posted 02-14-2007 03:18 PM            

I'm limiting it to drugs to keep it simple.

If you're willing to get the data, then please do so and then email me. All I need is a good phone number as I've been talking to those providing the info just to be sure I'm collecting the stats I'm looking for. Please don't post your figures here as I don't want to bias anyone in any way. If you've got questions, just email me and I'll get in touch with you.

When I've got what I need, I'll let you in on what I know and we can talk about it all anybody wants.

posted 02-21-2007 08:47 AM            

Thanks again,

posted 03-29-2007 03:04 PM         

You are welcome. I would have guessed the rate would have been higher. It is still great news and should be published!
(When are you going to mail the checks out to the study participants?)

posted 03-29-2007 03:31 PM            

(Actually, I got an email today from a very nice gentleman in Nigeria who said I could get 40% of $100 million if I help him get the money into a US account. It seems some poor US citizen contractor with no heirs died over there, and he's willing to compensate me for my efforts. So how much would you like as I'll soon be very rich?)

I think - and this is just from asking questions of some involved - it really depends on how well the BI goes. If a good interviewer really gets most of the issues then there are few left for the examiners. Nobody got fewer than 20%, which is still (in my humble opinion) a good chunk of candidates who feel the need to be "conservative" in their disclosures.

Someday I'd like to look at total new disclosures for a few other topics of interest in most of these tests.

posted 04-06-2007 02:49 PM            

As far as empirical evidence goes, what is there to show interviews identify the best candidates to move ahead and which to cut? There is a lot of subjectivity along the way, and those in power in those organizations are the people who set the standards. You've got to start somewhere, and they do enough of them (many more than I) that I'm trusting they have pretty good reasons for doing what they do.

Keep in mind in some federal agencies people aren't cut on the basis of DI charts (which means some might hire only the best liars). Others don't set the bar at 15 mj uses. Why is that? I don't know. Why do some states outlaw fireworks and others don't? Again, I don't know. They are policy decisions, and each side has its persuasive reasons.

posted 04-06-2007 05:45 PM            

Seriously now,

I'm inclined to agree with both of your arguments on this, and view it a combination of both science and policy concerns.

The more complicated issue is the one of construct validity – which is I think what Barry is getting at, with the concern about larger numbers.

If we think that the orienting response has anything to do with polygraph reactions, then we have to remember that orienting theory includes components of both habituation and conditioned response theory. I know some folks will argue that orienting theory explains the GKT or CIT, and not the CQT, but it would be incorrect to assume that polygraph science is so neat and perfect that the type of question we ask switches on or off any of the various psychological or physiological mechanisms.

We are forced to contend with all theories, and orienting/habituation/conditioned-response is a well documented construct that tells us that involvement in a an issue (behavior or event) creates and conditioned response potential, much like feeding dogs raw (or cooked) meat after ringing a bell creates a conditioned response. In polygraph the stimulus question is the bell.

So, a subject tells us that he used mj 15 times during college. What he's really telling us is he has a conditioned response potential to that question. Do we really think there is plausible rationale to assure that including the words “besides what you told me,” or “besides those 15 times” somehow negates that conditioned response potential when we ring the bell? Could Ivan say to his dogs “now listen carefully, because I know that I've fed you all that yummy meat every time I ring the bell, but this time I'm going to ring the bell 3 times (or 15 times), so there is no need to salivate, got that?”

What do the test results really mean if someone doesn't pass? (aside from the obvious – interrogate 'till your content). Its the information that is meaningful, the test result is not. Similarly, what do the results mean if someone does pass?

Think about it: A person passes the test while offering the admission of 15 times for mj use. Do we really think there weren't possibly 16 times.

What we are really talking about is the indifference between testing any involvement and testing the limits of admitted involvement. This becomes especially apparent when testing sex offenders who may have stolen other peoples' underwear or undergarments up to 200 or 2000 times. If someone passes after such admissions, would that mean there were not 201, 250, 300, 2005, or 4000 times? Do we really think the polygraph can do that? If not, at what point do the results begin to get fuzzy? 15? 20,? 25?

On the other hand, smaller numbers might work. For example: I've climbed the highest mt. in CO five times – and I can remember every time.

Peace,

r

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