posted 07-09-2007 05:28 PM            

In short, it's modeled after the Utah ZCT. There are two formats: a single-issue (the "A Series) and a multi-facet ("B Series). It looks much like the Federal ZCT, but I can spell it out if you can't wait.

The cut-offs are +/-6.

You won't find much written as there hasn't been much research on it, which is why it didn't make Don Krapohl's article as a validated test.

posted 07-10-2007 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Thanks, Barry. I look forward to seeing you on the 19th.

Dan

---

You expect to make ticket sales with manner like that?

Lets have some real trash-talk and playground posturing. Geeze! Insults, put downs, jeers...

wear your underwear on the outside...

anything??????

r
r

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

posted 07-10-2007 07:01 PM         

Sorry you're disappointed, but what can I say? That Dale Carnegie course worked wonders -- after I was recycled, that is. (First time through, I punched out the instructor. But all's well that ends well!)

posted 07-11-2007 01:11 PM         

Perhaps Barry suggests a new thread because he is jealous of Dan's complex, thick, digitally enhanced 4 "loaves" of hair. I have seen Barry's hair and I have 2 words..........

Albert Einstein

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 07-11-2007).]

posted 07-24-2007 03:12 PM            

The test format is almost identical to the Federal ZCT. I'll list the Federal ZCT first, and next to it, I'll put the CPC questions:

1 N N
2 SR OI
3 OI Intro Stim or SR
4 CQ CQ
5 RQ RQ
6 CQ CQ
7 RQ RQ
8 OI N
9 CQ CQ
10RQ RQ (secondary in Fed / primary in CPC)

You'll see there's little difference. However, the CPC always scores to the former CQ, which means they don't us the Utah or DACA scoring system. Because they don't score to the strongest CQ, their test may be more biased against the truthful. They also teach that if you have an INC, then you look to the OI question to see if that's the problem, and, as you can see, there's only one of them - not that it matters. The neutral in place of the second OI question might help increase the truthful person's score, but who knows?

They base a lot of what they do on Utah when it comes to scoring, but the ZCT they use is really a modified Federal ZCT that is scored differently. Also, they use an introductory stim instead of a sacrifice relevant - unless the person is subjectively emotional, and then they use a SR. (An intro stim would be, "Do you intend to answer truthfully all of the questions on this test?"

posted 07-26-2007 12:08 AM            

Now I have to ask, are Kircher and Honts using different formats along with their different methods of scoring? And if so, which of the two got the Utah ZCT to the new evidentiary accuracy mark?

posted 07-26-2007 07:22 AM            

Kircher = zero when preceding CQ is unusable

Honts = score RQ to nearest CQ

Do we think they have recommendations based on data? If they don't can they make a recommendation based on theory or principle. One principle might be that of scoring to the preceding CQ. Another principle is that of the cumulation of scores, across three to five charts, of the grand total and spot scores. Cumulation depends in part on the number of usable iterations or presentations of the stimulus. Too many unusable presentations (zero scores) and the totals are potentially depleted and that may affect observed test accuracy or inconclusive rates. So, another principle would be that of a sufficient number of scorable iterations of the stimulus - which is actually more critical in cumulative data models (like polygraph hand-scores) than other forms of data aggregation that might be used in computer scoring algorithms.

Who's right? How do we know? Do they even know? What if they don't? Would it be OK for them to say they don't know? How badly do you need an answer? Are we so intolerant of uncertainty or ambiguity that its preferable to solicit a personal opinion (non data-based) from an expert? Or, are we so steeped in authority and adversarial memetics that one person must be right and the other must be wrong? Is it even acceptable for an expert to substitute a personal opinion when an empirical conclusion does not exist? Is that better than not having an answer? Why? Why not?

Peace,

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

posted 07-26-2007 06:03 PM            

You're comparing apples to oranges. The Utah ZCT and the Utah scoring system were validated separately. (That means only one of them is right (based on the data)regarding what the actual way to do it is. I suspect it is Kircher, but that's just a guess. The problem is that the only published info on the Utah Scoring System states to compare to the nearest if there's a problem. In the end, both will work, but which is better? I don't know. Maybe one of them does, but I haven't yet been inclined to ask.)

Ray,

The three charts vs five charts is data driven. It reduces INCs by 11% without effecting accuracy.

posted 07-26-2007 06:05 PM            

It just hit me that you told us you're on the mend from surgery. I hope all is well, and I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers. I've had a few surgeries, but that's a tough one. Take care.

posted 07-26-2007 07:25 PM            

quote:

---

Ray,

The three charts vs five charts is data driven. It reduces INCs by 11% without effecting accuracy.

I think expert opinions are helpful at times, but we must admit that's all they are. Fore example, the Utah test uses a SR. Why? They suspect (or opine) - but don't know - it helps habituate to the RQs, making the test more "fair" (or "biased" as
Kircher describes it) to the truthful in an attempt to counter the inherent bias against the truthful.

---

You are of course correct. It is useful. Its just that we sometimes put too much weight on things we don't actually know about, just because some knowlegable expert thinks so. I would guess that both Kircher and Honts may have discarded more ideas than they have retained - so its important to honor opinions for what they are - expert opinions.

r

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

posted 07-27-2007 01:22 AM            

As you know, a format is validated with a method of diagnosing the format. Although the variables are separate, most of the time the scoring is attached to a particular format and thus it is validated for the format(s) it was used on. There may also be varying degrees of accuracy when using a diagnostic method/scoring on different formats and for different uses of the format (specific vs. multiple issues) with the scoring. The “cause and effect” relationship is not always true but it has been shown to be in some polygraph related research (e.g. Two-stage/Senter decision rules effect the examination outcome). All in all, the variable laden process involved in a polygraph makes for interesting research.

Related to the aforementioned, someone on the anti site asked a question regarding why we do some of the things we do. As you already know and I pointed out, when a format is validated there isn’t anything that can really support whether a deviation from how it was tested will or will not affect the outcome but further testing of the format with the deviation.

posted 07-27-2007 05:32 AM            

quote:

---

As you already know and I pointed out, when a format is validated there isn’t anything that can really support whether a deviation from how it was tested will or will not affect the outcome but further testing of the format with the deviation.

---

Since most tests are validated in the lab with mock thefts, are tests we do in the filed valid on non-theft cases? What if we use different CQs than the lab (or even field studies)? Would that deviation render the test invalid?

This is kind of like asking if we know that gravity would pull us down if we stepped off our roofs. We've never tested it scientifically (seeing if gravity works in a particular geographical spot as it does elsewhere). Can we then argue that we don't really know if gravity will make sure the ground will break our fall until we actually try it?

Based on all we know about the CQT, can we say it is robust enough to handle some variations in formats, CQs, etc, so long as we stick to those principles we know make a CQT work optimally?

(Speaking of grammar, I don't think I should write before breakfast!)

posted 07-27-2007 12:08 PM         

nothing. nada. zilch.

posted 07-27-2007 09:36 PM            

Glad to hear he's OK. I was starting to get worried - thinking maybe we should call DSS to do a welfare check.

r

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

posted 07-27-2007 11:42 PM            

Your points about the variables I didn't mention are well put. I guess it is like the saying from the old commercial, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?" (Sorry, another meme.)

I would agree that some variables may be logically deviate from without much of a difference. Other variables, such as diagnostic procedures/scoring, have shown to effect accuracy. I do agree that the CQT is a robust format in polygraphy. We do however know that every variation of the CQT does not necessarily perform the same.

In knowing that, what variables need to be constant to permit a CQT format to remain relatively unaffected?

posted 07-28-2007 08:39 AM         

You and Stat should be VERY afraid of Dan's silence and lack of response. In my opinion,

"He is layin' low and waitin' to blow !" Don't awaken the sleeping giant....oh crap! was that a meme???