posted 06-11-2007 09:50 AM         

Does anyone notice (or highly suspect) high levels of false P's and false N's when over the subsequent years when an Offender is in treatment they admit to withholding victims and passing the test?

Does anyone notice a high volume of DI/SR and do your Offenders create amongst themselves an elevated level of either suspicion and/or hopelessness regarding that particular kind of test?

Does anyone think that the relevants (in most forms)for that test resemble controls----in that the scope are so broad?

I know that many here are vehemently suspicious of multi-issue test accuracy (for damn good reason) and does that effect your interrogative confidence?

Does anyone here believe that if the sex history becomes ---within individual treatment groups---- known as a "hopeless test to pass," do you ever suspect that such lack of faith inhibit Offender's from disclosing---as there is no positive reinforcement for their efforts? In other words, does the sexual history have an infamous reputation amongst the offenders as a no-win test?

Do anyone here have strong opinions as to the limitations of timebars for the test---i.e. JPCOT says instant offense isn't included, but some states include it. Some states (I've heard) include rapes "pushing up" on inmates while in prison is included(!).Some formats include "Have you intentionally withheld any (hands-on)victims from your sexual history questionnaire"---even though the questionnaire demands that Offenders withhold victim identification (names.)

Does anyone care to comment on this very perculiar, vague, but distinctly valuable test?

p.s. If you only want to comment on 1 or a few of my questions, I will still be keenly interested. Thanks, E

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-11-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-11-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-11-2007).]

posted 06-11-2007 01:38 PM         

No, as in any other screening application our accuracy is reduced because it is a screening application.

"I know that many here are vehemently suspicious of multi-issue test accuracy (for damn good reason) and does that effect your interrogative confidence?"

If DI to one question, run a specific on that one. Then eleminate it and run the other questions on a seperate test. Don't do all that in one day.

posted 06-12-2007 01:52 PM            

--------

This is a great topic. Thanks stat.

-------

stat:

quote:

---

First, I think we all can agree that the sexual history disclosure polygraph is a fantastic tool for risk assessment---and it's probably under-used throughout the country. But, I've noticed some serious problems with the test, and I'd like some comments.

---

I agree the test is valuable, and that there are some problems.

Screening polygraphs are not well understood in the first place, and there appears to me to be some mythology (e.g., ideas not supported by mathematical or empirical theory, or data) attached to our expectations about scoring, resolution, and inconclusives. More on that later.

Its important to remember that many risk-prediction professionals don't consider the polygraph itself to be a risk prediction instrument. That is in part because many professionals think of risk assessment in terms of Quantitative risk assessment (i.e., how much risk, with scaled numbers attached to that). The joke is that while we are so eager to talk about statistics, like correlations and discriminate functions, in the end they distill risk to three simple levels - low, moderate, and high. The more pacifist evaluators distill it even further to moderately-low and moderately-high. Keep in mind that moderate level is is substantial. How many of use would get on a plane for which there was a moderate level of risk it would fall out of the sky?

Polygraph, as a risk prediction tool, is what we would call a 'qualitative' risk assessment - a tool to identify risk related concerns. It does not itself attempt to determine the degree of risk.

I believe that much of the content of those 100 to 200 item sexual history questionnaires is probably never used or is actually useless.

I've had this conversation with Kim English and Peggy Heil who are quick to remind us that age of onset it crimininology research, is rather consistently correlated with with lifetime risk for recidivism - with earlier age of onset correlated with greater rates of recidivism. This contrasts with the views of all those social(ist) workers who remind us that those young'ns, who are acting out in exactly the same way as dangerous adults, are still children - that they possess the capacity to develop, mature, and (optimistically) out grown their problem behavior. This is in part a reflection of the difference between criminology research, which is concerned primarily with social systems and groups of persons, and psychological (including forensic) assessment which is concern about particular individuals. Show me where, in which actuarial risk prediction measure, age of onset of sexual offending contributes to our understanding of the individual's risk. Age at current offense is included in the RRASOR, and other childhood items are included in other measures. But age at first offense is nowhere.

So, we've had discussions about mandated targets for sex history polygraphs.

This is important, because offenders are in big trouble if they can pass "it" (e.g., the sex history). "Big trouble," sometimes means removal from the home or removal from the community, and because that involves "rights" (yep, rights, as in 'home' which typically means 'family' - at least for most non-schizoidal, non-autistic types - and 'family' we are told by the AG's office is a constitutionally protected right, though I can't recall the court case right now). So if offenders have to pass "it" or face decisions that affect their "rights," then we have to justify our argument that "it" matters - and that means data. We also have to define what "it" is (tho I s'pose we could just ask the former prez). In Colorado, we had to define the mandatory sex history targets. This was daunting at first, but the quality of work as a whole has improved, and the effectiveness of polygraph programming is generally better.

I don't see the hopelessnes you are asking about. Nor do I see a big problem with later disclosures.

During the middle and late 1990's I was a therapist at an adult treatment program for which none of the offenders were passing polygraphs (None, zero, nada, zilch, zippo... you get the picture). Many were failing maintenance/monitoring questions about reoffending. Only they lived together, and didn't go anywhere in the community alone. We never did figure out what all those polygraphs were detecting, but simply stating that offenders are incredibly sneaky and most victims don't report doesn't cut it - (its fear-mongering, and empowers offenders with mythical abilities). Meanwhile back at the ranch, I also worked at a juvenile program (residential), which teenagers who were every bit as disturbed and deviant (perhaps more so) as the adult offenders. But we saw 70 percent, at that time, of them passing polygraphs. The difference was in our thoroughness and clarity of language, preparation, and concept. The adults did very little preparation at that time.

I don't mean to suggest that later disclosures never happen, just that its rare. I believe that any examiner whose run more than a few hundred tests has created an error somewhere - whether he knows it or admits it, or not.

Some examiners are very professional and interested in learning about how such errors occur. Others, embody everything the anti- folks would quickly generalize to our whole profession.

So, I view most of these concerns as one of quality assurance. A scary topic for most polgyraph examiners. After all we are in the business of telling everyone else what the "truth" is, so why should anyone ever look over our shoulders. (I think I saw something about this recently, on the anti- site.)

Here is some painful experience with an unprofessional response to quality assurance activities.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060623.html

The result of that case is in part ongoing. One result is that we now have a quality assurance protocol (not program) in Colorado - by which any examination that influences a critical (rights-affecting) decision may be reviewed before proceeding.

More later,

r

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

posted 06-12-2007 02:50 PM         

Sometimes the Offenders' complaints approach my sensibilities (I know, I know, they can be extremely good at using Jedi mind tricks)---and I begin to see patterns of apparent (italics) hopelessness.

Do you feel that the sex history test is served well by having frottage as a relevant behavior to be included ----knowing that such behavior can number in the thousands and can potentially paralyze the test regarding more substantial offenses? Of course as a gatherer of information---I want to know such activies (frotto included)---but must I make it part and parcel of a relevant issue. To some of these guys, it's like putting a number on nose-picking (only nose picking has no victims---unless your dad did it when you were a teen in the car with him while he drops you off in front of the school-----in which case cps should be called.)

Also, fantasizing about a minor while having sex with an adult? ( I feel that questionnaire questions like this are merely wasted control questions.)

Other Q's like; Verbally abusing a spouse/lover??? Nebulous doubts as to the volume of such behavior is sorta contaminating, don't ya think? After an even moderately thoughtful Offender completes such a document, he must feel ----per such encompassing victimology ---like he has had countless victims. countless.

I always believed and was taught that CONTROL questions were to be the broad, overreaching questions. What control question is more over-reaching than such sex history questions----is it lying to parole agent?---a person he may have spoken to 10 times in the year he's known the agent? So are we comparing a possible lie regarding a hidden Playboy magazine to the 30 years of sexual activity and fantasies recorded on the epic questionnaire? It seems a little counterintuative to this examiner.

Perhaps the poly instrument truly is only a prop under such circumstances (sex history only, mind you)---as the numbnuts at anti bemoane. sigh.

I'm never so suspicious of a false negative as I am when I see a guy pass a sexual history ----approximately 12% of my examinees pass (2006), and 15% were N.O.
I suspect similar numbers (even the hightened number of inconclusives) in several areas of the country----but who knows?

I was told by someone somewhere that in Colorado, Offenders cannot be released on parole from prison without first passing a sex history test. If such a likely false rumor were true in my state, we would have to build more prisons. I always get plenty of scoop on sex histories, just not very many NSR's/NDI's.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-12-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-12-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-12-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-12-2007).]

posted 06-12-2007 03:31 PM            

I think there are number of construct problems with sex history questions. Its helpful to be able to converse about this, because we examiners so often disagree. Show a test to any examiner and the first three things they do are 1) indict the examiner's scoring, 2) indict the RQs, and 3) indict the CQs (perhaps not in that order). There is no profession anywhere whose membership is so quick to criticize each other's work. Its as if truth is so much an objective fact, but what goes on in the space between my ears.

Frottage is interesting in terms of risk management. But its like peeping, flashing, public masturbation, stealing underwear and similar offending patterns - those who do it do it a lot. So including it on a test, puts us in the business not of testing [u]any involvement[/u] in a behavior, activity or issue of concern, but [u]testing the limits[/u] of admitted involvement. I recall some discussion on this in another thread, but once someone admits involvement in a lot of a particular behavior, what then do the test results mean if he passes or fails? I'd rather just take the information, pass it on and work on other concerns. We already have the answer - a lot. That goes on the list of risk-management concerns.

As to fxy re minors - that leads me to the one complaint I have about Malia - she's aging a bit.

I don't think I'm ready to concede that the polygraph is just a prop. So, I don't like the idea of orienting processes around that premise.

We can always find something that an offender is lying about. If that is the objective. Some therapists think it is, and provide referral questions such as "I just want to know if he's lying about anything." (or breaking any rules).

We have a related problem with therapist and POs who provide "I just want to know if he's reoffending." Waiting to catch someone reoffending is too late.

And then we have the milk-toast (sp?) pacifist therapists who tell us they have no real concerns about their offender clients. In fact, they probably barely know their clients. If I spend 3 hours with a guy, that's more face to face time in six months than a one-hour individual session every quarter. In my view its not the flagrantly dysfunctional offender we should worry most about (they get our attention when needed), its the guy who shows up to group every week on time, pays his bills, tries hard not to look stupid, and exhibits no serious pathology or dysfunction - yet committed a sexual assault. Its the normal looking guys, with no real issues or difficulties, that probably aren't changing much throughout all the weeks and years of 1 1/2 a week group therapy and 157.5 hours a week of narcissistic business-as-usual.

The real challenge is to focus the polygraph on the data points or issues that matter - the ones that appear in actuarial risk prediction schemes (to the extent those are applicable to polygraph testing), and the ones that provide qualitative or phenomenological insight about the individual. I favor staying out of the silly business of testing untestable issues.

However, earlier today, I had a guy roll-over mid-test on an assault against an adult male during the 1990s. He's already done about 12 years in prison. He might do 18 more months at most, but stated he doesn't want to go back to prison.

[edited bad taste joke]

The guy did admit the assault, while reviewing the test questions.

peace,

r

r

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

posted 06-12-2007 04:11 PM         

If you do not have time to run the additional test necessary to determine if the offender is being truthful, why test at all. 4 hours is sufficient for the first phase, the second phase is less time consuming.

If you want the truth, use your skills as an examiner, conduct all the tests necessary to discover the truth. The offender is paying you for the test, or the probation department. If they want the truth provide it and don't hedge it because of time or money.

posted 06-12-2007 04:40 PM            

quote:

---

What relevant questions are you (STAT and RNELSON) utilizing on the sexual history (i.e., testing on the document, only questions regarding additional victims, or dependant on offenders crime of conviction)?

---

I think there are serious compromises inherent in asking questions about the document,and we don't use the word "victim" in the test questions.

Here is some language from the revised standards in Colorado

quote:

---

6.012 Sexual History Polygraph Examination ( outline | top )
Sexual history polygraph examinations shall be employed to thoroughly investigate the offender's lifetime history of sexual behavior, including identification of victims and victim selection behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, and deviant or compulsive sexual behaviors. An initial Sexual History Polygraph Examination should be administered within the first six months of treatment and shall be completed within the first year of entering treatment.

Discussion Point: The use of the polygraph examination in the treatment and supervision of convicted sex offenders underscores the fact that many offenders keep secrets about their dangerous and abusive lifestyles. Discussions with convicted sex offenders and professionals in the field suggest that the decision to reveal past secrets and all victims of abuse is an essential component in the development of meaningful treatment and containment plans. The use of the polygraph examination combined with the sexual history documentation prepared by the offender as part of the group process underscores the Sex Offender Management Board’s expectation for honesty and compliance from offenders who have agreed to participate in supervision and treatment. Resolution of polygraph test questions may provide a reasonable basis to establish a tenuous trust relationship between known sex offenders and persons concerned about the offender.

A. The treatment provider shall ensure that the offender has completed a written sexual history disclosure using the SOMB Polygraph Sexual History Packet prior to the examination date. A sexual history polygraph examination shall not be conducted until the offender has written his/her sexual history and reviewed it in their treatment program. The treatment provider shall ensure that the polygraph examiner has access to a copy of the offender’s SOMB Polygraph Sexual History Packet (Appendix ****) prior to or at the time of the exam. If the packet is not received by the time of the examination appointment, the examiner shall have the discretion of administering a sexual history polygraph examination or another type of examination.

Discussion Point: Proper polygraph preparation by the offender involves the thorough review of recent and past behaviors. Offenders must be prepared to be open and honest with the polygraph examiner as the first step of offender accountability and community safety. Effective preparation has been shown to improve an offender's ability to resolve questions and issues of concern.

B. The sexual history polygraph examination process shall consist of test questions including:

1. Sexual contact with underage persons (persons younger than age 15 while the offender is age 18 or older);

2. Sexual contact with relatives whether by blood, marriage, or adoption, or where a relationship has the appearance of a family relationship (a dating or live-in relationship exits with the person(s) natural, step or adoptive parent);

3. Use of violence to engage in sexual contact including physical restraint and threats of harm or violence toward a victim or victim's family members or pets, through use of a weapon, or through verbal/non-verbal means; and

4. Sexual offenses (including touching or peeping) against persons who appeared to be asleep, were drugged, intoxicated or unconscious, or were mentally/physically helpless or incapacitated.

5. At the discretion of the community supervision team, additional polygraph investigation may be necessary to explore the offender's history of involvement in other paraphilias including sexually compulsive behaviors, other sexually deviant activities, or unlawful sexual behaviors.

Discussion Point: Community supervision team members may direct the offender to address his or her sexual history polygraph examination requirements in a series of narrowly focused examinations instead of broader examination methods.

D. Failure to verify the offender’s sexual history via non-deceptive polygraph results within twelve months after the onset of sex offense specific treatment shall result in the scheduling of an immediate comprehensive team staffing to determine the reasons for the offender’s non-compliance with this requirement, and any steps necessary to effect more complete disclosure and satisfaction of this requirement. Structured intervention approaches, such as the polygraph decision grid in Appendix ****, shall be used to address and correct these situations. For offenders whose sexual history polygraph examination results remain unresolved following this time-frame (12 months after onset of treatment), the community supervision team shall respond to the offender's risk level in a manner consistent with offenders who are highly impulsive with prominent deviancy, compulsivity, and widely varied offending behaviors. Offenders who reside in highly restrictive institutional settings may be subject to programmatic time-lines that differ from community based programs.

Discussion Point: Sexual history polygraph examinations should generally be delayed for offenders who are denying significant aspects of the instant offense, including any substantial discrepancies between the victim's and offender's account of the abuse. Proper procedure dictates that denial surrounding the details of the instant offense be satisfactorily resolved before proceeding to a more general sexual history polygraph. However, when history examinations do occur prior to resolving the index offense, test questions shall exclude reference to the victim/s of the instant offense.

---

Because there are four mandated targets, it is not uncommon to do the test in two parts. POs, therapists, and even offenders are getting hip to the idea that more RQs = more INCs and fewer RQs = Fewer INCs. So with polygraph, like urban combat, slower is smoother and smoother is faster.

Due to our state's sunshine laws, offenders and there attorneys always have access to these standards.

r

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

posted 06-13-2007 09:36 AM         

I like that one. Due to high costs of sexual history tests in my state, they are used with discrimination---and unfortunately, they are used on precisely the type of Offender that your text cautions against. I've had several therapists who request sex histories on offenders who completely deny their instant---in the hopes of getting more bang for their buck (a I.O test + Sexual history).

Welcome new poster!

No problemo over the frowny face B.

Some questions I've used are the following---and bare in mind that for some reason using the word (adverb) "intentionally" is acceptable on sex history exams per many well established examiners---don't make me name names.:
"Have you intentionally withheld any additional hands-on offenses from your [revised/latest] sexual history questionnaire."

"Are you now [intentionally] withholding any additional sexual crimes from your [revised/latest]sexual history questionnaire?"

"Are there any significant sexual secrets [b. secret sexual behavior] that you've withheld from your [revised/latest] s.h. questionnaire?"

...and the most vague of them all---" Have you intentionally lied on your sexual history [revised/latest] questionnaire?"

These are some questions off the top of my head----as I have used several versions of these and others over the years.

Controls: "SYSP/SYLP, have you lied to any of your supervision officials in any way?
"SYSP, have you attempted to manipulate anyone who is counting on you to be trustworthy"
"SYSP, have you lied to me today regarding your degree of trustworthiness?"
"In the future, would you [reoffend/have sex with a teen] even if you were certain that you would not get caught?" (hot! and reserved for only certain types---hands down the easiest to psych set)
"SYSP, have you fantasized about sexually victimizing anyone?"
"SYSP, have you lied on any previous polygraph tests?" (talk about bang for your buck---don't forget to interrogate on that one too!)

These are just some of the many different varieties I've used at one time or another.Of course with sex histroy controls, many issues are off the table as a result of the huge encompassing scope of relevance. Masturbation and fantasy habits on parole/probation are a little risky as they are seperated in some cases by days (with plead out probation especially)----A lot of Offenders have little contact with others and lying to "someone who really trusts you" is tough---not to mention that many of these guys are so paranoid that they don't believe ANYONE trusts them---except for (perhaps)the pretensious therapists and examiners who are grooming for admissions. I've alaways felt fiendishly competant in writing controls, but with the sexual history, the field seems somewhat overly restrictive due to the scope of investigation (questionnaire) and the basis for the test (treatment) negating alot of control material we bathe in when running maintenance, monitoring, and instant offense.

I am bracing myself for the barage of critizisms.stat

"Virtue is insufficient Temptation" -----George Bernard Shaw

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-13-2007).]

posted 06-13-2007 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

A lot of Offenders have little contact with others and lying to "someone who really trusts you" is tough---not to mention that many of these guys are so paranoid that they don't believe ANYONE trusts them---except for (perhaps)the pretensious therapists and examiners who are grooming for admissions.

---

They pay us not to trust them.

However, trust is the humpty-dumpty of all problems, so we can alway jack up the issue and sell some hope anyway.

r

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

posted 06-13-2007 02:20 PM         

The context of the sex history test regarding control material (and control timebar challenges)is just a little outragious and challenging, don't you think? That is why I've argued (along with others) for futurebar controls---as we need all the non-targeted (non-relevant)time we can get.

just thunkin. stat

posted 06-13-2007 03:23 PM            

We've all met a few folks who admit to everything we can think of to ask them about.

I used to keep a couple of uber-deviant questions in my back-pocket - just for ego repair work, like when a guy admits to sx contact with a bunch of animals... DYE eng in sx cont with a dead animal...

Then one day I was testing a guy out in a rural county... they kind of community in which 20 firearms in a home is no big deal. The kind of county in which the schools have a week long break in middle of hunting season each fall. Most schools have winter break and spring break (used to be Christmas and Easter) but on the western slope they have Fall Break - so they can go hunt Bambi's mom.

Where I'm from we kept our deers in the zoo. And by the way corn-fields were something in movies - that you buldozed to build useful things like baseball parks.

I don't even both with the standard poly-schtick with those guys. Forget time bars too. I allow myself to moralize just a little bit, in a compassionate and polygraphic way - that way they pretend to divest themselves of their (indelible) deviancy, and then work on

- have you continued to ...

withhold

conceal

keep even one single secret

tell even one single lie

w

therapist, po, treatment group, community supervisikon team.

or, better yet - if they still have involved family members...

pump their new found honesty, integrity and courage with treatment team and group, and then scrutinize continued secrecy/dishonesty with family and friends for the control question material.

It seems like there are some times it just doesn't work, and you wonder what else could there be. Then they surprise us later with some additional disclosure.

r

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

posted 06-13-2007 04:03 PM            

I NEVER run a SH test until the offender has owned up to his offense of record.

On my SH exams I focus on if they have reported all hands on victims, the abuse on the victims, and depending on the age..(kid) HYE been sexually abused or DY tell the truth about your own sexual abuse...(adult) HYE viewed child pornography or any thing else that their body language disagreed with during the pretest. Since we are talking about stuff before their conviction I use controls In the past 6 months, HY lied to your PO? TX? Group Members ( I also have a ton of other questions depending on the offender). I really work up the Controls and I know some people think they are real hot questions. However, if I get a significant response to the RQ, I have all the confidence to go for the juglar in the post test. If I am having significant responses on both I still interrogate. I was once told, when there is an inconclusive on a sex offender INTEROGATE! If I only have responses on the CQ's I also interrogate and tell the offender, I do believe he has been truthful on the SH questions but he has to start being truthful with the TX,PO,& Groups! I tell him I will ask these questions on the next polygraph so he better start being honest and we will start fresh...it sets them up for the maintenance....On the maintenance exam CQ's I tell them up front if the poly shows you have been lying to these entities...it appears you haven't learned a thing and more stringent requirements or a structured enviornment may need to be in place.

Maintenance tests I focus on (depending on the offender - but for this example....child predator) - HYB alone with anyone under the age of 18? Have you touched the genitals of anyone under the age of 18 and HY committed any new crimes. Of course everyone is individual and my tests are never rubber stamped. One other CQ I like on Maintenance exams is - In the past 6 months, HY become sexually aroused while looking at someone too young?

You know back in the day we use to ask - DY intentionally withhold anything from your SH? and DY deliberately add anything to your SH that is not true? We had to test the deceptives numerous times but I felt we got more out of the offenders total SH. Today I focus on the above questions as I feel they are the most relevant to treat the offender and they aren't too broad. I also consult with the TX and PO prior to administering the exam to determine if they have seen any red flags we need to address.

I do find it easier to work with lie controls on sex offenders as I have heard the most disgusting deviant behaivors. Trying to keep a straight face sometimes is difficult.

OKAY heres a funny, I tested a guy and stats (Not 'E' but statistics) show that 80% of SO's have done bestiality...so this offender is telling me about how he exposed his genitals to a cow....well when the cow goes for milk, they slam their head into the mothers udders to get the milk....Long story short - I spit my coffee all over when I busted up laughing! He got over it.

Regardless of how we all operate I have always had one thing in mind 'If I can save AT LEAST one child from being (re)victimized - I am doing an awesome job'

It frustrates me so much that Georgie's page is helping some SO's when they go to examiners that are not up to par!

posted 06-13-2007 06:37 PM            

quote:

---

• Question: Besides those two people, did you sexually touch the private parts of anyone else who was related to you?
  Answer: (No) (no opinion)

• Question: As an adult, did you ever engage in physical sexual contact with anyone who was under age 15?
  Answer: (No) (significant reactions)

• Question: Besides those two people, did you have sexual contact with anyone else who was asleep or unconscious?
  Answer: (No) (no opinion)

• Question: Did you ever physically restrain or threaten to harm anyone to engage in sexual contact with you?
  Answer: (No) (no opinion)
  

---

At the onset of the pretest, I asked some general/vague question about his understanding of why were here, or the purpose of the test and he stated

"what we're here for is to show the court that I can be trusted to live in the community."

Then he disclosed all kinds of concerning behaviors.

There is a stripped report available here. http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/Bo-Gus_sex_history_report.pdf

He wouldn't budge on anything else, after failing the test.

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

I would sure like to further discuss target selection concerns.

What we found here in Colorado, was that when offenders wer'nt required to pass the test, in order to progress through treatment, they didn't. When we required them to pass the test, they began to pass the test. The problem then was those few-odd litigious folks whose attorney's objected to selecting those must-pass targets willy-nilly, and the idea of the examiner chosing the target. So we have to select targets for which we can win arguments regarding their relevance to successful/unsuccessful treatment outcomes and successful/unsuccessful supervision outcomes, and recidivists/non-recidivists.

I could probably find something that each offender is lying about. Whether those are show-stopper issue is another matter. The problem is that in a have-to-pass context, not passing a non-show-stopper doesn't help anything. It just fuels the offender's anit-poly attorney's argument that treatment programs and polygraph requirements are unreasonable (and therefore both un-necessary and unjustifiable).

Bottom line: If they don't have to pass, then they won't. If they have to pass, then we ought to pick meaningful show-stopper targets.

r

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

posted 06-16-2007 10:19 AM         

Taylor, when you said; "On the maintenance exam CQ's I tell them up front if the poly shows you have been lying to these entities...it appears you haven't learned a thing and more stringent requirements or a structured enviornment may need to be in place." ...you offered my a similar but distinctly different phrasing for "set." Thanks.

I still feel very wary of using lie controls concerning lying to therapist as many times the offender has been spending months on his sh---making the question a little too relevant.I feel that a person is more inclined to arouse to lying to a therapist as they are to a document----but what the hell do I know?

I attended a 2 day conference (INSOMM) and have been very emersed the last couple of days. Of particular note was a day long lecture by Dr. Jill Levenson from Florida---a very neat and sharp lady for whom I had so many areas of her presentation which I disagreed with, I nearly bit my tongue clean off. Her presentation style and abilities very good----just highly disagreeable with my thinking and rationale. That's a different post, and most likely a topic that will give me tinnitis form strenuous typing.

I have ran specific-type of questions on sh tests and always felt like I was violating the scope (via concentration) and knowing now that others are addressing more specific needs on that odd test, I feel much better having done so. I should probably recant statements I've made in the past to therapsits who have requested that I specificly address whether the O molested their younger brother----a quest that I would tell them was a specific issue test and that such a question would be so conspicuous that the test would be lacking continuity/uniformity ( a concept which could very well be BS and completely unsubstantiated.)

Gotta go to my 5 year old's T-Ball game. Sorry for the type-o's.----E

posted 06-16-2007 12:59 PM            

quote:

---

I still feel very wary of using lie controls concerning lying to therapist as many times the offender has been spending months on his sh---making the question a little too relevant.

---

I enjoy psychologizing as much or more than anyone, but sometimes I actually try to refrain from do so. I don't think I'll ever agree with the idea that we know what is "too relevant," or the absurd suggestion that comparison questions "become relevant." In my view, comparison questions simply work or don't work as intended - the greater concern and reaction from the subject who is being truthful to the RQs.

To endorse these ideas would be to suggest that an offender in a maintenance polygraph (for example) would somehow be distracted from his arousing or shameful knowledge and memory of violating the boundaries of and sexually touching some person whom they had the opportunity to disclose but chose not to disclose. Non-mentally impaired offenders know what they have done and to whom they have done it. They also know the reasons they chose not to disclose, and that comes down to three things:

1. fear of consequences - to overcome that we create a situation in which the consequences of not admitting appear greater than the consequences for admitting (note: consequences are sometime more related to family than courts),
   
2. shame/embarrassment - which can be mitigated by 1) carefully modulating our professional posture of judgment (not suggesting we don't find it useful to act judgmental at times), 2) engaging the subject as compassionate, empathic, and concerned about his or her health and well-being, and 3) restructuring the subject's perception of his indigenous social system - so that he feels greater shame and embarrassment for not admitting than for admitting and trying to become more responsible/healthier/human/whatever..., and
   
3. protecting activities they desire to continue engaging in.

The first two reasons can be handled by good therapists and good treatment programs. Short of lifetime sentences, all consequences come to an end – and most people grown and learn a little bit from consequences. Most people will eventually feel better about themselves once they realize they are as sick as their secrets and unload the info.

The third reason is the one that speaks to intense dangerousness, and stubborn/lifetime patterns of problem behavior that the offender enjoys despite his knowledge that the behavior is abusive, egregious, and intolerable.

So I don't find myself concerned that some general question about lying to a therapist/po/tx group is going to overpower the offender's knowledge and memory of smashing bodies together with and swapping fluids with a cousin/step-daughter/younger-brother/unconscious person.

stat:

quote:

---

I feel that a person is more inclined to arouse to lying to a therapist as they are to a document

---

I think the document is the problematic. Documents are simply for getting prepared - getting familiar with conceptual vocabulary, learning to recognize what is and what is not sexual behavior that is either abusive or unlawful, and for reviewing and organizing one's personal history. That way they get to recognize and rethink when they were being abusive. Those who might be amenable to changing their thoughts feelings and behaviors might evaluate how they permitted themselves to do something so wrong (what issues propelled that behavior), and they might sometimes adopt other coping strategies. Of course some folks won't change.

But sure lying to a document is probably less intense than lying to a therapist or PO. That's only part of what's wrong with the lie-on-paper questions. We could ask questions about withholding information, but that's really a probably lie question (becomes comparison????). Do we really think the document contained “everything” or that we will ever know “everything.” We could try to improve the question by using the word “intentionally,” but includes a level of intent, and a massive excuse – it wasn't intentional – plus it goes against questions construction requirements that often state something like:

quote:

---

6.146 Test questions ( outline | top )
Before proceeding to the in-test phase of an examination, the examiner shall review and explain all test questions to the offender, and shall assure that the offender comprehends the scope and meaning of each question. The examiner shall not proceed until he/she is satisfied with the offender's response to each issue of concern.

1. Question construction shall be
   
   • simple, direct and easily understood by the examinee,
     
   • behaviorally descriptive of the offender’s involvement in an issue of concern (questions about knowledge, truthfulness, or another person's behavior are considered less desirable),
     
   • time delimited (date of incident or time-frame),
     
   • absent of prior assumptions about guilt or deception,
     
   • free of legal terms and idiosyncratic jargon, and
     
   • avoid the use of mental state or motivational terminology.

---

“intentionally” is really a motivational concern – we don't care whether he meant to sexually assault the victim, only whether he did it. We use the motivational aspects for interrogation, not for testing. The terms “important” or “significant” are also troublesome, in that they invoke the offender's moral-measuring-stick to decide what is important. I would prefer to do that during comparison questions – because I can at least have some fun jacking the guy around a bit with his sense of judgment or discretion. We have the same problem with maintenance/monitoring polygraphs, when offenders assert they are only required to report recent events to their therapist if it “bothers” them. As if they are an adequate compass or barometer for that. I would rather make them more anxious about whether others are bothered by their behaviors (or presence) in the community. Of course they are perfectly comfortable as long as no-one knows anything – and that is the point of a lot of criminal thinking - “what people don't know doesn't matter” when in fact it does matter and places them at risk. (the paradox is that when people know, they are actually at less vulnerable though they feel more afraid).

We could ask about sex abuses or sex crimes not included in the document, but that is not behaviorally descriptive. So what does it really tell us when they don't pass? Similarly, what does it mean if they do pass? There there is absolutely nothing more, that was not included in the document? Doubtful. We will never know everything. Similar problems exist with questions about sexual behavior secrets – those sound like sex-controls to me. How would someone ever pass? What does it mean when they do pass? And what does it tell us when they don't (besides that its time to interrogate)? I've heard about test questions inquiring about “any detail” and “any other victim.” Those are equally problematic: “any detail” returns us to pretending/colluding with the offender's pretense that he's told us “everything.” That would be an affront to many victims – we can't possibly know everything that was done to them. Including the term “victim” is really an attempt to test the existential status of persons other than the offender (what are they? victims/non-victims). Some victims don't like to be called victims. Some don't know they have been victimized. What if he says someone's a victim and they say they are not? Where is Jean Paul Sartre when you need him?

I think its better to ask what did he do and to whom. That doesn't mean they always tell us exactly who the victim is, but they usually do, and if they won't then we don't fight over that. Some realize they might not pass if they don't. Others reconcile that it is the right thing to do to disclose the person's identity, even if there is some risk of consequences. I never seen anyone removed from the community for telling me the name or identity, and they were already removed from the home, so it can't be argued that it has ever affected any “rights” to make those disclosures.

quote:

---

I attended a 2 day conference (INSOMM) and have been very emersed the last couple of days. Of particular note was a day long lecture by Dr. Jill Levenson from Florida---a very neat and sharp lady for whom I had so many areas of her presentation which I disagreed with, I nearly bit my tongue clean off.

---

We had a similar experience here in Colorado, when Rob Freeman-Longo visited. Its sometimes better not to pick fights in public, and its often a good to listen closely to intelligent and articulate critics. To do otherwise is to do the ostrich-thing.

quote:

---

I have ran specific-type of questions on sh tests and always felt like I was violating the scope (via concentration) and knowing now that others are addressing more specific needs on that odd test, I feel much better having done so. I should probably recant statements I've made in the past to therapsits who have requested that I specifically address whether the O molested their younger brother----a quest that I would tell them was a specific issue test and that such a question would be so conspicuous that the test would be lacking continuity/uniformity ( a concept which could very well be BS and completely unsubstantiated.)

---

I think you were correct in what it sounds like you told them.

To include a question about a particular (named or identified) individual, in the context of a general sexual history test, sounds like trouble. I would anticipate that the specificity of the question would capture a lot of attention. I would prefer to see questions about the younger brother in a test by itself. Its important to note that the interpersonal dynamics of accusation are troublesome in that test. If there is some allegation or known incident that causes concern, then it is a specific issue. If there is no allegation, and we professionals are “just wondering,” then its really not a diagnostic test, but still a form of narrowly focused screening test, in which we are searching for the possible presence of a problem for which we are not sure whether it exists or doesn't exist.

The term “specific issue” is part of the confusion here. Yes it is a specific issue of concern, but it may or may not meet the definitional requirements for a diagnostic test - a known allegation or known incident, and reason to suspect the individual's involvement.

The NAS report (2003) attempted to manage this confusion by using the much clearer term “event specific” which imposes a much better conceptual understanding that some polygraphs are investigations of known or alleged events, while other (screening) polygraphs are “fishing trips.” Look in the report, and you will see the tern “event specific” throughout.

Keep in mind also that the interpersonal dynamics of accusation are different when there is or is not an allegation. For those accused (perhaps falsely) we examiners build a polygraphic rapport as objective persons who can clear them of unwarranted concern – it is not we who are making the accusation, though we are asking the questions. When there is no accusation, known incident or allegation, and the subject knows he will be in some hot-water for not passing the test anyway – there is a much greater chance of creating the perception that it is the polygraph/examiner who will make the allegation. What is the likelihood that anyone might react a little to test questions involving their children's names and the idea of sexual contact? To find out for myself, I once persuaded examiner Jason Walker to hook me up and ask me questions with my son Nick's name in them. It was very interesting.

quote:

---

Gotta go to my 5 year old's T-Ball game. Sorry for the type-o's.----E

---

Now that sound's really important.

'nuff for now, its a nice weekend, and I've got some welding to do so old truck doesn't sound like some 19 year-old's honda.

Peace,

r

posted 06-16-2007 04:17 PM         

Good point, but what I meant to write was that I suspected that I was "crossing targets"----and I should have been more clear--rather than writing "become relevant."

The T-Ball game was cool(his 1st game)---but I must say that I prefer the faster- paced game of soccer and so does he.

At the lecture (Dr. Levenson's), I did take to task a few of her deductions----but I reached a point where I didn't want to be the self-indulging jerk who borders on being a heckler------she was after all a sweet spirit, a gracious speaker, and a tireless professional.Perhaps I'll revive my "The Hidden Banishment Race" for comments on her research.

Time for R&R.
-------------------------E

posted 06-18-2007 02:23 PM         

Hi Taylor. Maybe you miswrote this paragraph, if so, than forget these remarks. Maintenance tests are not to contain Monitoring questions and visa versa. Maintenance tests are supervision issues---secret contact with minors, giving gifts to kids, having sexual conversations with minors, drugs, alcohol, porn, travel, breaking laws in order to earn money, using a computer for sexual reasons, unreported sexual partner(s), threatening anyone with violence---to name the most common.(again, you may already know this and accidentally used the word maintenance as a surrogate (generic) for maintenance and monitoring tests.

Monitoring tests are more of a single issue test regarding having committed a sex crime while on parole/probation. i.e SYSP, have you touched the sexual parts of anyone under the age of 14? SYSP, has anyone under the age of 14 touched your genitals? SYSP, have you committed any sexual crimes that we discussed today? SYSP, have you engaged in any stalking activities?

posted 06-18-2007 06:57 PM            

quote:

---

Maintenance tests are not to contain Monitoring questions and visa versa. Maintenance tests are supervision issues---secret contact with minors, giving gifts to kids, having sexual conversations with minors, drugs, alcohol, porn, travel, breaking laws in order to earn money, using a computer for sexual reasons, unreported sexual partner(s), threatening anyone with violence---to name the most common.(again, you may already know this and accidentally used the word maintenance as a surrogate (generic) for maintenance and monitoring tests.

Monitoring tests are more of a single issue test regarding having committed a sex crime while on parole/probation. i.e SYSP, have you touched the sexual parts of anyone under the age of 14? SYSP, has anyone under the age of 14 touched your genitals? SYSP, have you committed any sexual crimes that we discussed today? SYSP, have you engaged in any stalking activities?

chow!-----E

---

This is really important and should be moved to a new topic.

Can we get a moderator to do that?

r

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