posted 09-28-2007 03:07 AM            

---

Dear Colleagues:

I must admit that I am a "dinosaur." After EPPA was passed in 1988 my polygraph business collapsed. I re-tooled, got my masters, and went into the vocational school business. I still dabbled in the occasional polygraph but it was a reality that life had changed. I must admit that I am still using an analog polygraph (Stoelting Ultrascribe) for the occasional polygraphs I perform. For most of you I imagine computerized polygraphs are required. Did they (the computerized polygraphs) revolutionize this industry or do most veterans still rely on the analog?

IP: Logged

posted 09-28-2007 05:32 AM            

---

We had this discussion back a ways if you want to look for it. In short, your analog will do the trick, but the computer is the way to go.

Welcome back!

IP: Logged

posted 09-28-2007 06:33 AM         

---

You have to admit, the analog cardio is a crispy little trace, ain't it? I think the main difference is that you (as an "analoguer") demand stillness more from the examinee due to the pen splashing of ink when it hits stops. When I ran analogue, I demanded the examinee be a statue at all times before and after necessary scoring zones just to keep the tiny splatters off of my clothes.Had I continued to use analogue, I would have eventually just dressed like Johnny Cash every day.

IP: Logged

posted 09-28-2007 08:28 AM            

---

Admit it stat. You just wanted to dress like the man in black.

Now we know the real advantage of the computer over the analog polygraph - less drycleaning.

r

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

IP: Logged

posted 09-28-2007 09:40 AM            

---

rnelson,

"...and excellent movement sensors!"

Jim

IP: Logged

posted 09-28-2007 09:47 AM            

---

Perhaps the ink-on-shirt was an overlooked movement/CM data stream.

r

IP: Logged

posted 10-09-2007 12:26 AM            

---

Keithpoly -

I'm in the same "dinasour" club as you are. Began testing in '79 using a Stoelting 22600 (3-channel), this was traded (after significant arm twisting of the department) for a Stoelting 80401. I then purchased my Lafayette Ambassador (761-69GA) in '85 for private work. The 761 is still working today, as good as new.

Being semi-retired and now in a State that does not favor polygraph I'm not conducting many exams. Unless I missed something in the last discussion regarding the pros and cons, analog vs computerized, when it all comes down to an opinion, it was suggested an examiner manually score the charts as a backup to the computerized score.

I've achieved great results with my 'ol analog - no need to fix it if it ain't broke.

END.....

IP: Logged

posted 10-09-2007 08:00 AM            

---

Actually, the current wisdom is to use the computer score as a "backup" to your hand score.

As an aside, the Utah scoring system, one of the two validated systems, is designed for scoring on the computer as it is expected that the examiner will need to make adjustments to the tracings or use filtering options. You can't do that with an analog, but that doesn't mean they're no good. We would simply expect greater accuracy with the computer because you have more options to score the data (providing you have the right software).

IP: Logged