posted 08-25-2012 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Title The (F)utility of Post-Conviction Polygraph Testing.

Author(s) Rosky JW

Source Sex Abuse 2012 Aug 22.

Abstract

The apparent utility of the polygraph to work both as a treatment and supervision aid and as a deterrent for future offending is cited as ample justification for its use. This article examines these claims to demonstrate that although post-conviction polygraph testing may have some utility by increasing disclosures of prior offending and, within specific cases, admissions of treatment and supervision violations, the limited evidence accumulated thus far does not adequately ascertain its accuracy nor support its efficacy or effectiveness as a deterrent. The article concludes with recommendations for creating a real evidentiary base beyond polygraph testing's apparent ability to elicit more information from offenders to evidence that can determine whether it is efficacious and effective in reducing criminality and deviance.

Language ENG

Pub Type(s) JOURNAL ARTICLE

PubMed ID 22915203

---

Bottom line: they want to see evidence.

Evidence will be in about 4 areas.

1) construct validity - our knowledge about the psychological and physiological mechanism that make the polygraph work. in the absence of our own knowledgebase about criterion validity we will continue to be criticized using the impossible and rediculous and punishingly false construct that the polygraph measures lies (read the article).

2) criterion validity - the rate that it puts people in the correct criterion categories. the rate of errors.

3) incremental validity (utility) - the ability to access information that leads to more accurate/effective risk assessment and risk management

and

4) program outcomes - does polygraph testing change the outcome, as measured by treatment and supervision success/failure rates and recidivism rates

So far we have tended to emphasize mainly the utility (information disclosure) value of the polygraph - sometimes with little actual though to whether all, some, or none of the information is actually used in risk assessment methods or risk management decisions.

We are being challenged to show more evidence.

Neglecting to do our homework and show the evidence may eventually start to cost us.

.02

r

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

posted 08-25-2012 05:26 PM         

The article was probably in press when the big news about polygraph verifying the existence of Bigfoot hit the street.

Besides, what we lack in science, we more than make up for in righteousness.

How so? Easy...

According to Barry C, who is the APA's incoming president, polygraph examiners are called by God. Chosen, in fact. Barry even put it in writing, bold as brass, in the AAPP newsletter a while back. Check it out.

Who needs science when God is on your side?

Be careful what you wish for, Ray. If the PCSOT consumers want scientific evidence, then the LEPET consumers -- or those who fail the "test" -- can't be far behind...

Won't that be fun.

Dan

posted 08-25-2012 07:19 PM            

END.....

posted 08-25-2012 08:46 PM            

quote:

---

According to Barry C, who is the APA's incoming president, polygraph examiners are called by God. Chosen, in fact. Barry even put it in writing, bold as brass, in the AAPP newsletter a while back. Check it out.

---

Who needs science when God is on your side? Do you know how stupid you sound?

posted 08-25-2012 08:51 PM            

Among his many articulate criticisms, he attempts to encourage research and development, and calls for complete automation

quote:

---

...if any scientifically useful polygraph technique is identified above, we need
to eliminate humans from administering the test as this would obviate the problem
of neophyte or inept examiners. These objective polygraph techniques should be
able to be automated using software to not only administer both examination and pre-examination questions similar to what is done in computer-aided surveys (Maxfield & Babbie, 2011) but also to score and record charts and videos of these tests.8 This software could then be used without the need for a trained examiner, allowing it to be used in probation offices, prisons, and clinical settings, giving real time feedback to treatment and field personnel, and reducing the cost burden to agencies and offenders. Indeed, one wonders why an enterprising polygraph examiner hasn’t done this yet, even with techniques that have little empirical support.

---

then forces his point further with this note

quote:

---

An anonymous reviewer expressed skepticism that automation could be achieved, claiming that the lengthy pretest interview precluded this from happening because it is where “important information is gathered, questions are formulated, and it is confirmed that the offender understands what is being asked, amongst other things.” However, if this is true, then post-conviction polygraph testing is an unstandardized technique that changes from subject to subject; hence, no meaningful assessment of its accuracy, validity, or effectiveness can be made. In other words, the machine is merely a prop used to elicit confession.

---

As always, practical reality is probably somewhere in between the black and while polar extremes of no-science or no-humans.

Regardless, this article is in the Journal of Sexual Abuse, published by ATSA, and it would be a mistake to assume that ATSA leadership is not listening to this argument.

.02

r

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

posted 08-25-2012 10:39 PM         

quote:

---

Dan - Please send me a copy of the article you identified referencing the incoming APA president.

---

I cannot send you a copy, but the piece I referenced is in the July 2010 issue of the AAPP publication.

Barry's article runs from page 33 to page 35.

On page 34, near the top of the right-hand column, Barry states:

I've said it before, but it deserves being said again: We polygraph examiners -- whether we acknowledge it or not -- are called by God.

The piece contains several snippets of bible stories, and is rife with feel-good bromides about ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and the need to apply ourselves mightily in our calling.

Here are a few examples:

Proverbs 12 (NLT) The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in those who tell the truth.

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

Additionally, Romans chapter 13 tells us that civil authorities are His servants, and that's where most of us sprung our roots.

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

We need only submit ourselves to the godly objective of our calling by separating the liars from the truthful.

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

Remember, with God on your side, all things are possible.

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

Ted Todd probably has an original copy of the July 2010 issue. Perhaps he could scan pages 33-35 and email them to you. I suggest Ted only because he's indicated that he maintains a sizable library of polygraph resource materials. Of course, there may be other AAPP members out there that view this forum and have the 7/2010 issue.

Dan

posted 08-26-2012 02:15 PM         

I have never been a member of the APA and do not receive their publications. I do have a lot of polygraph material but not the journal or article you are talking about.

posted 08-26-2012 02:54 PM         

I know you are not a member of APA (our loss) -- but the July 2010 publication I speak of is from AAPP.

I'm unsure of the AAPP periodical's title... Is it still called Police Polygraphist? Whatever the name, it's from AAPP.

If you aren't a member of AAPP, I apologize.

Dan

posted 08-26-2012 07:23 PM         

You are correct. AAPP has the "Police Polygraphist" publication. I don't have a copy of the one you are looking for. I know that Barry stands behind all of his articles and a copy of what you are asking about is probably available.

As for APA membership, I have nothing against the APA. I am a member of AAPP, CAPE and ASTM which is about all I can handle. I would rather be "active" in a few associations than just a "member" in multiple associations. As an active member of CAPE and AAPP, I attend three seminars a year which is about all the budget can take!

Take care,

posted 08-26-2012 10:45 PM         

Statistical alchemy notwithstanding, I rather doubt that you, or any of the other Polygraph Scientologists who are currently hell bent on lending scientific legitimacy to polygraph, will hold much sway with Dr. Rosky.

Viewers, check out Rosky's creds here: http://www2.cohpa.ucf.edu/crim.jus/cv/Rosky.pdf

Dr. Rosky, it appears, is a realist. And he's not alone.

As you pointed out, Ray, one of Rosky's reviewers pooh-poohed the idea of an automated polygraph test, due in part to the peculiar nature and crucial role of the pre-test interview.

In other words, if the witch doctor (i.e., polygraph operator) doesn't do the rain dance, it ain't gonna rain.

Is there anyone among us who disagrees with that?

We must stop pretending. It's only a matter of time until Rosky -- and other objective researchers -- uncovers the many similar idiosyncrasies in the hokey-pokey world of polygraph. What then? This: The house of cards that the Polygraph Scientologists have built comes tumbling down.

But it won't be the end of the world, as we'll always have utility on our side. That will never go away.

Just as the stock market and the real estate scene have endured major "corrections," I suspect that the time is nigh for polygraph to undergo a similar reality check.

People, prepare yourselves.

That said, what's wrong with utility? Why the rabid quest to turn pseudoscience -- or voodoo science -- into science? So the "profession" can feel better about itself?

Let's get real.

Think about it... Just because a bunch of like-minded change agents sit around thinking up standards and protocols for the "proper" way to run the "test," it doesn't make the "test" scientifically legitimate.

In the words of the late, great Clara Peller, "Where's the beef?"

Dr. Rosky would like to know. So do others.

Meanwhile, comments like Barry's "Polygraph examiners are called by God" assertion only reinforce the eye-rolling negative stereotypes associated with the "profession."

Examiners who are familiar with Maschke's AP site have no doubt seen his home page, and the highly damning "Did you know..." list that is front and center there.

Let's take a look at just the first four (out of 15) Did you know entries...

Did you know:

The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis?
The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot?
The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?
The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge?

Now, we should be prepared for GM to soon add this gem:

Did you know...
The incoming president of the American Polygraph Associations is a Christian Fundamentalist minister who believes that polygraph examiners are called by God?

Swell. That's great PR. And won't it get people's attention on the witness stand when the opposing counsel has the crosshairs right where he wants them...

I haven't even touched on LEPET yet. That's another tsunami that's slowly gathering momentum off our radar screen.

Dan

posted 08-26-2012 11:39 PM            

Do we simply stay in a static position and wait for the tsunami to hit?

Or, is there something to learn from these articulate and intelligent critics? And is there anything that we could do better?

Or is it all hopeless, and do we simply ride this horse like we stole it, until it's done?

If weare interested in emphasizing the "utility" of the polygraph, then wemight want to prepare to show exactly what ways the polygraph information is useful. The outcomes.

Oddly, Rosky is talking about the same things we are. Accuracy. Errors. Reliability. Automation. Ethical decision making.

He, like Maschke and others, probably knows that the polygraph is probably not going anywhere. It is too useful to give up.

But they will hit us with the hardest indictments and criticisms they can.

If we do nothing, if we stay in the same rut, learn nothing, improve nothing, and account for nothing more than we have in the past... then we will lose ground, because we will validate the accusations of our critics. People will view our doing nothing as an indicator that nothing is possible. Of course, if we believe nothing is possible then we won't try. Doing nothing will be evident in that years will click by and we will have no evidence of improvement to our methods, and no evidence that we have learned anything new. That will be the evidence of pseudoscience.

If we do something to learn about our own work - and find factual reasons to believe in our work - then we will actually make improvements and we will be better able to account for both the accuracy and inaccuracy of the polygraph. It will then be inevitable that we gain ground and gain credibility. We might even succeed at improving the way human decisions are made (not replaced) with the incorporation of both polygraph information and polygraph results.

One difference between PCSOT and LEPET testing is the sex offenders have their rights and liberties on the line, while employment with law enforcement agencies is a privilege not a right. Offenders will therefore spend a little more to bring their legal fight to us a little sooner.

Do we care so little or are we so hopeless and helpless that we choose to do nothing? Or, should we try? Should we prepare for the argument?

Rosky is one guy, just like Maschke is one guy. They will influence others. And they will influence more people if we do nothing. Rosky is not unassailable. He engages the typical straw man argument that polygraph is invalid because it cannot detect lies per se. He argues the lack of significant findings while changing the reported figures. This is his form of intellectual zealotry. Sure we won't convert him. But he still has real credentials and present a compelling challenge to us.

Being challenged to account for ourselves by people with strong credentials (even if they are a little zealous) is simply a challenge to do things correctly and to keep learning. Do this and we stay in the game. Neglect that and our demise is certain.

Actually, there are times when I think your alternate or unconventional perspective is quite helpful to point out some of our own silliness that may so habituated or used to that we start to not notice. other times, it simply helps us hone our thinking. It would be a big mistake to look at this situation from only one perspective.

.02

r

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

posted 08-27-2012 09:20 AM         

You can attempt to keep polishing the polygraph-is-science turd, but it's still a turd.

clambrecht:

Given Barry's high profile as a police polygraphist, researcher and APA chief executive, his proclamation that polygraph examiners are called by God is arguably injurious to the "profession."

Let's put Barry's same words in someone else's mouth... say, John Grogan.

What if Grogan added to his ubiquitous mosaic of web sites something like HOLY GHOST POLYGRAPH -- OUR EXAMINERS ARE CALLED BY GOD!

One can imagine the head-shaking snickers and indignant backlash -- or, more likely, the outright condemnation -- that would pour from the "legitimate" polygraph community.

But it isn't John Grogan, is it? This is the mindset of the APA's new president.

And this helps us...how?

Perhaps it will give rise to some creative marketing ideas. Examiners in private practice can exploit evangelicals, maybe advertise in church bulletins.

Hey, what about using a converted motor home in which to run the "tests?" Yeah...that's the ticket... One could cruise the Bible-belt circuit and maybe even retire after a few healthy passes.

cha-ching

As legions of the faithful have seen on network television, the GCB have many secrets.

Dan

posted 08-27-2012 09:58 AM            

I was late to get into the "it's a calling" crowd. Scientists made the claim before I did. Consider E.O. Wilson (a biologist), who called science a divine calling.

The reason you sound so stupid trying to argue such a calling apparently means science can be abandoned is because I came to my position through the science of hermeneutics. By the way, in the article I encourage people to get more training, which I've been preaching should be evidence based. So, connect the dots: we need science. That's the point.

quote:

---

In other words, if the witch doctor (i.e., polygraph operator) doesn't do the rain dance, it ain't gonna rain.

Is there anyone among us who disagrees with that?

---

Sure. Again, look at Offe and Offe. Even with no "rain dance" polygraph worked. We are our own worst enemies. We talk about how necessary it is to develop CQs based on the interview, but the Canadians have only eight CQs in their repertoire, and most can't name all of them. Take a look at how well their technique does, and you have to wonder why we keep painting ourselves in a corner.

Again, consider the tests students run in the lab (Utah). With almost no training, they do very well.

posted 08-27-2012 10:00 AM            

You sometimes have good points - such as that our message needs to stand on its own, and not to depend on the messenger.

But I cannot agree on the polygraph turd part.

Can we assume, for the sake of argument, that by "turd" you mean non perfect or imperfect, or still somewhat dependent on human expertise, half-art, or non completely automated. All of these are the same: turd, not perfect, imperfect, somewhat dependent human expertise, half-art, not completely automated.

There is legislation in congress right now to increase regulation of the forensic sciences. Do we want to be a part of that? If so, then we might not want to emphasize the turd part of the polygraph. We might want to emphasize and draw attention to the science part.

Do we want to be included in forensic science legislation? Do we want to be excluded from forensic science legislation? What can we expect for future program and funding decisions if polygraph is included in forensic science legislation? What can we expect from future program and funding decisions if polygraph is not included in forensic science legislation? How can we ask or insist on being a part of forensic science legislation if we do not believe in our work as science? Where would be the integrity in that?

Aside from all that...

I think what we need is a portable palm sized scanner, so that field examiners who work away from the office can travel light and still have people swear on a digitized bi... but wait that gets to arguing religion and philosophy.

.02

r

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

posted 08-27-2012 10:30 AM         

The Canadians make a very big deal out of the rain dance, do they not?

Ray:

quote:

---

But I cannot agree on the polygraph turd part.

---

Of course you can't. You're in too deep.

As for the legislation before congress... Polygraph will never be part of any forensic science legislation, because it isn't science.

Everyone knows it.

Everyone but us, that is.

posted 08-27-2012 10:41 AM            

quote:

---

sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

Definition of SCIENCE

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

---

scientific method:

quote:

---

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

---

This does requires that we test and question our hypothesis and not simply try to prove our forgone assumptions. Not all polygraph research is squared-up with this requirement.

Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science:

quote:

---

"... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions." —p.vii,

---

.02

r

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

posted 08-27-2012 11:14 AM            

After witnessing muscle building contest polygraphs and 15 minute bass tournament tests done on fishermen drinking beer and "reputable polygraph experts" on Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer it's pretty hard to argue that we've got our problems.

posted 08-27-2012 11:58 AM         

I never looked at "science" that way before. Amazing.

All you gotta do is point it all out -- right there in black and white -- to the congressional subcommittee studying the forensic sciences, that polygraph sufficiently fits the scientific mold.

Piece of cake.

Then, after you testify, Barry can get sworn in and explain how polygraph examiners are called by God.

Slam dunk.

I'm pretty sure that Missouri congressman Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin (R) is on a science and technology committee. Shoot, after a prayer breakfast or two with Barry, we'll be in like Flynn!

posted 08-27-2012 03:45 PM            

After the 2009 report was issued, the White House created a forensic science subcommittee to draft recommendations as to how to implement the 2009 report's recommendations. When they put together the committee, they included an expert in polygraph. That committee's work has yet to be published, and they are all under a gag order until their final report is released. Their charter was extended until next month - I think - so maybe we'll hear more soon. We got a taste of what to expect at the AAFS conference in February.

posted 08-27-2012 07:41 PM            

They do have Credibility Assessment as a science.

AAFS

General
Areas of interest within the General Section include:

Forensic Accounting Forensic Firearms Analyst
Forensic Archaeology Forensic Geologist
Forensic Art and Sculpting Forensic Management or Administration
Forensic Aviation and Land Vehicle
Accident Investigation Forensic Nursing

Forensic Consulting (1991) Forensic Photography
Forensic Credibility Assessment Forensic Radiologist
Forensic Death and Crime Scene
Investigation Forensic Veterinary Science

Forensic Education or Research

posted 08-27-2012 11:12 PM         

art
1    [ahrt] Show IPA

noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.

3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

All my love,

posted 08-28-2012 08:55 AM            

I'm a member of AAFS (General Section), and they've recognized the field of credibility assessment for a few years now. My point was that the official White House committee appointed a polygraph examiner as a member. That committee was created in response to the 2009 NAS report on forensic science.

Ted,

I made the same point in an APA magazine some time back. Art has to to with aesthetics, and while some make anything they do look artful, it doesn't describe polygraph.

Dan,

Yes, the Canadians make a big deal of the pre-test, but from what we know, it's unnecessary. Simply explaining a rationale for the introductions of the CQs works, and students do that from a pre-written script - no Jimmy story for them. My point, however, was that one doesn't need a book full of possible CQs, which some detractors cite as proof that the test isn't standardized, which is essential.

posted 08-28-2012 08:58 AM         

quote:

---

3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

---

Ted,

The example of dance is most apropos.

In the "hokey-pokey" world of polygraph, manipulating the subject is akin to doing the "twist" or the "hustle," which, of course is a subset of the overall psych-out pre-test "rain dance."

When test results barely meet the cut scores, the examiner often does a "tap dance."

And when, God forbid, evidence shows that the wrong call was made, the examiner reverts to the ol' "soft shoe."

Yes, Ted, I'd say you nailed it.

posted 08-28-2012 09:54 AM            

You do have a point.

The test does traditionally depend on manipulation, and this is viewed as a controversial way to conduct a test. I think because we have become comfortable with the need to manipulate people in order to conduct the test effectively, we may have times resort to over-using metaphors and saying things that sound a little bit ridiculous (e.g., the amygdala is like a little tweeker meth-addict in your brain who goes instantaneously from zero to full speed at the slightest hint of a potential consequence).

What you neglect is whether or not it is possible to conduct the test without that manipulation. Some evidence suggests it may not be as necessary as you or others assume. and DLCs accomplish the testing objectives in a more straightforward manner.

Perhaps you may want to get some training in the use of DLCs. Of course, some of our past training may say they will not work - if we locked into the singular idea that the polygraph measures fear and nothing else.

When you say "soft shoe" I think you mean that when an error is discovered we usually try to find fault with the examiner - because it is perhaps too difficult for us to imagine that the test itself is not fallible if we simply do everything correctly.

So I am curious about your opinion, do you think it is at all possible to conduct the pretest without the psych-out manipulation? Or is it fundamental to polygraph accuracy (perfect accuracy?) that we engage in hokey-pokey silliness?

r

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

posted 08-28-2012 10:48 AM         

I'm very familiar with the theory and practice of DLCs, and have used them on occasion with some particularly obstinate subjects.

Problem is, they're a red-flagged open invitation for the examinee to hammer the CQs with self-induced augmentation of reactions.

As to your questions...

It is possible, of course, to conduct the test without the rain dance, but accuracy will suffer -- just not enough for Uncle Sugar to care, in all likelihood.

I would not be surprised to learn (officially) that the gummint -- primarily via their contractors -- is experimenting with polygraph automation.

That said, it is my opinion that enhanced accuracy is achieved only through human interface.

Whether that enhancement is significant enough for Uncle Sugar -- and I doubt that it is -- remains to be seen.

Time will tell, but I'm betting on automation. A GS-4 technician is a hell of a lot more affordable than your garden variety gummint polygrapher.

Of course, that model ultimately will trickle down to state, municipal and local levels.

Dan

P.S.
Coming soon...