|
Author
|
Topic: Repeating a zone within a chart
|
blalock
Member
|
posted 05-30-2007 08:02 PM
  
Does anyone know what the research says regarding repeating a zone within a chart because of an error or artifact on a relevant question? When relevant questions are bracketed, I simply just refer to "the other" comparison question. However, as I am now reviewing one of my old examinations (an AFMGQT Bi-Zone format, since it was in spanish, and spanish only examinees seem to have a difficult time understanding/believing symptomatic questions), I ran across a test where I noted an artifact caused by movement on a relevant question, so I just repeated the "C4, R5, C6" Zone. With the exception of perhaps running another chart, what do you all do in the field? Also, does the Utah PLT allow for running a sixth chart if such an occurrence takes place?Ben IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 05-30-2007 09:03 PM
Great question. I am interested in what others write here. On a side note, don't you internally scream when an examinee does something horrific right at the crucial moment---like at the last R or first C? In the past when I've simply said to examinee "now I'm going to repeat the question...pause....did you" there seems to be an artificial/unatural response to the repeated question---by that I mean a habituated-looking response, or a super-de- duperdy response (larger than on other charts.)
As you stated that you have done, I might try repeating the whole spot. Depending on how devastating the artifact presents, I will in some cases add a whole 'nother chart----aarrrggghh!
For my money, gigantic artifacts and rancid body odor are the top 2 occupational annoyances. Of the two, I'll take the body odor.[This message has been edited by stat (edited 05-30-2007).] IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 05-31-2007 07:32 AM
Our CID manual requires us to run an additional chart and all spots on the additional chart are scored not just the lost one. I would suspect that telling the examinee that you are going to ask "those questions" (or "that question") again would draw unwanted attention and could result in reactions not necessarily releated to truth or decepetion. We are required to have 2 artifact free askings of each question so losing one asking due to a wrong answer or artifact would not require an additional chart.IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 05-31-2007 09:36 AM
Ben,What does it take to run an additional chart? Three, maybe four minutes? I think I would rather take a few minutes to run a clean chart than to have to defend myself as to why I relied on a chart containing artifact. Ted IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 05-31-2007 09:39 AM
I agree. Repeating a question is just too conspicuous and a thoughtful/considerate examinee seems to feel immediate grief over ruining a question and prolonging the whole ordeal(imo). One issue is that I rarely have a test (3 or more charts)that doesn't contain some form of label-worthy artifact. The majority of my examinees are cigarette smokers and have difficulty going 4 minutes without some form of "catch-up" breath or mini sigh, despite being warned of doing so----which of course will "bump" the gsr. Incidentally, I live in the midwest where even the dogs smoke 2 packs a day. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 05-31-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 05-31-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 05-31-2007 01:44 PM
stat:
quote:
by that I mean a habituated-looking response, or a super-de- duperdy response (larger than on other charts.)
As you stated that you have done, I might try repeating the whole spot. Depending on how devastating the artifact presents, I will in some cases add a whole 'nother chart----aarrrggghh!
For my money, gigantic artifacts and rancid body odor are the top 2 occupational annoyances. Of the two, I'll take the body odor.
minor point here: habituation = reduced reaction due to repeated exposure to stimulus dishabituation = regaining of a previously habituated response (through time-out from stimulus, distraction, introduction of novelty, etc.) sensitization = to make or become more reactive to a stimulus desensitization = to become less reactive to a stimulus. Sensitization is similar to, but actually slightly distinct from, dishabituation, as it does not imply that a reaction was previously habituated. Similarly, desensitization is related to but distinct from habituation, in that habituation implies reduce response due to repeated exposure to stimulus, whereas there may be ways to desensitize reactivity other than through exposure. I fully agree about the odor though... I'd take smelly depressed unemployed offender any day, over a charming articulate well dressed narcissist who is applying to law school. One you can at least spot as a guy with "issues" (and we may even know a little bit about how to help him - or at the very least avoid or contain him), the other is a snake-eyed mesmerizer who gets people to not notice his intense pathology until its too late. Tedd:
quote:
What does it take to run an additional chart? Three, maybe four minutes?
Yeah, but three or four minutes seems like a long-arsed time after a guys been lying to you for two hours and you just wanna interrogate him. and this:
quote:
Incidentally, I live in the midwest where even the dogs smoke 2 packs a day.
That's Funny, I remember when some people used to smoke. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 05-31-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 05-31-2007 03:44 PM
Thanks for the clarification R. You are right again as usual. I said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, I live in the midwest where even the dogs smoke 2 packs a day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rnelson wrote "That's Funny, I remember when some people used to smoke. "
I suppose Colorado is technically the mid west, although I think that the plains states are considered more midwestern. I would change my thinking if I saw a creation museum open in Denver which had a "Moses riding Triceratops" display.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 05-31-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 05-31-2007 04:35 PM
stat:
quote:
R. You are right again as usual.
OK, Quick call me off line and I'll give you SWMBO's cell phone # and I want you to tell her just that. -------- I'm a 15 year transplant - from Los Angeles - enjoying life in a nice small town (Denver). Denver is not the midwest - fewer 'skeeters here. Except when you go to the east part, nearing Aurora - we call that Kansas.
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 05-31-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-01-2007 09:00 AM
quote:
Also, does the Utah PLT allow for running a sixth chart if such an occurrence takes place?
What you get is what you get after five charts. You are going to have artifacts now and then. They are just a fact of life. You should still have enough data for a decision even if you have to zero out one RQ, but, if not, then the two additional charts should remedy the problem of insufficient data. Of course, you can still end up INC after five charts (for unrelated reasons). Dr. Kircher said they run five charts in the lab regardless of what they have after three, all for research purposes. There is no data (of which I'm aware) to go beyond the five. You didn't ask here, but I know it came up somewhere. If a CQ is artifacted, Dr. Kircher said (at AAPP 2007) they don't go to another for scoring purposes. However, Honts and Raskin (in Kleiner) said you do use another CQ for comparison purposes if the preceding CQ is artifacted (unless there's one CQ on each side of the RQ). I haven't asked any of them yet, but it appears there is a difference between their lab scoring and field scoring. IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 06-01-2007 09:18 PM
I appreciate the comments from everyone. Skip, thank you for sharing about what the Army CID manual says as well. In my free time (whatever that is) I am putting together a "model" SOP, so the input I receive allows me to massage some of the "hardly, if ever addressed" polygraph-related issues. Barry, let us know what you find out regarding artifact comparison handling differences between Drs. Kircher, Honts, and Raskin on the Utah PLT. I would be very interested in the response.Ben [This message has been edited by blalock (edited 06-01-2007).] IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
