posted 07-30-2007 05:11 PM         

Ted

posted 07-30-2007 08:00 PM         

I don't trust just anyone to teach the APA's massive 2 weeks of psychology and 2 weeks of physiology. Send in a quality monitor!

posted 07-31-2007 05:13 PM         

Hector has taught polygraph courses on site in Bolivia and Panama under a contract with the U.S. Department of State, as part of the campaign against corruption. The examiners screen policemen and attorneys who apply for the anti-corruption task forces in those countries. They task forces are responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption in their respective countries, and everybody assigned to them must be screened to ensure their integrity. The examiners conduct both the screening exams and specific issue tests.

Hector has asked me to exercise quality control for the Bolivian examiners. This brings up a moral issue. One the one hand, my doing so would lend my name and reputation to the operation, giving it a level of respectability it might not otherwise have. On the other hand, one could argue that it is precisely such examiners – trained by an unaccredited school and involved in an important program – who most need a good quality control program. I would be very interested in hearing your opinions about the pros and cons of this. This might best be done as a separate topic.

Peace,

posted 07-31-2007 06:07 PM         

Let me see if I have this right.

This guy has never been to an acredited polygraph training program. Now he runs a school teaching polygraph examiners in other countries. He trains other examiners for critical missions where the importance of a valid test is paramount. And now he wants you to approve the whole mess ?????

I would run....not walk but run from this one.

posted 07-31-2007 08:41 PM         

p.s. Although not typically the case, I happen to know an examiner that never went to any polygraph school (he's a foreigner)and happens to be one of the finest examiners I know. He might not know what a smoke drum was, but he can write, run, and score tests with the best of us. He learned from shadowing a great examiner.

posted 07-31-2007 11:01 PM         

You are soooo full of crap! You ALWAYS agree with me....even when you say you don't! (Just yankin' your chain!)

I do agree that one can learn a skill by interning with a veteran. After all, Cleve Backster learned from Leonarde Keeler long before we had certification, associations or approved schools.

If we are to take polygraph further, we need to have a set of standards that we all can agree on and live by. This is why I am a member of ASTM.

I could easily open the Ted Todd Academy of Polygraph, Pest Control and Liposuction. I may even make a few bucks but it would not be in the best interest of our (polygraph)profession.

There IS a reason why people go out and buck the system.......to make a buck. There is also a reason why the school I referenced is not certified by anyone other than their own association(IAPP).

If I were as highly respected in this field as Dr. B, I would never lend my name to anything that did not pass the "sniff test".

Ted

posted 07-31-2007 11:29 PM            

I didn’t see Gordon’s post mention that Hector Berrellez did not attend an accredited program. In fact, I think his training was absent from the post, unless I am missing it.

If I am reading this right, Gordon would be contracted as the quality control element of the program. In this capacity, he may not approve of any of it nor the exam process pass QC.

To me, QC is like a watchdog in the process. QC is sometimes performed whether one likes it or not, to add a defensible process (i.e. prevent lawsuits).

posted 08-01-2007 12:49 PM         

"Hector is now the chief instructor at his school, though to the best of my knowledge his primary polygraph training was what he picked up when Tom was teaching there."

posted 08-01-2007 02:42 PM            

This is not an easy question to answer as you correctly point out the issues on both sides.

I asked myself the following: If I saw a lousy policeman or examiner trying to get an important job done, would I turn my head and pretend I didn't see it, or would I try to guide him in the right direction? (And, I'm not saying Hector is lousy - I'm making a point - I hope.) I think it would be the latter. By virtue of my position and my knowledge (etc), do I have any moral obligation to see that my profession is advanced or that the community gets what it believes it is from the police or polygraph community. To some extent, I think I do; although, I know I can't save the world, and therefore must choose my battles wisely.

Whereas nobody is saying Hector is guilty of some gross transgression for which he's not willing to repent, I think approaching him with your terms and conditions might be a good first step.

I have a problem with the lack of APA recognition as I don't think getting a school up to speed is all that tough if one is serious about it. Do we know why the school fell short? Is he attempting to fix it, or did he start his own accrediting organization to avoid accountability? Asking for your assistance seems to argue against that unless he just wants to use your name.

Unless the polygraph community is ready and willing to publicly censor Hector for some wrongdoing, then on what basis should you run from him? There are some "examiners" we need to say don't represent us and shouldn't practice anywhere; others, we need to get on board with proper practices. Which are which is another topic.

My initial thoughts are to negotiate a morally acceptable arrangement. Make it clear you will call them as you see them, and make it clear you have some avenue to express your displeasure to those you feel need to know. In other words, don't let him simply use your name but render you impotent if you find substandard work.

posted 08-01-2007 07:18 PM            

The term "moral" is virtually synonymous with "ethical," but is actually less well-defined and invokes a more value-based system of determining what is right and what is wrong, compared with more thoughtful systems of principles that tend to drive discussions about ethics.

In professional work, ethical systems are often declarative, in which it become a matter of decision on the part of the community to expect a certain standard of training and certification. The ethical considerations that propel those decisions have to do with what will be best for the community – a regulated profession. It is also a matter of fact that things like borders may change the ground rules and requirements. There may be no requirement for APA accreditation for polygraph training in Bolivia. It may also be a matter of fact that some countries need solutions to problems with corruption.

One of the reasons we have an APA and training standards is to prevent (or sometimes more readily identify) corruption of the profession by persons who don't seem to play the same game as others and want to make things up as they go. I think most professionals and professional organizations would endorse the idea that members of the non-professional community have more confidence in the ethics and practices of a profession that is well regulated – and I would suggest that is true for medicine, dentistry, law, teaching, polygraph, and most, if not all, other professions.

So, to use a medical analogy: if Bolivia desperately needed doctors, and well respected government agency supervisor set up shop training doctors, but was unaccredited in his home country, but had the cultural and economic knowledge and know-how to train some folks in a distant far away land, because they really needed the help, would the AMA endorse the idea of providing a professional practice monitor, supervision, QC, or “continuing” education for those “doctors?” I'm not sure that meets the goals of the APA to ensure a well regulated and competent medical profession.

I think the AMA would suggest that the community deserves a well regulated medical profession, and that substituting a less than adequate solution is not something to endorse. It may help to train people to care for others, but we would call them first aid techs, first responders, EMTs, paramedics, nurses, and PAs – not doctors. On the other hand the AMA, might endorse the idea of providing supervision to those non-doctor persons.

The ethical question here is not where Mr. Berrellez is a competent or qualified examiner or trainer. Nor is the question whether those examiners are adequately trained or effective. They might be the finest examiners anywhere; they might also be perfectly corrupt. The ethical question is one of what kind of professional association do we believe best serves the interest of both the community and our profession (probably in that order), and whether we endorse shortcuts.

In a wilderness first responder training, be were taught to make traction splits out of ski poles, use dirty socks for bandage, and to close wounds with crazy glue and duct tape in anticipation of a long time before transport to competent medical professionals. Stuff you hope to never have to do. Then, about eight or nine years ago on a river in Oklahoma, I treated a recluse bite with live minnows, and last year, at over 10,000 feet on Mt. Humbolt, I splinted a broken ankle with a filthy wool military blanket that I had used the week before to lay on while changing the oil in my old truck. Acceptable solutions under the circumstances – sure. Endorsed by the AMA, or even the DOT standards for first aide, FR, or EMT – no way.

To take this further, would the AMA endorse the idea of a professional member consulting with the DOT and others for the purpose of providing knowledge about the basic issue of treating medical shock, femoral injuries, and how things like traction splits work (with, of course, all the necessary “don't try this at home” caveats and fine print).

I'm thinking it might some sense to provide some consultation and the construction of a polygraph QC program or QC protocol (which is different from a program or ongoing QC role), that might even involve the APA – which hold a primary interest in a well regulated and competent polygraph profession.

This is just my .02, so,

Peace,

r

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

posted 08-01-2007 07:38 PM            

That wasn't two cents worth. It was at least a quarter.

posted 08-02-2007 10:43 AM         

I sincerely doubt that this examiner is a volunteer member of the Polygraph Peace Corp who is just trying to help these poor people out of a bad situation.

posted 08-02-2007 12:02 PM            

I'm in agreement with you mostly. Except that its not the $$$ that make this troublesome. There is nothing wrong with charging money for professional work.

The problem is that the work is unregulated, and membership in a professional association is a form of agreement that regulation is a good thing. Also, things like national borders don't really define what is best practice. Best practice is best practice. Good medicine is good medicine - regardless of locale or available resources.

Of course, in emergencies and remote situations we improvise and git'er done, but that's different.

When we do psychological evaluations for treatment planning, we don't limit our treatment and intervention recommendations according to what resources are available, we recommend what we think would be best. To do otherwise would mask or blind the decision makers about what is acceptable or recommended. It is the the job of those decision makers to figure out what to do with or how to implement our recommendations. In its worst form, short-cutting recommendations around priorities other that best professional practices begins to reek of politics - yuck.

r

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

posted 08-02-2007 01:04 PM         

Take the unlicensed home repair contractor who also just happens to be uninsurred.He advertises that he is licensed and insurred hoping you won't check into it. Does he then charge you less because of all the money he is saving by not being licensed or insurred? Of course not.

Dr. B's question does contain several moral "whatifs" but money is not one of them. Claiming to be certified by the IAPP is clearly misleading and borders on an unfair business practice if not outright fraud. Fraud is most often motivated by greed.

posted 08-02-2007 01:59 PM            

You're probably correct about the IAPP accreditation being misleading, but we don't really know that for sure. Maybe he's trying to create a local accreditor that will be legit from the ground up. I doubt it, but unless the polygraph community is ready to disfellowship the guy, then why not try to bring him in line with what the bulk of the polygraph community considers proper (ethical, moral, etc)?

For the APA to claim to be an accreditor is itself misleading. The APA is not recognized by the US Department of Education as an accreditor. Why not? The answer is probably the same as why Hector's place isn't APA accredited: they don't make the cut. (Personally, I think the APA should seek government recognition, but that's not a goal of theirs right now.) I could start a more rigorous accrediting organization today, and it would be just a illegitimate in the academic world - where accreditation derives its value - as is the APA.

Don't get me wrong, I think the APA needs to do what it does to make sure schools are doing what they claim to be doing, but I wish they'd call it something else as accreditation has a very real meaning in the rest of the world - just like PhD should mean something as well, but we've had that debate haven't we? Perhaps he's trying to start a local accreditor that meets the local needs. (I doubt it, but he's reached out to Gordon, and if they really want him for pure motives, then they'll do what needs to be done to get themselves in line.)

posted 08-02-2007 02:28 PM            

since you all have had your say (besides, I was out of town...) I'll throw out my thoughts on the matter.

Dr B QC'ing polygraph examinations from Bolivia? The examiners are from a non-accredited school? I do not believe a respected polygraph scholar and researcher should get anywhere near this.

Firstly, we must agree on the terms used. QC is much more in depth than peer review. If Dr B doesn't speak Spanish, how can this be accomplished? If he does, then I assume recordings are being presented for his review, as well as all documentation? If he does not speak Spanish, a proper QC can not be accomplished.

He can conduct a peer review, but, if the testing techniques are not valid, then, since Dr B has not been to the un-accredited school, he would be remiss in attepting to review them (without proper training).

This then brings me to the point. I would not lend my reputation to QC or peer review of any non-accredited (set of) examiner(s). This, since their training and application of the profession may not be appropriate. Even if it is, we can not expect a reowned examiner like Dr B to lend his name to a potential invalid procedure...

Further, I suggest that it is not his place to correct irresponsibilty through post-exam review. If those examiners want his support, they should get appropriate training and acceptance by the current professional polygraph community and then apply. As for the school, if it is not accredited (as reported) then stay away from that as well. Having Dr B as part of their "staff" by lending his name to QC of their students adds credibility to all, where credibility is unwarranted.

Let the school spend the time, effort and money to obtain accreditation then ask for assistance.

Regards to all,

posted 08-02-2007 08:22 PM            

How many people actually attended a real accredited school? The APA's accreditation isn't "real" in the academic sense any more than any degree mill credential is. The DACA school, the PSP/HACC school, and the Troy school are all part of educational institutions that are accredited. There may be one or two more, but I don't recall off the top of my head. We could make the same arguments you do Jim for all the schools that only have a non-recognized APA "accreditation." What do we do with Dick Arther's school? The APA doesn't accredit it, but the AAPP recognizes it. How many people follow APA standards? Think about it: everybody using an Axciton is operating outside of the established standards to which you refer. (Axciton doesn't record either SC or SR (as required) but rather a combination of both. I have no idea what Limestone does.) Are we running from them. Would you refuse to CQ an exam by an Axciton user? Are Axciton tests "valid" if the validity studies were conducted on instruments recording SC or SR and not Bruce's proprietary EDA cocktail?

posted 08-02-2007 09:09 PM            

I was simply providing my opinion on the ethical issues presented by Dr Barland in the discussion. BTW, how can someone officially QC anything they have not been formally trained in?

The key to our profession is standards, and they must start somewhere. I can not defend the decision by some schools to remain outside the accreditation of the APA. However, I do not believe AAPP attempts to accredit polygraph schools, it simply recognizes them; a much lower standard.

Since APA has made the effort to attempt to standardize the profession, I find that a good place to start. Those disinterested in following suit either have other goals or ego's preventing change.

While not everyone has attended an APA school, they certainly (now) have the ability to join APA and test for membership; even "hippo's." Many don't! Ego's, perhaps....?

Further, no-one said the APA's efforts at school accreditation was an educational equivalence as stated by the DOE. But to equate their efforts to a diploma mill is academically dishonest.

Further, you said, "the have nothing to do with it response, if followed to its logical conclusions, indicts a lot of good schools and examiners, and I don't think that does us a bit of good."

Why not? Then I wonder how can we resolve this (age old) problem within the profession? Where do we finally draw the line on who is a good examiner and whose training is acceptable? Are we so afraid to call a spade a spade? Are we so sensitive, as not to hurt someone's ego in an effort to cause change, for the better?

Standardization is the key and we have to start somewhere. There will be some who object to this style of progressive thinking. But let's hope that true professionals are not so shortsighted as to argue, that there are a lot of good schools and examiners out there who would have their feelings hurt if we held ourselves to any standard.

Changes are sometimes painful, but I believe worthwhile in the end if it makes the profession a better and more respected place.

Thanks for your opinion,

Jim

posted 08-02-2007 10:11 PM            

quote:

---

I have no idea what Limestone does.

---

Call them and ask, and they'll tell you it measures skin conductance, and has a medical grade and linear signal.

I haven't seen the development data myself, but it seems to be a good EDA.

I also heard Lafayette has an improved system.

I tired of complaining about the Axciton problem, and I'm ready to hear about what is being done there.

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

Barry I always appreciate your sound and thoughtful commentary, but here I have to disagree a bit.

It may not be a double standard at all that AAPP might QC a test from a graduate of a non-accredited school, while Sacket suggests that providing a QC program to a short-cut polygraph program may not be such a great idea.

They are two different levels of concern.

Also, many professional training schools are accredited by professional associations that are not recognized by the US Dept of Ed. For Example, the American Psychological Association accredits Ph.D. programs in clinical psychology - alongside the Dept of Ed. regional accreditation for granting advanced degrees. Similarly social(ist) work programs are accredited by the National Association of Social Workers, the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs accredits graduate level counseling psych programs, and the National Association of School Psychologists accredits school psychology (Ed.S. and Ph.D) programs. There are a few others (like marriage and family therapists, and marriage, family and child counselors, and others), and each would love to claim more turf. None of those are regional accreditation bodies.

Accreditation means two things - regional accreditation for degree granting and professional accreditation from the standard bearers of the professional disciplines.

Many psychologists, social workers, counselors, and school psychologists are licensed and hold professional membership in the associations after having graduated from regionally, though not professionally accredited schools. If the curricula are designed to meet licensure and membership requirements and the academic work is legitimate - then they are in (licensed). To do otherwise gives a political lock to the professional association. Professional associations recognize they are better of including those licensed and competent persons in their membership.

It is also a matter of fact (and some would say ethics), that degrees can be granted with legal authority of the state or jurisdiction, and in the case of liturgical training by the authority of the almighty.

Regional accreditation is intended to set the bar high and establish a standard or gold standard for what it means to be accredited.

Some states allow (approve) schools to operate without regional accreditation. Last I heard, California would even license psychologists who graduated from non-regionally accredited training programs, provide the program met state licensure requirements. There is some ethical argument for this. Study history and see that one of the best ways to hi-jack the mind and mentality of an educated an enlightened population is to politicize its education system. Long ago, some smart people realized that certain concepts like local authority, over things like policing power and education, preserves a sense of balance, accountability and awareness for those times when someone gets a wild hair about taking over.

Just look around to see a whole generation of kids who don't read all that well, and ask yourself "might this have anything to do with the wholesale replacement of phonetic teaching with whole language???" And the educators still can't admit the problem because its politically incorrect - but they now integrate phonetic teaching to band-aid the abortive whole-language disaster.

One of the differences between countries like China and those of western Europe is that the cultural uniformity of China may have, at times, been a technological disadvantage compared with the rapid developments that occurred among the sometimes competing neighbors in more culturally diverse regions. Its just that the unique geography of of China fostered a more uniform cultural beaurocracy somewhat early - and stifled deveolpment from diversity and competition. (not to say the china wasn't responsible for its own technological advances at some points in history).

So, one could argue that it is a protective dialectic to allow for government approved regional accreditation and for professional accreditation that is more independent (most scientists would prefer to keep the scientists at the helm of matters of science).

There are other examples.

In many states certain titles are legislated (like "psychologist" or "professional counselor"), and it is a crime to represent oneself as one of those if you are not. Licensing standards are sometimes endorsed by legislation, but set by professional assocations, for Colorado's LPC license is exactly the same as the standards set by the National Board for Certified Counselors. One could be licensed without attending a CACREP accredited school, as long as the education is legit and verifiable as meeting the requirements for eligibility for licensure examination (though the regional accredtation is not optional in Colorado).

My point is its perfectly fine for the APA to accredit schools.

Some states also have "practice" legislation, in addition to "title" legislation. Practice legislation means that one cannot practice without a license, let alone call oneself a psychologist or professional counselor. We don't have that in polygraph, and any Yahoo with an instrument can set up shop, open a school, accredit oneself, proclaim oneself the overseer of the profession, train others, or even create one's own professional association.

New York, for example, has practice leglislation for psychotherapy. Colorado does not, but does require unlicensed therapists to be registered with the state. So we have new-fangled wango-dango therapies (like Intgrated Body Psychotherapy) emerging out of places like the free-republic of Boulder. Or worse, re-birthing therapies. On the other hand, limiting practice to existing method halts further development. There is a need for a dialectical balance. If it weren't for those fine hairy folks like Perls and Rogers, from Big Sur, CA(Echalon types), we might all still be talking about psychoanalysis and not have good things like person-centered, humanistic, and interpersonal counseling methods.

If we had let the "experts" back then make the decision, then all those psycholanalytic psychiatrists would have told us we had no business or authority inventing new counseling methods. Now we look back and find that new methods work substantially better than psychoanalytic methods for most, and in some cases psychoanalytic methods can cause harm.

Polygraph, as a profession, is not that different than other professions. The memetics of professions tell us that many of our mental models serve only themselves and not our mission.

So, we really do need to appreciate the healthy dialectical balance of a regional (central government) accreditation, local authority (granting approval), scientific independence (without a turf lock), and cautious inclusion of valuable new ideas.

Mostly though, since we're goofing around with people's lives we ought to expect some level of accountability, and inclusion in the broader system and professional spectrum. Setting up shop alone as trainer, accreditor, and grand-poo-bah seems antithetical to that.

I once heard that every decision is a political decision, and politics is about economic$.

In the end, its really about ethics, and ethics is really about communities.

Sorry, I'm ranting. My hands have been on the keyboard too long.

Peace,

r

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

posted 08-03-2007 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Also, many professional training schools are accredited by professional associations that are not recognized by the US Dept of Ed. For Example, the American Psychological Association accredits Ph.D. programs in clinical psychology - alongside the Dept of Ed. regional accreditation for granting advanced degrees. Similarly social(ist) work programs are accredited by the National Association of Social Workers, the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs accredits graduate level counseling psych programs, and the National Association of School Psychologists accredits school psychology (Ed.S. and Ph.D) programs. There are a few others (like marriage and family therapists, and marriage, family and child counselors, and others), and each would love to claim more turf. None of those are regional accreditation bodies.

---

posted 08-03-2007 09:29 AM            

quote:

---

Now, Ray in one sentence, tell us the ethical and moral thing that Dr. Barland should do. lol

---

I'm tempted to say - seek consultation with other experts before proceeding...

but suspect I'd be pummelled at the upcoming APA conference if I did that.

barry

quote:

---

Ray, you're mixing things up. Yes, regional accreditation is still the gold standard; however, the USDOE doesn't see it that way. They consider all that they recognoze as equal. I think everybody you mentioned above is recognized by the US DOE or the CHEA (the only other organization that "accredits" the accreditors), and that's my point.

---

I know you check your facts, and you are right Barry. Some professional accreditation is accredited - some is not. My statement was that none are regionally accredited - which means to grant degrees. Professional and occupational accreditation does not include authority for that.

I still say its fine for the APA or other professional associations to accredit schools. Otherwise, you have nothing and any schmo with a website can set up on the fringe of the profession, set up a school, professional association of their own and claim to be the holder or watchdog for professional standards and secrets. Accreditation draws us a map to ID those fringe players - that's why we have it - because we agree that some regulation and oversight is good for both our profession and the community.

So, I'm with Ted on this, the situation stinks. Personal profit motives seem to have gotten in the way of good professional judgment - and the players seem to have had some contact with the APA and professional polygraph community, so its probably not just naivety.

This is still a different issue than providing QC to a possibly inadequately developed program - and I think Sackett has some strong arguments on that matter.

Language and cultural differences are important, and that may have a lot question construction and our understanding of the meaning of a test result.

For example: in English idiomatic use we say "I dropped the book," where as a direct transliteration of the Spanish version of that would be something like "the book dropped itself on me." That's how they talk, and how they think - ideomatically. Consider what happens when we ask "did you shoot that man" or "did you fire that gun?" and the guy says "no" thinking 'the gun shot him,' or 'the gun fired.' In English, we emphasize and personalize the decision to act. In other languages, they might articulate what looks to us like a passive or externalized representation of an event.

I would disgree in part with this

quote:

---

BTW, how can someone officially QC anything they have not been formally trained in?

---

This is a bit simplistic for me, and I've seen people take this to senseless extremes.

Look around in any high-tech or aerospace production environment and you will see quality control people who are trained in quality control, not production.

Polygraph is not rocket science, and there is a great deal of uniformity of the underlying physiology and psychology across the various testing techniques.

OK, I've use my post quota for the day...

Peace,

r

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

posted 08-03-2007 12:17 PM         

I want to thank all of you for providing so much food for thought. I appreciate your comments and apologize for not replying before now. For reasons which only a true computer geek would know, I’ve not been able to access either PolygraphPlace or my own web site for the past two days. I thought Ralph’s server was down, but it wasn’t. But now everything’s working again without my having “done” anything.

There are several comments I should like to make, and I’ll break them into separate postings over the next couple of days, to keep the various issues distinct. I cannot agree more with Raymond that it’s usually a good idea to define just what the issues are, and to avoid unthinkingly lumping them together – unless you’re trying to start arguments and have people talking past each other.

The only reason I raised the QC issue (and I knew I should have made it a separate topic!) is that I think it is very healthy for a profession to discuss ethical issues in such a way that a variety of viewpoints can be presented and debated. That’s how I learn.

Peace,

posted 08-03-2007 01:44 PM            

I couldn't help but comment on a couple of other statements that became related to the initial issue he presented.

The person who is teaching these people has not received formal polygraph training himself. That’s not good for a start.

The person is not, nor can he be, a member of the APA as he did not graduate from a polygraph school of at least 6 weeks continuous duration which was in existence on 1 August 2001 unless he decides to attend a polygraph school accredited by the APA.

His current school wherever he teaches it could not be accredited because he does not meet the requirements for a primary instructor as required by the APA school accreditation manual. Therefore, his students can never be granted APA membership for the reasons previously stated. The will not graduate from an accredited school.

The APA does not represent that its accreditation of polygraph schools grants those schools the right to confer an academic degree of any kind and only those school that do grant college credits need such DOE level accreditation. So talking about DOE or regional accreditation organizations and the APA school accreditation process is an “apples and oranges” argument. They serve two different purposes. The APA provides accreditation that the schools it accredits meet the standards of the APA and therefore the graduates of said schools have been provided the training the APA has deemed necessary and the people who graduate from those school are thereby able to be member of the APA.

There are a number of very prestigious law schools around the country and around the world that are not accredited just as there are universities that are not accredited. They choose not to be. Their graduates in law must take and pass the bar in their respective states just like graduates from the accredited school. Merely graduating from an accredited law school does not grant one the right to practice law or become a member of their state bar. The bar exam and being accepted to the state bar does.

The APA accreditation process does not purport to accredit a school in the same manner that universities are accredited. That makes the foregoing discussion moot and irrelevant to the issue presented by Dr. B.

We could call our process "APA Inspection" or "APA sanctioned" or "Meeting APA Standards" but the public we serve understand "accredited" as meaning that the school in question meets the standards of the APA and that the APA insures continuing adherence to those standards.

posted 08-03-2007 02:39 PM         

You said:

I am sure Dr. B will make the right decision concerning the review of charts/examination in this area. The fact that he even sought opinions speaks volumes. We rarely have a problem deciding what is right or wrong or ethical or moral. We know very early in life what is right and what is wrong. Deciding to do what is right, ethical or moral is the greater problem. My dad always said that if you feel the need to ask, you probably already know the answer in your heart.

I knew the answer that’s in my heart before I raised the question, and I don’t think the issue in my case is deciding to do [what I believe] is “right.” Many moral and ethical issues do not involve choices between right versus wrong. Those are easy. What’s hard is when the decision involves having to choose between conflicting ethical principles, or having to choose the lesser of two evils.

I can clearly see one ethical principle here. What I’m afraid I’m missing is “the other” ethical principle. This is precisely why I raised the question. I want to hear all arguments, so I’m sure I’m not missing the obvious. I don’t want to state the principle I see, lest I frighten off anyone with a different view. So Skip, my very sincere question for you is, what do you see as the ethically proper decision here, and, much more importantly, what is the ethical principle from which that decision flows?

Peace,

posted 08-03-2007 04:11 PM            

I don't even know where to begin. You've got so many errors it your post that is would take me all day to correct them.

The "there are many schools that aren't accredited" line is a bunch of bunk. There are a couple, and they're dying fast as there's no reason a school can't get accredited in this day and age if they are any good at all. (And yes, Harvard and Yale are accredited. Bob Jones University may still be holding out though.) Foreign countries usually don't "accredit." It's, for the most part, a US practice.)

quote:

---

There are a number of very prestigious law schools around the country and around the world that are not accredited just as there are universities that are not accredited.

---

Name me one such prestigious law school. (Only the State of California allows graduates of non-ABA accredited law schools to take the bar, and none meet the level of "prestigious.")

Did you realize one can learn to be a lawyer in many states by studying under a practicing lawyer? It's a tradition the legal community hasn't yet given up. In the polygraph world, we'd call that unethical. (I'm not promoting a step backwards. I think the APA needs to do what it does, but once again we've stolen a term with meaning and poured our own into it.)

Simply put, "accreditation" - when talking about an educational organization - means that the school met the minimal requirements set by the outside accrediting agency. (That, the APA does.) For that process to be recognized as legit(in the US anyhow), the accreditor must be recognized by the US DOE or CHEA. In other words, another independent organization attests to the credibility of the accreditor, making sure it's not an accreditation mill. (How many don't think George and his minions see the APA as such? Look at the hit we're taking over the Marston school.)

Many, if not all, of the US DOE / CHEA recognized accreditors accredit organizations that do no grant degrees. Just take a look at the DETC website for a list.

Let's not get too far off track here, though. The question is, should he help them do things right, and there's great reason to do so. Just think, the first stage in the QC program could be to get APA accredited school grads doing tests. Do any of you see my point yet?

posted 08-03-2007 05:57 PM         

My Senior Inspector partner at work is a licensed, practicing attorney in the state of California. He passed the BAR exam on his first try. He also has never attended a single hour of law school.

Do I trust him with my life? Yes!
Would I want him to represent me in a divorce? No!

Do you want your triple bypass operation performed by a Stanford graduate or a doctor that went to the University of Haiti?

Do you want your polygraph performed by a DACA grad or a self taught examiner who sells a "15 pound polygraph course in a box".

OK-I am done. You may all commence to pounce on me!

Ted

posted 08-03-2007 07:43 PM         

There is no consistant and sustained money in civilian polygraph. You can have an $80K year, but you will have $35K in expenses,$12K in taxes, and no health insurance. You can put others to work for you, but eventually they will get dreams and strike out on their own, taking clients with them, and eventually becoming broke just like you were before you hired them. sigh

To make matters worse, there are always backstabbing competition, rumor milling, and gray-haired establishment who want to crush you and attempt to QC you when it is they who need QC----after all, the "establishment" rarely answers for themselves-----they would rather go fishin' together. Many other establishment types argue endlessly and use circular logic while the modest, charitable, and thoughtful great examiners just sit back and marvel at all the prom night, girl's- bathroom cat-fighting. We are a mess. We don't need PR (Public Relations), we need OR (Organizational Relations).

Polygraph is a wonderful thing and I admire many great examiners (without their insistance on being admired). However, "polygraph business" is pathetic. I am ashamed of at least one third of every examiner I have either met or read about.I wasn't raised in a family that ignored the ludicrous uncle at the Thanksgiving table, we told him that he was rediculous to his face. He shaped up.

official tyranus-rantus.

p.s. Many will think me harsh for this writing. Others will know what I am talking about, and they would not dare agree publicly for fear of their local and/or regional establishments. It is ironic that so many idolize the feds and all things intrepid and in keeping with such centralization, they will follow suit by not speaking out for fear of the "polygraph disunity" concept------a concept that is likely imagined by the numbers, and propogated by leaders that run from criticism.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-03-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-03-2007).]

posted 08-03-2007 08:20 PM            

You forgot:

You're either at work or on your way to work at every moment.

Aside from all that,

It's a living.

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

r

r

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

posted 08-03-2007 08:38 PM         

The most reputable, professionaly modest, and thoughtful examiner in Indiana (Steve Adang) was rumoured by some unscrupulous bastard that he had had a heart attack----so that the other examiner could take business, or at least seed doubts by clients as to Steve's competence (Heart attacks have shown to sometimes lead to diminished or altered mental faculties i.e. Darth Cheney). Classic polygraph business.

Dr. B, given the few facts I might think differently, but the only reason why I wouldn't help those struggling examiners QC is that some might try to soil your rep with lies.

question; How many polygraph examiners does it take to screw in a light bulb?

answer; 3; one to make a great attempt, and 2 to call the one incompetent while arguing as to why it was incompetent.

posted 08-04-2007 04:16 PM         

In thinking anew about which of two conflicting principles to follow, it might be possible to phrase them something like this.

Moral principle 1: Help those who need help. (“Make the world a better place.”)

Moral principle 2 is a corollary: Don’t help those who are hurting others. Or, Don’t assist those who are injuring others. (“Don’t make the world a worse place.”) For example, don’t aid and abet those who are engaging in shady activities or substandard practices. Don’t make it possible for them to do more of the same, or to increase their ability to hurt others, such as by providing them with prestige and authority.

I think we all agree these are good principles. But what if they conflict with each other? What if you have to hurt someone in the short term, in order to help them in the long term? Lots of examples spring to mind, such as amputating a person’s hand to free them from a burning vehicle. What if the hurt is relatively minor, and overall, the good outweighs the bad? Which way is the morally better way?

Generalities aside, let’s now turn to specifics: Berrellez and the Bolivian examiners. How much hurt has he done or is he doing? Who is being hurt? Will whatever I do or don’t do ultimately be creating more harm or more good?

When he asked me to QC the Bolivian examiners, he explained that he wanted me to QC the DI calls. When applicants for the anti-corruption task force are rejected because the polygraph, there have been cases where they sued the program. When Berrellez has done the QC and supported the DI call, he has been accused of being biased, since he trained the examiners. Hence his search for some disinterested examiner with an established reputation to insulate him and the program from attack.

My response was that – since this is regarding selecting honest people to do anti-corruption investigations – the damage done by a false negative is of greater concern to me than a false positive. I therefore suggested there should be a 100% quality control of every exam, DI & NDI alike, and that the program should be modeled after those in the U.S. Government, and should meet APA and ASTM standards. As this is too much for any one person, I suggested a permanent office of at least three examiners, who must have demonstrated a chart accuracy in accordance with the Marin standard of an inconclusive rate of no more than 20% and an accuracy of at least 86% on the decisions. They would also be required to have attended the DACA week-long Senior Examiner Course, which teaches quality control procedures.

Berrellez endorsed that concept.

Next, I traveled to San Bernardino to meet him and see his school. The physical facilities were generally in line with what I’ve seen of the accredited schools. I told him if I am to review the work of his examiners, I must have a copy of everything they were taught. He provided me with a complete copy of his curriculum, consisting of three thick loose leaf binders plus a binder containing the quizzes and exam questions. The appear to be consistent with what I’ve seen from the accredited schools, with much of the material having originated at DoDPI. So that’s where things stand now. The primary deficiency is that Berrellez teaches the polygraph portions himself, without having graduated from an accredited school. (The psychology, physiology, and legal aspects were taught by specialists in those areas).

I have had the opportunity to review a specific issue exam conducted by one of the Bolivian examiners. I’ve got to tell you, it was better than I had expected. The instrumentation was excellent (better than many of mine), the test questions met APA standards, and the examiner’s chart interpretation was spot on. I had one suggestion for improving their tests, but everything that I saw (including what prompted my suggestion) met community standards.

Tom Kelly remarked that the Bolivian program may be shut down. If it is, then our discussion of ethics in this case is moot, though the issue is certain to rise phoenix-like.

I am tentatively scheduled to discuss my concept of a quality control program with the Bolivian officials next month, and to meet their examiners. I expect to observe some of their examinations, which will give me a better feel for the quality of their training and capabilities. True, I speak no Spanish, and will be dependent upon an interpreter, but I’ve been fortunate to observe exams in a number of countries, and have come away the better for it in each case.

I am interested in seeing how serious Bolivia is about having a quality polygraph operation which includes oversight by experienced, APA-trained examiners. Then I will be able to decide whether or how to proceed in this situation.

Again, I thank all of you for your comments and insights. I value your contribution to my education.

Sorry for the length.

Peace,

posted 08-04-2007 09:08 PM         

With all due respect, your wrote that Berrellez "endorsed that concept". What did you expect him to do? Tell you to go suck canal water?

He is the Captain of a sinking ship who should have never been at the helm.

You mentioned that the program is being sued??.....Go figure?

This guy was trained by ??? He is certified by ??? His school is acredited by ??? His qualifications are ????

If I could pick anywhere in the world where I would like to have a false positive on my polygraph, it sure in the hell would not be Bolivia!!

The only way this program deserves the attention of someone as respected as you, is to start over...from the ground up! And I would not include the guy that started this whole mess!

Ted