|
Author
|
Topic: Seeking Advice for Quadri-Track Validation Study Metrics and Format
|
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 11-24-2006 11:39 PM
 
In 2007 I will undertake a validation study of the Matte Quadri-Track ZCT. I seek your input to assist me in constructing a sound study that will not be susceptible to criticism. In other words, I wish to conduct a validation study of the Quadri-Track ZCT that’s as “bulletproof” as practicable. This will be a field study, however, my preference is to somehow run it under the auspices – at least for the purposes of QC-ing the quantitative analyses -- of my grad school alma mater, the University of Massachusetts. My goal is to publish the study in an appropriate journal, and then present the findings at an APA event. I’m starting with a blank slate, so any and all input is welcome. For starters, what sample size do I need to amass in order to comfortably cross the credibility threshold?Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions. Dan
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 10:04 AM
Sounds great! I've said here and abroad that I'd kill for a grant, a small team of Psy D interns, and access to 200 college students--in increments . Although you stated that you wish to do a field study, I wish you could be paid 60K for a years' worth of work and 60k for supplies and examinee reinforcement. It is positively sickening that grants such as the above (and far larger) are awarded to research pertaining to the likes of diaper absorbancy or how well ferrets can hear. Good luck Dan! I know zero of the Q-track and am interested in your "build." If there was a seperate forum on "research progress" I would check your journaling with interest---provided (of course) that you explained the process in an understandable and anecdotal fashion (mega-jargon makes me lose hair). I am currently using a different kind of stim test (spoken aloud) which has shown some distinct and consistant patterns of arousal--minus the g.d. pneumos. I (probably like yourself) would be happy to have a sabbatical to dive into something forward-thinking, and not be concerned with business and community safety for 1 year. I suspect that your motivations would make you work tirelessly. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 10:07 AM
What is your hypothesis? What do you hope to support or not support? It's unlikely you can address all the issues in a single study. If you want to do any justice, why not try to replicate some of Matte's study, minus the problem elements? A good review of the basic polygraph literature is a good place to start. Don't reinvent the wheel. That is, build on what we know already. Where will you get the data? Last I spoke to Matte, he didn't have much to offer. How will you confirm ground truth? There are some guiding principles out there, and I'd stick to what's most accepted. IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 10:44 AM
Thanks much for your comments and suggestions in helping me to flesh this out. You both raise some great points which I'd like to explore in more detail, but I'm leaving for NYC in a few minutes and will be off the air for a couple of days. To be continued...IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 10:57 AM
Let me toss out a couple of question real quick...1. What are the pro/cons of doing this in a PCSOT (but specific-issue) context? 2. Would confession satisfy ground truth? Gotta fly. Later, and THANKS! IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 11:39 AM
If you're doing post conviction tests, then you're going to be doing breakthrough denial tests when you talk single-issue tests aren't you? If so, those are only going to be DI tests, which is a problem. If you find them NDI after they admitted the conduct (or were convicted) then you're not going to be taken very seriously. Wat other types of single-issue PCSOTs would you be doing? How could you establish ground truth for the NDI? My guess is that you couldn't, and you're base rate of liars will likely be much higher than you find in criminal tests.If you want to do true field tests, then stick to those. There is little out there to support PCSOT at this time, and that would invite the criticism you hope to avoid. In my humble opinion, confessions satisfy ground truth, but they don't for everyone. if that's all you use, you're going to have to cite the supporting research for that, and there is some. It would be nice to have some confirmed with confessions and other evidence, e.g., DNA, fingerprints, etc. Finding good DI confirmations will not be too tough. It's the NDI you've got to worry about. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 12:22 PM
Judging by your previous thread topic where you recently attended PCSOT, I agree with Barry wholeheartedly and further add that the community needs you in N.H. to "bring it"----not to begin a field of testing with anything but the welfare of children and the protection of your community at heart. Although I experiment with stim tests and the occasioal control question on SO's, I (and most of us) bring nothing but the full force of our training and ability to those PCSOT tests. PCSOT should be an area where Dan M. and any other well intentioned researcher--leaves the "maverick" stuff alone. A gifted and steely-eyed therapist told me that if a sex offender goes NDI, than you're not asking the right questions. Barry has posted in the past his merited disdain for the lack of hardened research in the area of PCSOT---good points indeed---but, be that as it may, 3 days ago one of my offenders admitted to drinking the urine of his 5 year old daughter on multiple occasions (Uriphilic Pediphile). This field deserves the most proven (reletively speaking Barry) formats and guidelines. I say program poor (verifiably economically needy) college kids in a theft and offer to pay them $100 if they can "beat the test" while reversing the questions of the "fear of a mistake" as an inversion. You'll get countermeasures (like in real life) both crude and sophisticated. I honestly don't understand precisley the nature of the Q-track (or whatever)so I'm just spouting off ideals.My oft wrong advice would be to use your real time gifts on sex offenders, and use your research on armored car stuff or the like. The children up there need you man. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 11-25-2006).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 11-25-2006).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 05:07 PM
Just to be clear - I think PCSOT is worthwhile. I just realize the research is weak.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 11-25-2006 08:00 PM
stat wrote:
quote:
A gifted and steely-eyed therapist told me that if a sex offender goes NDI, than you're not asking the right questions.
I think we should start another thread and have a discussion about all the implications contained in this. I'd start it now, but I'm a little tired from playing on the slopes.
r
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 11-25-2006).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 11-26-2006 09:02 AM
Ray has a way of making me feel like my life isn't fun enough. Playing on the slopes? Mountain climbing? Shopping for a classic porsche? The most fun I've had in the last week is playing the "Cars" video game with my 5 year old and making my famous nacho/beef/salsa dip. sigh. Oh---and I rented the 3rd season of Arrested Development and laughed out loud about 6 times last night. No adventures though.[This message has been edited by stat (edited 11-26-2006).] IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
