posted 04-12-2007 08:59 AM         

Further, two of the students attending this unaccredited course are Department of Corrections employees (parole-probation officers) who have been selected to perform PCSOT testing upon completion of this home-grown course. It appears these two individuals will not be attending an APA-approved PCSOT course, but will instead go directly to work in the field testing sex offenders as part of court-ordered PCSOT activities.

The state does not have a polygraph licensing law.

Is anyone familiar with this practice? It seems to me that while it may save the agency some money up front, it is inviting some legal problems down range.

Also, from an ethical standpoint, what effect might this have an a "legit" examiner who, in a PCSOT context, is ordered to work alongside (or even mentor/QC) the grads of an unaccredited polygraph examiner course?

Any thoughts on this?

posted 04-12-2007 10:01 AM         

The Northeast Counter Drug Training Center (Elmer's school) had a tuition free polygraph program for law enforcement officers. I don't know if the tuition is still free but I do know that the school is highly respected and accredited by everyone.

Could this be what you heard?

posted 04-12-2007 10:26 AM         

Nope, this is in NH. I believe it's the first time such a polygraph course has been offered by the state-run police academy.

This activity was unknown to the APA until I asked T.V. O'Malley about it a couple of weeks ago. He had no knowledge of it. It appears that it's strictly an "in house" (law enforcement) activity in NH.

I'm especially curious about the ramifications from a PCSOT standpoint...

posted 04-12-2007 12:57 PM         

But what about the accreditation issue? Is it moot in a state w/o a licensing law? Will PCSOT tests run by graduates of an unaccredited school be legally valid?

posted 04-12-2007 02:20 PM            

Once inspected, they could teach the PCSOT course and their graduates would be covered, state license requirement or not and could join the APA.

posted 04-12-2007 06:58 PM            

"Accreditation" really means nothing (legally) - unless a state's statutes recognize APA "accreditation." Some might, but I don't know. The APA's accreditation isn't recognized by the US Department of Education, so unless a state chooses to recognize it, it doesn't mean a whole lot (legally anyhow). I think it does say a lot for a school that chooses not to get APA or AAPP recognition - as they are the only organizations that "police" polygraph schools, and if you can't meet their minimum standards, something's wrong (not that the standards are lax - they're not - but why wouldn't you want to be able to say, "the two biggest polygraph organizations in the world have put their 'seal of approval' (so to speak) on us"?

(I don't know what the APA hasn't sought USDOE recognition. It could be they've never tried, or it could be they don't meet the government's rigorous standards for accrediting organizations.)

In the academic world "accredited" has real meaning everywhere. Outside of the polygraph world APA "accreditation" doesn't. That's one of the reasons DACA sought to be accredited by a regional accreditor - so their credits would be recognized in the academic community as legit and would transfer to other schools.

Does the State of New Hampshire require state licensing for schools? Maybe they are operating on that. Do they meet ASTM standards, or is all that unknown?

posted 04-12-2007 07:31 PM         

Does that mean that SOs in NH can have their PCSOT exams conducted by, say, John Mark Karr (assuming that JMK was offering such services in NH)?

Clearly, I'm being facetious. But the bottom line is this: In states w/o polygraph licensing laws, there isn't a PCSOT gatekeeper. Right?

posted 04-13-2007 10:03 AM            

As for students attending a non-accredited course being eligible for APA membership, they would not be eligible as the non-accredited school would have to have been in existence prior to the 1 August 2001, which the school in question would not meet.

As for conducting PCSOT testing right out of school, many of our APA schools teach a follow on one week PCSOT course so their new graduates have had the course right out of school. I personally think that a new graduate should not be doing such tests until they have considerable polygraph experience under their belt, but that is only my opinion and one that is not held by everyone.

posted 04-13-2007 01:04 PM            

Why, in your opinion, would a school not seek approval / accreditation from the AAPP and APA? Is is money, inability to get the recognition, or something else (or a combination)? I ask because I'm curios as to what the ramifications are on the polygraph community as a whole if there are schools out there graduating students who aren't well trained.

I'm not saying that's the case with this school. I know little about it. I've only heard good things about gentleman opening (or running) the school.

posted 04-16-2007 12:35 PM            

a. Must possess, as a minimum, a degree at the Baccalaureate level from a college or university accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation board(s).

b. Must have administered a minimum of 200 polygraph examinations within a 3-year period following the completion of their final graduation from an APA accredited training facility.

c. Must have completed a basic polygraph school course at a school that was accredited by the American Polygraph Association at the time of their attendance.

d. Must have at least 3 years experience as a practicing polygraphist after their final graduation from an APA accredited training facility.

e. Primary course instructors must be capable of demonstrating three years of documented polygraph experience gained after their final graduation from an APA accredited training facility applying the subject matter and/or procedures they are responsible for teaching.

Instructors for the previously stated special disciplines are as follows:

1. Legal Issues; Instructors teaching legal issues or aspects related to polygraph sciences must:

a. Possess a law degree or jurisprudence degree recognized by the appropriate national or regional bar association(s); and/or,

b. Be currently licensed to practice law by an appropriate governmental or regulatory licensing authority; and, be a current member in good standing with the bar association in their state or residence where applicable.

2. Physiology. Instructors teaching physiological issues or aspects to polygraph students must:

a. Have successfully completed and been granted at least one graduate degree, beyond the Bachelor level, in physiology or in a discipline defined as closely related to or aligned with physiology, i.e., psychophysiology, physiological psychology, etc., from a college or university graduate department approved by the appropriate regional accrediting agency; or in lieu thereof: Must have completed and been granted a Bachelor-level degree and have been credited with documented successful completion of not less than 18 graduate level semester credit hours or equivalent in physiology, (psychophysiology, physiological psychology, etc.) from a college or university graduate department approved by the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

b. Instructors in physiology need not be practicing polygraphists.

3. Psychology. Instructors teaching psychological issues and aspects to polygraph students must:

a. Have successfully completed and been granted at least one graduate-level degree beyond the Bachelor level, in the field of psychology from an appropriately accredited college or university psychology graduate department; or in lieu thereof: Must have successfully completed and received a Bachelor-level degree plus must have been credited with documented successful completion of no less than 18 graduate-level semester credit hours or equivalent in the field of psychology by an approved psychology graduate department within a college or university approved by the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

b. Instructors in the discipline of psychology need not be practicing polygraphists.

Long answer, I realize but I didn't want to piece meal the requirements.

posted 04-16-2007 03:44 PM            

quote:

---

but I believe that the earnest but fundementaly flawed desire for legitimacy among the scentific fields is in part the reason why many examiners have professed phony grad degrees.

---

gotta disagree here.

-people sporting wizard-of-oz degree don't do it out of earnestness

-interest in applying scientific prinicples to polygraph is not fundamentally flawed,

and ...

-people sport those degrees in attempt to impress themselves by impressing others

r

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

posted 04-17-2007 09:02 AM            

I think you are right about much of what you've stated. We potentially cause ourselves trouble is when we lose sight of the value of the dialectical tension between art, science and business.

I'm perhaps prickly about the degree thing, in part because it angers me to see the folks on the anti-site take people down one by one, and in part because a lot of people earned degrees the old-fa$hioned way and will be paying for them for a long time.

r

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

posted 04-19-2007 01:17 PM            

On the notion of it is better to have an APA instructor at an unaccredited school for exposure reasons I disagree. In my opinion, that is like saying it would be better for a police officer to drive bank robbers to their heist because he might give them good information that leads them to abandon their criminal ways. If the officer fails in his attempt to persuade the criminals to a life of law abidance, the officer is an accomplice to a criminal act for going along with them.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong."

A number of transgressions of those amongst our regular members have become known in recent years. I will not pass judgment on those transgressions I do not have sufficient evidence to do so. However, where there is sufficient evidence, I believe we should “part” ways with those whom have gone away from doing that which they know is “right”. If we do not or refuse to police ourselves, we will most certainly find ourselves in the future at an inquisition by a more stringent persecutor willing to do so and that course will ne’er be a benefit to either affected party.

posted 04-19-2007 01:53 PM            

I didn't say it was my opinion, I said it has been the argument in the past when this issue has come up at board meetings. In my personal opinion, an APA mamber teaching at a non-APA accredited course is just plain wrong and it shouldn't be done.

posted 04-19-2007 10:32 PM            

I did not mean to make it appear that your opinion was the same as what “comes up frequently at board meetings.” I guess I should have worded that a little better, so as to specify whom it referred to.

Although I will admit that my analogy was quite brash in comparison to the subject matter, my point was that neither of the scenarios or actions are “right”, in my opinion, regardless of whether one argues that one is less wrong than the other (the lesser of two evils).

I have spoke with you at APA seminars, as well as heard you lecture, and I respect your opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I believe that we both agree on this matter, gauging from what you wrote in your last post.

Stat,

When I referred to “academic requirements”, I specifically stated for those areas that are “more lofty academic courses”. To clarify, I was speaking of Psychology, Law, and Anatomy and Physiology. I did not specify what “academic requirements” I thought were needed and it really doesn’t matter much, as my opinion is no “loftier” than anyone else’s per se. In my opinion, some people have a PhD in polygraph, regardless of the paper hanging on their wall.

I am not trying to hold up the APA as the be all to end all. However, the APA is a professional organization that has bi-laws and standards in place to be followed by its members.

I have no qualms with any other countries that are using or intend to use polygraph. I would love to see more international co-operation in the furthering of the future of the profession. Other forensic science organizations, such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), have international ties as well.

If someone wants to open a school in a state that has no licensing laws and hire whomever to teach polygraph I wouldn’t have any say in the matter. As a professional, I would not much like it and I think it would cause more harm to the profession than help. As a member of the APA, I do have a vote, as does every other member, in the direction of the organization's views regarding this matter.

Along the lines of discussion of other countries, I think if you do some research you will find that Japan’s requirements of their examiners are more stringent than those in place in the U.S. in some areas. I have no opinion on whether this is better or worse, as I have never seen an examination conducted in Japan.