posted 09-06-2007 11:47 AM            

quote:

---

Dear Rnelson,

The examinees wife was the client...is that self reffered?

---

Yes. There is no professional referring agent. You would presumably provide the results to the couple. Have you no therapists in your land? If you do have therapists, are they regulated? My guess is you do, and they are. You could require referrals from a therapist and provide the results only to that referring professional.

Any couple seeking a polygraph has a relationship that is in crisis. Unless you are a relationship counselor, you would be wise to steer clear of getting into the counseling business. Bad counseling is more harmful than no counseling.

If this husband fails the test, you would have to lay bad news on the wife - with possibly no-one to turn to for support except the unfaithful husband. If the husband passes then you have to either tell the wife she is wrong (i.e., delusional?).

Fidelity testing is a professional time-bomb and needs structure, just like every other form of testing.

Polygraph is an ethically complicated proposition. Ethical delemas are stabilized by agreed upon guidelines. No-one (except an examiner who wants a paycheck) could argue that testing of this type requires no thoughtful and judicious decision about under what circumstances such tests are warranted or not warranted.

quote:

---

Here we do not do Govt or Law enforcement testing. Its all private, mainly marriage infidelity, small private business theft issues and thats it!
There is no Pscot or anything like that.

There is are refferals from Govt agencies or anything like that.

Its a very small and isolated industry with only approx 4 examiners in the whole country. Most of which only offer polygraph as a supplement to other private investigation services.

If we didnt take this type of work on , we would have any any polygraph work.

---

Those circumstances, by themselves, do not justify engaging in ethically complex professional practices. Nor do they justify engaging in professional activities that are in all likelihood already regulated (i.e., helping with relationships for professional pay).

tick, tick, tick

(not enough boom for you yet, huh?)

Peace.

r

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

posted 09-06-2007 12:09 PM            

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-06-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-06-2007).]

posted 09-06-2007 07:24 PM         

Taylor has the info. She is already using it as well.

posted 09-07-2007 08:23 AM            

valid comments indeed and much appreciated.
I will get more feed back from others to understand various points of view.

A question: If you did not have any pscot or govt/law enforcement reffered work etc etc other than the private work we get in my part of the world, what would you do?

Should the 4 0r 5 examiners in my country stop their private polygraph practices and do something else?

posted 09-07-2007 10:05 AM            

Assuming you have had pcsot training, you then start a small and secretive pilot program on say, 12 sex offenders-----for which you charge gas money to administer (or for free.) Learn everything you can about the offenders (containment research) and kick butt. Maybe you too can "never look back" at those domestic tests.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-07-2007).]

posted 09-07-2007 11:36 AM            

quote:

---

A question: If you did not have any pscot or govt/law enforcement reffered work etc etc other than the private work we get in my part of the world, what would you do?

---

That's easy. Small engine repair...

I like working with my hands. So, building houses has always sounded like it might be satisfying.

quote:

---

Should the 4 0r 5 examiners in my country stop their private polygraph practices and do something else?

---

No. They should develop professional practices that are likely to foster a healthy and credible long-terms professional culture, and a satisfied market of professional consumers of the polygraph.

Schlepping tests to couples in crisis doesn't cut it.

Providing professional polygraph services as an adjunct to competent and professional relationship counseling - when the counselor has determined that such testing would help the couples therapy process (and when we are sure the polygraph is not another expression of some tyrannical relationship or domestic abuse). This simple requirement would prevent all sorts of potential problems, from duplicitous media forays, to potential violence and other liability concerns.

r

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

posted 09-07-2007 04:57 PM            

Finally, I saw the light and I will not do fidelity exams unless they are in therapy. I don't want to have one spouse shoot the other after the examination!

posted 09-09-2007 07:11 AM            

I and other examiners have tried to market here to Therapists and Police but we get no response.

posted 09-14-2007 10:45 AM            

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that whilst fidelity testing is not easy and requires great care (What testing doesn't) there is no reason why a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend should not consider a test if the circumstances of their problem is specific and relevant.

I often hear the argument against fidelity tests because we should only be providing tests in considered "professional circumstances". Taking a moral stance and excluding a person from a test is I agree sometimes necessary however excluding them just because the problem they have is "only fidelity" strikes me as strange to say the least. I test regularly on fidelity matters and although I find myself turning clients away because I asses their particular situation or needs as outside the bounds of a polygraph test, I don't believe the work I do in infidelity is any less valid than the work I do regarding other issues.

This may sound a bit like an alcoholic going to a first AA meeting but ladies and gentleman "I test in fidelity cases and am proud of the work I do"

posted 09-14-2007 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

I don't believe the work I do in infidelity is any less valid than the work I do regarding other issues.

---

On what empirical data do you base such a belief?

What types of "fidelity issues" are you testing? You could be correct in your assertion, but there's no way to evaluate it from what you've said.

I ask because I know an examiner who'll do fidelity exams, and he once had a therapist tell one of the examiner's clients that he (potential examinee) was guilty of "vaginal masturbation" if he (the examinee) ever fantasized about another woman while having sex with his wife.

posted 09-14-2007 01:21 PM            

I would be interested to know what that therapist would make of PCSOT. Under his theory it sounds like he believes there really no difference between fantasizing about a sexual act and physically committing the act. Under this theory should we beware testing on any act that a person may have thought about at some time?

I have no empirical evidence as to testing on Infidelity, I imagine that this is not the only test issue with a lack research behind it, however it seems to me that infidelity as an issue is just too easy to swipe aside without really thinking about it. I do agree that there is evidence of abuse of Polygraph with regard to infidelity, I am sure we have all heard horror stories. As standards of competence in our profession are hard enough to control at the best of times I can understand that to many it is an issue they would rather discourage all together. I take the view that human nature being as it is the moment the Polygraph came into existence the issue of infidelity was always going to gravitate towards it, right or wrong it was always going to happen and rather than brush it under the carpet it is better to face it head on.

I am not advocating for one minute that everybody should provide infidelity testing services but I feel that some who publicly attack it without giving it thought are taking the same narrow minded attitude the like’s of George M take to polygraph in general.

posted 09-14-2007 01:52 PM            

1. Accountability/ QC
2. Therapeutic oversite
3. Standardization
4. False advertisement
5. potential unprotected violence/retribution
6. Lack of examinee history (verifiable)
7. Constant flakiness and no-shows
8. boooorrrring!
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-14-2007).]

posted 09-14-2007 02:12 PM            

My point with that therapist story is to show how flaky people can be. If he, a trained therapist, can be that out there, then how much more so the examiner who might have little to no schooling in marriage and family therapy? In other words, without standards as well as examiners serving as their own investigators, I think the practice is one that needs to be viewed with a cautious eye.

posted 09-14-2007 02:48 PM            

Thanks for the response, I understand what you are saying, I agree with your list but let's be fair some of those items are general problems (standardization for one)and not exclusive to infidelity testing.

I do like your use of the above ground pool analogy, I am from the UK where we only get five days sunshine a year so any pool here is a waste of money but I take your point, If ever I am lucky enough to buy a home in the states I getting my pool dug in the ground!

I do appreciate that infidelity testing is controversial and needs to be approached with great care, As always I appreciate getting the views of others on this site.

posted 12-13-2007 10:21 PM         

Although the issue of habituation is discussed in standards and recommendations, specifically regarding the number of examinations examiners are limited to conducting in one calendar year on any given offender, does the total number of examinations an offender participates in over time lead to a similar result? I’m not necessarily addressing the issue of habituation per se, but rather, is there any differentiation in the comparison questions we use over time, with examinees who participate in numerous examinations?

As most examinees will likely see many different examiners over time, and due to examiner differences, will likely be exposed to a variety of different comparison questions, when we discuss “strong” versus “weak” comparisons, is it implied that examiners utilize stronger comparisons over time?

posted 12-18-2007 05:59 PM            

I am a new examiner and I am still very eager to learn. I work for a PD and do mostly criminal specific issue examinations with some pre-employment exams. I don’t do sex offender or fidelity tests so most of that discussion was little help to me. I appreciate Skip sharing his views on non-traditional CQ's. Most of the CQ's I have used were word for word the same ones Bill posted (and said were posted on Maschke’s website). I don’t know if those questions are standard for all or most polygraph schools, but those questions looked like they came right out of Chuck’s book. The CQ's that Skip Webb posted have really got me thinking. I hate wording all my controls with “Before last year”, “Prior to ___” and so forth. I completely agree that anyone having done any research (which is just about everyone these days) will recognize those as controls immediately.

As a new examiner I am having the most difficulty becoming comfortable with my control questions. Too often, I think, I resort to lie controls because I am so comfortable with them and they seem effective in most cases. I am comfortable using theft controls to theft questions, but I use lie controls almost exclusively when the issue is a sexual offense. I don’t know that what I am doing is wrong because it seems very effective and I frequently obtain a post test admission, but I have to wonder if there is not a better way. Anyway, I just wanted to let all of you know that I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences. You are making new examiners like me better.

posted 12-18-2007 06:53 PM            

Even though every examiner gets a copy of "the List" of comparison questions, I think you will find out that your comparison questions will work better for you if you do a thorough pre-test and find your comparison material there rather than from the list.

If you use the same old CQ's without putting in the effort to make sure they fit the individual you might see a drop in the quality of your exams.

Don't get me wrong, I think that examiners sharing ideas about CQ's that have worked for them is a good idea, but it is a mistake to assume that the value of a CQ is in the wording rather than in the process of identifying its significance to the examinee.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas