really?

Then why are there APA seminar modules for topics such as combating bias? I'm thinking of Bob Drdak's excellent presentation, the exact name of which escapes me at the moment.

Dan

posted 08-31-2012 09:43 AM         

quote:

---

I humbly trust those that do the research and have no reason to doubt what Ray and others taught at the polygraph school.

---

I know that statistical alchemy is alluring, but with all due respect, that kind of intellectual surrender is downright dangerous.

Being a polygraph examiner requires that you also be an independent critical thinker.

Of course, you can choose to simply be a polygraph operator.

posted 08-31-2012 11:27 AM            

___________________________________________
*slow claps* clap....clap....clap...That is a very eloquent attempt at an insult, bravo! I will decline your offer, and not insult you back, sorry!

Thankfully,your assessment is incorrect. I love science and research! I see your fear now, though: being labeled as an "operator" must be something to be avoided at all cost in your perspective.

Not me. If an automated polygraph is better-sign me up! If zero pretest is required,then great.

There used to be similar arguments and criticisms of determining if a driver was intoxicated. The Breathalyzer was heavily criticized due to unethical officers manipulating the final result. Fortunately, The Intoxilyzer replaced Breathalyzers and cops are simply "operators".

Having just finished grad school late in life, I have learned to be skeptical of many institutions, studies,and especially statistics! If the research supports a fully automated polygraph one day, I will gladly swallow my pride and my "examiner skills" and accept it.

posted 08-31-2012 02:29 PM            

I think you are drawing a false dichotomy between polygraph-industry and polygraph-science. Are these supposed to be incompatible? You seem to imply that it can be only one or the other. I do not agree. There is no question that polygraph is an industry. Mobile communication is an industry too. The mobile communication industry is supported by a bunch of scientific technology and scientific principles. Is it possible that the polygraph industry is also supported by scientific principles?

We do have psychological theories than can begin to provide working models for why people react during polygraph testing. The best psychological models - the ones that actually account for the broadest range of known phenomena related to polygraph testing and polygraph accuracy - are not limited to emotion alone (fear), and not limited to hypotheses about emotional dichotomies (fear and hope).

We also have physiological models that start to explain what is occurring in the brain and body when a person hears and responds to polygraph question stimuli. These models include attention, language processing, cognition, emotion, and learning theories.

You also write as if we no absolutely nothing unless we have double blind field studies. No doubt this would be great, and perhaps someday someone will have the resources to do such a study. When it happens, that study will probably be more successful or useful if the assumptions, questions, and procedures are well informed by the results of other types of studies, including preliminary types of studies such as pilot studies. It is simply incorrect to imply or suggest that we know nothing without double blind field studies. If double blind field studies are the only thing someone is interested in, then I will suggest the person is not actually interested in the conversation about what we know about polygraph accuracy.

Another thing: field studies are great for showing that the polygraph works (criterion validity). But field studies are unlikely to ever satisfactorily prove why the polygraph works (construct validity), because it is impossible to satisfactorily control all the variables in a field study. Field studies are generally more adept at studying correlation, and often fall short when it is time to study causality (construct validity). Construct validity is more likely to be validated by laboratory studies.

If we are really going to prove the validity of polygraph we will probably need a combination of field studies (criterion validity), laboratory studies (construct validity), and mathematical statistical evidence (monte-carlo studies) to show whether our decision models do or do not work. Like it or not statistics and statistical decision theory make the polygraph reliable and replicatable. Cleve Backster knew this decades ago – that is why he started the bid'ness of numerical scoring.

It's actually simple. Science is replicatable, quantifiable and measurable. If the polygraph is replicatable, quantifiable and measurable, then it is scientific. Science and technology don't have to be perfect. But they do have to continue improving. We could neglect this, and do nothing, or we can learn how to make it work for us so that we have answers when some smart polygraph critic starts trying to influence new laws and regulations. We could just simply say the polygraph is nearly perfect already, but that may not work as intended. We might be better off to just take the time to learn a half-dozen new concepts – and we should not agree to have low self-esteem simply because the polygraph is good but not perfect, or because we don't presently have all the answers, or simply because some critics will not be satisfied.

If you are suggesting that we should do nothing until we have gold standard proof, then we will do nothing until it is too late. If you are waiting for proof of perfection, then you will wait a long time. It is a joke in science that nothing is ever proven and all theories are wrong... because we will never know everything. When we continue to study our theories and apply our models to an increasing array of phenomena we will find some evidence or phenomena that our theory fails to explain. We are then supposed to study or assumptions and test our hypothesis/theory more until we can improve the model and account for a wider range of known phenomena.

It is really not necessary to be afraid of science or the idea that scientific principles might support the art part of the polygraph. If we reject the science part, and assert that it is all simply a matter of art and expertise, and work from the position that all is OK as long as we get the confession, that the results themselves do not need to be accounted for, then we would be no different from and no better than voice stress – and we will eventually be replaced - by some cheaper form of schtick, and secondarily when someone convinces the legislature to fund some new technology that provides new hope for perfection. I personally would bet against perfection. Also, any new technology will face the challenge of professional infrastructure – the creation of an organized, economically sustainable, and accountable community of professionals who can administer and manage the day to day operation and practical implementation of the technology. (One idea will be to replace the role of the profession with a well administrated business who will be responsible for all phases of the application of the new technology).

Bottom line is that the polygraph industry and polygraph profession are built on some recognizable scientific principles. We do claim to be different than voice stress. And we are occasionally asked to account for the test result itself. If we accept and embrace this we are more likely to be welcomed and appreciated for our abilities (human skills and artistic part of polygraph) to develop more useful information for investigators, risk evaluators and risk managers.

.02

r

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

posted 09-01-2012 10:19 AM         

Our polygraph work is (understandably) different. Very different.

You screen applicants and solve crimes with the aid of polygraph, but I do much more than run tests. Much of my work is polygraph consulting where no testing is ever performed.

Thus, my critical thinking skills must be applied to all aspects of the individual situation I'm facing, whether it's reviewing another examiner's test or simply explaining how polygraph "works" to a couple whose marriage is in distress.

There are times when an individual who has failed a polygraph hires me to find out "what went wrong."

Similarly, there are times when a person is being pressured to take a polygraph and they want to know what they can expect.

So, yes, I bristle at the word "operator."

But after reflecting on the way polygraph seems to fit into your duties and responsibilities, I can better appreciate your point of view.

Some people are OK with being merely operators, others are not. Clearly, I'm not.

And even when polygraph goes full auto, I'll be around to serve that part of the population that doesn't trust the machine.

posted 09-05-2012 09:40 AM         

The only polygraphs that really matter are the ones done in the field.

Laboratory tests provide great fodder for academicians, theoreticians and the like, but, at the end of the day, they chiefly serve as an exercise in mental masturbation.

Lab tests and field tests are two totally different animals.

Lab tests can't begin to approximate the high-stakes atmosphere of real-world polygraphs.

Can you point to any lab studies where subjects are polygraphed for actual involvement in rape? Arson? Murder?

It is in the field where subjects -- both guilty and innocent -- are motivated to employ CMs.
It is in the field where examiners can harbor a serious (and test-effecting) bias for or against a subject.
It is in the field that a subject might indeed be "too nervous" to pass a polygraph, for fear of wrongful conviction, guilt by association, or by innocently reacting to questions that conjure up provocative mental imagery.

What's more, we don't know for sure how polygraph performs across the full spectrum of ethnic groups and personality types. Nor do we know how polygraph affects speakers of English as a foreign language.

I mentioned examiner bias earlier... In a previous post in this thread, I put forth a scenario in which a real-life child molester gets tested against false allegations. No one has commented. In that scenario, going to three different examiners could easily yield three different results: DI, NDI and INC. Why is that?

Let's call it "the human element." By that I mean all of the variables. And there are many. Even the variables have variables.

Until we can find a way to sufficiently control for all of the variables that can affect field tests, we don't know what's what.

To paraphrase Justice Thomas in the Scheffer decision, even the best of polygraph exams are fraught with uncertainties.

Question:
How can anyone put much stock in a process that is littered with so many potentially fatal flaws? Judges certainly don't, generally.

Answer:
Because it's an indu$try with a life of its own. Polygraph is too big to fail. Its proponent$ see to it.

So keep on polishing, Ray. Even if that turd don't shine, a lot of folks are depending on you.

Dan

posted 09-05-2012 10:56 AM         

Backing off?

No.

But the MQTZCT depends as much on art as it does on science.

As I recall, you asked me about this back in February. Here's what I said:

quote:

---

Don,

In response to your question, my take on it is this:

A highly experienced and naturally gifted examiner employed a superior technique consistently in the prescribed manner -- to include the superbly artful execution of the technique's proprietary and uniquely subtle psychological nuances -- in order to realize the technique's maximum potential.

He succeeded.

Dan

---

Interestingly, you never responded.

By the way, I should add that the examiner in this particular study had all of his exams QC'd by the originator of the technique.

Was the perfect result science? Magic? Luck?

Why don't you harness some gummint resources to find out?

In the interest of higher accuracy, I would think you'd want NCCA to exploit this technique to its fullest -- unless you're happy with the way things are.

Why haven't you done that?

Oh wait...I forgot. You'd have to embrace "complex" rules and "fancy" questions. Your examiners would have to be exceptional, not average.

And there's another complication... That "fear of error" question could really put Uncle Sugar in a bind in some cases. Right?

That's OK -- you don't have to answer.

I'm not saying all polygraph is a sham -- although much of it is just that. But I am saying that the "profession" needs to be intellectually honest in the utility-vs.-validity debate in general, and when discussing the real-world error rate in particular.

Dan

posted 09-05-2012 06:54 PM            

quote:

---

In the interest of higher accuracy, I would think you'd want NCCA to exploit this technique to its fullest -- unless you're happy with the way things are.

Why haven't you done that?

Oh wait...I forgot. You'd have to embrace "complex" rules and "fancy" questions. Your examiners would have to be exceptional, not average.

And there's another complication... That "fear of error" question could really put Uncle Sugar in a bind in some cases. Right?

---

posted 09-05-2012 09:43 PM            

This does not seem to diminish your claims, though. To the jaundiced eye it appears that research to be little more than an advertising ploy to get more clients. Don't take this fact as a personal indictment, as the history for advocacy research goes back before Marston and has many authors. Yours is a little different in that your claim polygraph is mostly showmanship, giving short shrift to psychometrics and decision theory that undergird our testing methods. It's all about the money.

If an examiner's research comes out favorably (as it always does), an examiner could use his findings on his website to suggest that his testing methods are better than his competition's. He might say something like this about his technique: "Recognized and accepted as the most accurate specific-incident polygraph technique by the National Research Council's landmark federal study, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, published in 2003." That would be your site, wouldn't it? Of course the NRC never said such a thing, and the claim ignores the appendices where the NRC clearly expressed reservations for the outlier study from which this claim sprang. But, we all recognize that in pursuit of commerce, blind adherence to the facts is a liability.

Dan, it's hard to peg you. Much of the time you sound like a AP plant, yet unabashedly tout the economic benefits of your craft. There is no one else on any polygraph site like you that I've found, save the AP site. You are indeed one of a kind. Let me ask a question that is certainly on the minds of those here more genteel and polite than I: How did you end up in a field for which you have so much distain?

posted 09-05-2012 10:18 PM         

quote:

---

Let me ask a question that is certainly on the minds of those here more genteel and polite than I: How did you end up in a field for which you have so much distain?

---

posted 09-05-2012 11:26 PM            

You are implying that we should not trust lab research because the researchers themselves are profiting from the industry. That's an interesting debate, however many other industries also conduct in-house research that passes peer review and is respected.

The bottom line is that people pay money to see if a person can "pass" the polygraph- not the examiner. The average person on the street focuses on the "the box" , and consider us "operators". If the scientific method produces an accuarate polygraph that better fits their assumptions, our industry will improve. We all win. As it stands now, polygraph is criticized BECAUSE of the examiner's heavy role and the numerous methods out there.

Ok, you asked for feedback on your proposed field study above. I think the results would be interesting only anecdotaly.

First, you described it is a double blind study. Not really, because the researcher conducting it would know ahead of time the actor is NDI. But that's not the biggest issue.

What would the results mean? The study does not allow even the possibility of detecting deception. False positives will always be apart of polygraph- or any test. They increase when there is zero chance for an actual positive result. The polygraph becomes less effective when the base rate of actual positives out there are low.

See the following website for more on this , explained in layman's terms thankfully! They use airport security screening to describe how tests can be very good at spotting a bad guy-yet the base rate of bad guys are so low that numerous grandmas end up being frisked.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity

Also, the 10 examiners will be using 10 different instruments, question formats, suite locations, voice inflections, comparison questions ( or none at all) , pretests, scoring methods, training backgrounds, acquaintance tests......etc. What judgments can be made about the study when you take these factors into account?

The basic critiques above are what outsiders will ask. They will demand those variables be controlled in future studies which is what the lab is for.

posted 09-06-2012 05:12 AM         

quote:

---

Also, the 10 examiners will be using 10 different instruments, question formats, suite locations, voice inflections, comparison questions ( or none at all) , pretests, scoring methods, training backgrounds, acquaintance tests......etc. What judgments can be made about the study when you take these factors into account?

---

Precisely! And you make several other great points, too.

Thanks for the link.

More later. Gotta fly. (literally)

posted 09-06-2012 09:20 AM            

Marston: Discontinuous Blood Pressure
Summers: Pathometer (EDA)
MacNitt: Relevant/Irrelevant
Arellano: Backster
Matte: Quadri-Track
Gordon, Mohamed, Faro, Platek, Ahmad & Williams: Integrated ZCT
Farwell: Brain waves
Tippett: CVSA
Arther: Arther

See any pattern here? All authors were in private practice, all had proprietary interests in their results. But let's accept the research on its face for a moment, and assume no handy panky. If all authors were correct that their methods were 100% accurate, we should be able to conclude that they are all equivalent. We should be willing to use them interchangeably. Silly, isn't it, that your technique and CVSA should be considered equal? That conclusion is almost certainly wrong, but in fact, every published study reporting a mean polyraph accuracy greater than 96% was done by someone with an economic or personal interest, yours included. But, of course, those other guys's research must be wrong or else the NRC could not have possibly endorsed your technique as the one with the highest accuracy....

Now it's easy to see why no one takes such miraculous claims seriously. And using them for advertizing reveals much more about the ethical boundaries of the examiner than the efficacy of the technique. Judging from the websites of other posters I've identified, those private examiners have made different decisions.

And for the curious, what exactly was it that God called you?

posted 09-06-2012 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Dan
You are implying that we should not trust lab research because the researchers themselves are profiting from the industry. That's an interesting debate, however many other industries also conduct in-house research that passes peer review and is respected.

What would the results mean? The study does not allow even the possibility of detecting deception. False positives will always be apart of polygraph- or any test. They increase when there is zero chance for an actual positive result. The polygraph becomes less effective when the base rate of actual positives out there are low.
See the following website for more on this , explained in layman's terms thankfully! They use airport security screening to describe how tests can be very good at spotting a bad guy-yet the base rate of bad guys are so low that numerous grandmas end up being frisked.

---

There is nothing inherently wrong with proprietary interests, but we want to be sure that those interests are not influencing the results in any way. That said, I invite anyone to enumerate the polygraph laboratory studies for which the researchers have proprietary profit interests directly related to the studied techniques.

All researchers in all fields have indirect interests. Finding and publishing something significant is almost always useful to one's career. This is part of the reason that all professions and publications have standards for research and publications. Standards allow us to identify potential confounds (outside factors that account for why a study result occurred the way it did). We want others to be able to double check the findings.

The lab vs field study debate is an exercise in all-or-nothing black-and-white fallacious thinking. The conversation is confused by people who seem to have little actual understanding of how research works. Field polygraph studies so far may actually be more confounded than the laboratory studies. We have much larger problems from field studies for which the researchers profit from proprietary interests in the techniques they have studied. We actually need both types of studies. Neither alone will provide completely satisfactory answers or information. In science, as in life, ain't nuthin' perfect.

If we endorse the notion that we can know nothing until we know everything then we will be waiting forever - or until we are put out of business for being so irresponsible that we do not attempt to account for ourselves.

If we could control all variables in a field study then we could also eliminate all sources of error. Its not going to happen. Not in polygraph. Not in medicine. Not in psychology. All-or-nothing logic would have us do nothing because perfection is impossible.

Yet we do manage to learn some important things, in medicine, in psychology, in polygraph, and in other fields - because we find ways to increase the level of our knowledge and certainty even though nothing is perfect and even though it is never possible to control every single variable.

There is no campaign against the expertise or artistic part of the polygraph. But we are trying to answer the questions and requests to better account for the science part. Nothing more. Experience and expertise will always matter.

But try to imagine if we actually assume that we presently know nothing about the scientific aspects of the polygraph... if we emphasize only the expertise and artistic part. Examiners would be at liberty to make any call they want and defend it with nothing more than "trust me I am an expert." Expertise is always valuable, and there is nothing wrong with that. But how long would it be before it starts to look as if the result itself, not the expertise, has the price-tag?

I think we will be better off if we continue to develop examiner expertise AND prepare to account for the accuracy (and inaccuracy) the test result using objective methods.

It begins to appear that in the past, a solution to the difficult questions about accuracy was to simply claim perfection, and imply that sufficient expertise eliminate the potential for error. People are not buying that anymore.

Another possible response, to questions or requests that we account for ourselves, would be to deny science and deny it is possible to account for polygraph accuracy. Instead, we would emphasize the expertise and wizardry and artistry of the examiner. Critics will hear this as "I know the secret handshake and you don't." They will suspect and assert that perhaps we are simply making up the test result according to some convenient objective. I don't think that will work for long. They will want us to do better than that.

quote:

---

Also, the 10 examiners will be using 10 different instruments, question formats, suite locations, voice inflections, comparison questions ( or none at all) , pretests, scoring methods, training backgrounds, acquaintance tests......etc. What judgments can be made about the study when you take these factors into account?

---

In fact, if the results are greater than chance (50%) then these differences could actually INCREASE the generalizability of the results of this type of experiment.

The linked website is interesting, but also a little misleading in it's incompleteness. It is weighted heavily on Bayesian conditional statistical models. This is exactly what our critics want us to do. Bayesian statistics are non-resistant to base-rate differences. We know that.

What we need to learn and emphasize is that inferential statistical model are resistant to base-rates. The sensitivity, specificity and error rates are not affected by the base-rates in the same way as Bayesian methods.

This is why the ESS is based on an inferential model - and it is why we insisted on the ability to publish the normative data for the studies and techniques included in the meta-analysis.

.02

r

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

posted 09-06-2012 04:41 PM         

All of my specific-issue retail polygraphs are open-book tests. By that I mean I point the client to the APA's meta-analysis, as well as to NAS, TLBTLD, and thanks to clambrecht the "other" APA's page on polygraph. It is now a part of my consent form.

As the late great Sy Syms said, "An educated consumer is our best customer."

What's the beef?

posted 09-07-2012 10:05 AM         

Greetings from Korea.

I'll edit my web site, but I'm in ROK until 17SEP. Will make some changes when back in CONUS and my body clock adjusts. Should be no longer than a couple of days afterward. Honest injun.

posted 09-10-2012 07:46 AM         

I very much appreciate the sentiment, but there may be some disagreement from the native American community.

posted 09-10-2012 07:58 AM            

Whether we always agree or not, we all benefit from the discussions you raise, and the reminders you give about the inevitabile and and enduring complexities and controversies of human issues.

So, I hope you have a great trip and travel safely.

r

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

posted 09-18-2012 08:11 PM         

As promised, I made some changes to my site. Check it out here:

www.polygraphman.com

I'm confident the changes I made will alleviate the concerns you expressed earlier. If you spot any factual errors, please advise.

Thanks,
Dan

posted 10-04-2012 07:31 PM            

Nobody has responded yet to your website changes.

Mostly the changes are quite good.

There are some factual errors though.

quote:

---

Specific-incident polygraph tests have been shown to be around 90 percent accurate in laboratory settings. However, accuracy in field settings (that is, real-life cases) is expected to be appreciably less due to variables that are unique to high-stakes situations. But polygraph techniques vary widely, and some studies suggest that the more sophisticated polygraph techniques -- with their attendant complex analysis protocols and proprietary scoring mechanisms -- are capable of extraordinary accuracy in field settings. Such techniques require advanced training and are best left to highly skilled and experienced examiners who have an intimate understanding of that particular method. I have had great success using advanced methodology, and believe it provides the highest level of polygraph accuracy avaiable [sic.], particularly for the innocent.

---

The ~90% accuracy figure comes from both laboratory and field studies. Accuracy in field settings is not expected to be appreciably less. The difference in accuracy between field and laboratory studies is scientifically meaningless. In general though, field studies have had slightly higher mean accuracy. The problem is that most other forms of testing find field studies have worse accuracy than polygraph. One possible reason polygraph goes against the trend is that it is just different than other scientific tests. However, the exact difference has yet to be described – all explanations are so far unsatisfactory. Polygraph is not inherently or fundamentally different than other scientific or forensic tests. Another possible reason for the difference is that the results of polygraph field studies have been confounded by sampling methodology issues related to the use of field cases (overuse of confession criteria). There is a rather obvious trend in our own literature pointing to these sampling confounds as a more likely explanation.

Also, errors of omission – to us polygraph examiners – are errors of fact. While it is true that some studies have suggested that complex proprietary techniques may provide extraordinarily high accuracy – you neglect to provide information that those same studies have been criticized as among the most confounded in the published literature. Your emphasis on full-disclosure polygraph is admirable, and I hope you do well with this approach. I would think though that full disclosure around polygraph controversy would include full disclosure around the controversy involving some of the complex proprietary techniques with extraordinarily high accuracy.

quote:

---

Can a person fail a polygraph because they are too nervous?
Yes. This is called a false-positive result. A competent and ethical examiner will employ measures to minimize false results.

---

Your answer could make it seem to some readers like all FP errors are nervous errors. There is no evidence – only unsupported opinions – suggesting that nervousness along is a cause for FP errors. We would have to assume that everyone is nervous at a polygraph test. Why then do most truthful people pass? What evidence do we have that most truthful people do not. If we knew this to be a cause of error we could eliminate it (control for it). But we do not, and we cannot. You also give the false impression, to concrete-minded readers – that errors should not occur from competent and ethical examiners, or that an error signifies an examiner who lacks competence or ethics. I think you are confusing three distinct issues: 1) errors, 2) competence, and 3) ethics.

quote:

---

Is it true that polygraph testing is biased against the truthful?
Yes, that is true of most polygraph techniques.

---

You recite the familiar hyperbole here. What evidence do you have that “most” techniques are biased against the truthful?

Look at Tables 4, 5, and 6 in the complete report of the meta-analysis.

None of the Five (5) techniques on Table 4 show any significant (real) difference in test sensitivity and test specificity. No evidence.

The IZCT shows a significant difference in FP errors – only because they have never reported a FP error (which I suppose they would interpret to mean that the finding is generalizable – use the IZCT and never have FP errors – seems unrealistic to me). Despite my disbelief, it is not evidence of bias against truthful people

The Federal You-Phase does have higher inconclusives for truthful people. That is 1 out of 5.

The Backster and Federal You-Phase have weaker specificity than sensitivity, along with the Federal ZCT. Federal ZCT with evidentiary rules and the AFMGQT/ESS do not have weaker specificity.

The Backster and Federal You-Phase and the Federal ZCT have more FP errors than FN errors. The Federal ZCT with evidentiary rules and the AFMGQT/ESS do not.

Differences in inconclusives for criterion guilty and criterion truthful exams are not significant for any of these, though the difference is greater for the The Backster and Federal You-Phase and the Federal ZCT and less for the Federal ZCT with evidentiary rules and the AFMGQT/ESS.

That is 3 out of 5. So far we are 4 out of 10 for Tables 4 and 5.

In Table 6, only the AFMGQT/7-position technique shows test specificity that is actually weaker than test sensitivity. The difference is not the test questions or format, or the numerical transformations or decision rules – it is the decision cutscores that make the difference.

FP errors are greater than FN errors for the AFMGQT/7-position technique. The other four (4) techniques on Table 6 do not show any real difference in FP and FN error rates.

Inconclusive rates are also higher for criterion innocent than criterion deceptive cases with the AFMGQT/7-position, but again not for the other four techniques on Table 6.

That is 1 technique out of 4 for Table 6.

The overall message is that out of 14 validated techniques, only 5 of them perform significantly differently with truthful persons – according to the presently available evidence. Opinions are always nice, but what we really need is for someone to offer any better evidence.

Last time I checked 14 – 5 = 9 and 9 is greater than 5.

So it seems that the evidence does not support that most techniques are not biased against truthful persons.

It may be true that some techniques are biased in favor of test sensitivity over test specificity – that if fine, depending on the needs and operational objectives of the agency, or referring professional.

quote:

---

Is it possible to beat a polygraph test?
It's possible, but not very likely.

---

The evidence seems to have rather consistently controverted this notion. However, it is true that the existence of any potential for someone to defeat the test is both interesting and concerning.

quote:

---

y spouse wants me to take a polygraph to prove I've been faithful. What do you think? 
First of all, a polygraph test is not "proof" of anything. The test result is merely an opinion based on statistical probabilities. Generally, so-called fidelity tests are a waste of time and money. Trust issues should be resolved with tangible proof (undercover surveillance, video, cell phone, text, or email records), or addressed in a clinical setting with the aid of a licensed, reputable therapist who specializes in relationship issues. That said, I do conduct fidelity polygraphs in very select cases. An in-person consultation, before the actual test date, is usually beneficial and sometimes necessary.

---

Interesting. I agree that polygraph results are probative and not factual.

I'm not sure that tangible proof resolved trust issues as much as confirms them. Resolution is in the form of communication and trust building – which can occur in counseling. Resolution can also occur in the form of ending relationships that cannot be repaired.

I think you are overstating the case that these exams are generally a “waste of time.” It might be better to state that these issues might generally best resolved through counseling or confirmed through surveillance or evidence.

And finally,

quote:

---

Do you test minors?
No.

---

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.

Anyway,

I like the new website, and I hope it brings you success and prosperity.

As always,

.02

r

posted 10-06-2012 08:45 AM         

Thanks for your detailed critique.

As far as full disclosure over the criticisms of proprietary techniques goes, I encourage viewers to visit the four links I've posted on my "Recommended Reading" page. One of those links leads to the APA meta-analysis, which drills down into the issues you describe.

Between [our] APA site, the anti site, the NAS report and some observations from polygraph skeptics from the "other" APA, I hope to bring a provide a sense of perspective about the "risks, realities and limitations" of polygraph testing.

In another vein, I was afraid you might find this language objectionable:

A radical departure from the sleight-of-hand, trickery and psychological manipulation that have been harshly criticized hallmarks of polygraph testing for decades, Dan's real-world approach is rooted in technical expertise and validated principles.

Did you miss that part? If not, are you OK with it?

About testing minors... That's my personal call. Just because the APA endorses it, "that don't make it right," in my view.

Commercial web sites are very much living documents, and I suspect that my site will continually evolve, more or less.

Ultimately, I hope to cajole Skip into making a music video endorsing me to the tune of "Jubilation T. Cornpone." I have a lyricist working on the words right now. The tough part will be hammering out a fee-and-royalties deal that Skip feels good about.

Dan

posted 10-06-2012 12:00 PM            

quote:

---

A radical departure from the sleight-of-hand, trickery and psychological manipulation that have been harshly criticized hallmarks of polygraph testing for decades, Dan's real-world approach is rooted in technical expertise and validated principles.

---

I'm mostly OK with it, but since you ask...

There is a bit of a factual and consistency issue here. In general you seem to advocate the artistry aspect of the polygraph as your selling point, but in that statement you use the words "technical" and "validated" which convey a more scientific than artistic meaning.

To the extent that the techniques you use are probably not fundamentally different from other CQTs, the statement about validataed principles seems OK. The only problem is that the central discussion point seems always to be around the so-called "inside track" (which implies troublesome assumptions about "tracks," for which discussions in psychology and physiology seem to be non-existent, and "inside" which begs the questions "inside of what," and what is it exactly (what evidence do we have that it) exists inside the assumed space. So far I think the evidence is unconvincing regarding the validity of the principle of the inside track.

Keep in mind that I know it is ultimately entirely up to you to decide the content of your website.

I am mainly interested in the discussion.

.02

r

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

posted 10-06-2012 12:09 PM         

Tracks aside, do you agree that sleight of hand (as in the known "unknown" stim test), trickery, and psychological manipulation are part and parcel of much -- if not most -- of the CQT polygraph landscape today?

Dan

posted 10-06-2012 02:07 PM            

There has been no question that the CQT has traditionally been based on probable-lie comparison questions, and that the test procedure involves maneuvering the examinee into answering "no" to a questions to which he or she is probably lying.

As a profession we have learned that the CQT is more accurate than previous techniques. John Reid was correct that we need to include comparative response questions to reduce the occurrence of false-positive errors. We have therefore, as a professional community, gotten comfortable with the idea of the need to manipulate people in order to provide a more accurate test.

Some examiners have gotten so comfortable with manipulation that they have engaged in other forms of manipulation - for example, circus tricks - with the hope that it will improve the accuracy of their work. Other examiners have gotten so comfortable with manipulation and deception that they exaggerate their abilities. I recently had to defend a test in court for which the examiner had stated to the examinee that he had done hundreds of these tests - while he had done less than 100 for which many were in polygraph school. It turned out the school may have even advised the students to exaggerate their experience. The court simply subpoenaed the records, which are now in the possession of a scientific critic whose name you can find at AP.

Other examiners have gotten so used to the practice of manipulation and making stuff up that it may seem to them to be inconvenient or impossible to actually account for ourselves in the correct way. In reality it may be inconvenient, but it is not impossible.

Still other examiners have gotten so used to making up explanations that satisfy their own or or someone else's superficial curiosity that they begin to actually believe their untested hypothesis. In the worst cases, people who never learned to think scientifically (ie., question their own assumptions and hypotheses) have actually written up and published these ideas with half-baked anecdotal support (we can find an anecdote or exception for anything), haphazard research, or apologetic "studies" intended to "prove" their ideas.

There is also no question about whether our use of manipulation is viewed as bothersome or ethically controversial by others - including examinees and scientists outside the polygraph profession. It is. Test are intended to help people - including helping understand them correctly regarding truth or deception. Medical, psychological, and scientific ethics generally hold that it is incorrect to manipulate people when we are attempt to help. There are, however, examples of tests and investigative methods or which some form of deception or manipulation are inherent (some methods for evaluation of malingering and certain neuropsychological tests). In general, tests that depend on manipulation or trickery are viewed with skepticism and caution around both their scientific legitimacy and their ethics.

This is part of the reason that DLCs have been described by some as having some advantages over PLCs - they are less ethically complicated because they depend less on manipulation and trickery and they are not intrusive beyond the scope of the intended investigation.

Still the DLC does not work for all persons, and the PLC is probably not going away very soon. But that brings us back full-circle to the art of polygraph, don't it.

.02

r

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

posted 10-06-2012 03:02 PM         

Indeed. The industry needs to brace itself for more anti-polygraph arguments from the likes of persuasive academics Jeffrey Rosky and James Vess.

But that brings us back full-circle to the art of polygraph, don't it.

Yep. No matter how hard one tries to polish that turd, it just don't take much of a shine...