posted 08-17-2006 10:17 AM            

One problem with this is the idea that polygraph, like other test of amorphous (non-physical substance) phenomena (meaning that polygraph reactions are not physical things/substance themselves, but rather physical events like eye-blinks - real, but transitory) depends upon the representativeness of the normative population.

We don't know exactly how different meds and health issues interact with each other, and this tends to vary across individuals. Psychopharmacology remains (in my opinion) half-witchcraft - or highly dependent upon trial and error with each individual subject. I say this after 20+ years working around a lot of psychiatric subjects. Barry said it well in another discussion thread "mechanism of action is unknown," meaning we don't' know exactly why meds work, but we can learn to use them to reduce, manage, or mitigate some symptoms. Why they work is less important - as long as the side effects and risks are tolerable.

A number of medications can directly or indirectly affect the sympathetic nervous system functions monitored by the polygraph instrument. Just read those small novels (as Barry puts it) that are dispensed by pharmacists – and look for words like “sympathomimetic” - which affects alpha adrenergic receptors in the cardiovascular system, or “cholinergic” (anticholinergic, or other words like “postural hypotension” that describe the effects of some anticholinergic side effects) - which affects electrodermal reasons. Just think about glucocortico-steroid effects (athsma inhalers) on respiratory data.

Aside: I've had two scopalamine countermeasure cases recently – I'll make the chart data available soon.

Medications have the general effect of either 1) dampening the test data, or 2) exaggerating the test data. This can be expected to be most obvious with medications that directly or indirectly affect sympathetic nervous system functions.

As a general rule of thumb I would suggest that people who function optimally while taking prescribed medications might also produce polygraph test data of optimal interpretable quality while taking any necessary medications.

However, it is always wise to listen closely to the most conservative voice in the room, and I believe we examiners don't know enough to predict the exact effects that combinations of medications will have on each individual subject. I'm not at all sure that such exceptional individuals (with complex medical and psychiatric diagnosis, and taking multiple medications) are adequately represented in the data sets use in feature extraction and data fitting (threshold setting) for polygraph tests. It seems likely to me that such persons represent outliers to the normative populations and samples upon which the polygraph test is built. I also think you'd have a tough specious argument in court, trying to assert that your guy on multiple prescription medications is a normally suitable or “fit” (as we sometimes say in jargon that was adopted 40 some years ago) subject. For this reason, I believe it is unwise to attempt to render an unqualified opinion for any subject who requires the administration of multiple prescription medications just to navigate the ordinary challenges of a normal workday or school-day. I would encourage caution when interpreting the results of such persons.

Without getting too specific and what exact medications, meds for diabetes, cholesterol, and triglycerides sounds serious, but generally don't directly affect sympathetic nervous system functions. However, your client has enough health issues that data quality problems are not surprising. He should probably be regarded as a “marginal” subject for the polygraph technique.

I'm not suggesting that we not polygraph such exceptional persons, only that we exercise reasonable empirical caution in doing so. Neglecting to account for these concerns causes empirical and credibility problems for the polygraph profession.

For example, here is chart on a subject with Spina bifida – and he's a repeat offender (child molester) – with both hands-on and hands-off offenses and some indications of compulsivity.

I didn't use the movement sensor because I wasn't going to lift him from his wheelchair. Plus, he has no anal sphincter anyway - and grossly underdeveloped abdominal musculature. He takes multiple meds, including one for chronic diarrhea. He's had 13 surgeries, including cranial shuts, and has had serious bouts with pneumonia.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060302.html

His PO, (who has over 16 years of experience, is among the most knowledgeable consumers of the polygraph, and trains numerous other supervising officers) told me that he's passed polygraphs in the past and none of the examiners ever said anything about his test data or suitability. Those prior passed test were of the excessively inclusive “anything else” type question tactic – intended to test the limits of public nudity and public masturbation behaviors which he admitted to engaging in several times weekly for extended periods of time. Seriously. Do we really think that marginal quality test data can tell us that there is not more than X times he did that – that there are not X+1, or X+5, X+10, or X+100 more incident. I have to wonder, what do those NDI results really mean? On the other hand, I wouldn't be at all surprised to observe continued reactions after the guy admits to 50+, 500+ or 5000+ incidents. I'm just not willing to say their isn't more, based on these data and these circumstances.

Again, our consumers know what we've taught them. And this knowledgeable PO believes in the polygraph, and is willing to impose sanctions and consequences, including possible removal from the community, in response to non-compliance or perceived non-compliance. I'm not opposed to this dangerous person, or others, returning to prison. However, I'm not sure I want to argue the validity of his DI polygraph results in court, as the basis for our concerns.

Also, I'm not at all sure that a passed question about habitual behavior adds anything to the risk prediction scheme, treatment plan, or risk management effort. The real issue is already known – the guy has a pattern of habitual problem behavior. Numbers of incidents do not figure into any actuarial risk prediction scheme – the presence of sexual compulsivity and sexual deviancy do. Now, on a phenomenological level, I believe it is very helpful to both clinical and risk management objectives to know a lot about just what an individual does or likes to do.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 08-17-2006 11:22 AM            

Thanks, I think. I understood most of your post, but you left me behind on a good bit of it. I think the gist of what you were saying is that through the combination of meds and physical condition, my subject was nost likely marginaly suitable at best and that these factors would play a role in the quality of charts/data collected. As such, the "inconclusive" appears to be the right call. I am undecided as to my instinct about this guy. "Where there is smoke there is fire" With the allegation of molesting years ago and the current allegation, it makes me wonder. The behaviors ascribed to the current 5 yoa victim indicate that she is definitely being abused by someone, but is it this guy? At present, I do not know enough about her other contacts to know for sure. This guy gave indications that he was likely going to lie (such as saying on two different occasions in the pre-test, "When this thing says I'm lying", and "When I fail..."). However, upon post-testing him, his behaviours and responses were definitely what I would expect from a false positive subject. Regardless, since it is a criminal case, I will not being testifying on this one in court.

posted 08-18-2006 09:21 AM            

quote:

---

APA/ASTM should provide direction/standards but they are not on the same page as I see it. Some examiners in my State continue with DI/NDI decisons and expressed they will continue to do so until APA essentially dictates to do otherwise.

---

Its a monumental challenge to ask a whole field to rethink itself and change field practices that are embedded in training, policy guidelines, and consumers' expectation.

Aside from facilitating improved and evolving standards, there are a few other important things we can do to raise the crossectional bar of competence in our profession. Doing really good work is one – things like taking the time to read the case history and talk to the therapist, including the beginning and ending times of the examination in the report, listing all medications and medical conditions in the report. Endorsing good quality assurance protocols in the private sector is another. Its increasingly common in my area, that any predisposition polygraph offered to mitigate a case will get QC'd by the opposing counsel's expert – before any court or conversation occurs. Teaching and training is another – only we have to be careful to engage in “training” and not “marketing.”

PO's and others with very long to-do lists love simple answers, they like checklists, and these tend to drive the work of more inexperienced folks. Some will tend to latch on to concepts that are useful or which they like. On more than one occasion I've seen some hip-shot explanation of some polygraph issue evolve into localized or regionalized jargon. Consider “inconclusive leaning to truth,” and “inconclusive leaning to deception” - probably a well intentioned effort to provide some useful information (as opposed to nothing) regarding an inconclusive test. However, the result is that an examiner offering a personal opinion on a test for which no professional opinion could be formulated – hence the value of the term “no opinion.” Other terms like “exit polygraph” and “bleed-over” seem to connote some special meaning, but are actually meaningless. They miseducate our consumers, and serve only to allow underinformed persons to feel like they know what they are talking about. Or a "spot responder" case in which an examiner suddenly figured out why a guy had failed 30 some consecutive tests over two or three years - having completed 50+ total polygraphs. We really can't afford to make this up as we go along.

The real issue here is the tendency to think in terms of “labels” instead of empirical constructs and descriptive language.

Another very important thing we can do is to maintain a dialogue that continues to align polygraph science with well known and valid constructs and priniciples from sister sciences. The long term result of this effort will be to embed the polygraph in the broader field of sciences in a manner that is far less easily marginalized by smart folks. Eventually, the validity of polygraph my simply be assumed among scientists and non-scientists, but that will only happen if we can engage in a credible dialogue with related sciences.

quote:

---

As to convience to the consumer ‘what goes in’ and ‘what stays out’ in the final report (our product to the purchaser) is bit more grey area, and I believe we do ‘in effect tailor’ our reports to the purchaser. For example, testing in an accusation of child molest during a heated divorce/custody hearing; the father denies sexually abusing daughter and is NDI- but during CQ development admits chronic pornography use and seeing child porn. The attorney representing the father certainly does not want that in a ‘report.’ But- that same attorney does not like that surprise either when the recorded video tape of the test gets played in front of a jury either when he is trying to show his client didn’t commit the crime. If we take a medical history from the client before the test, should it be included in the final report?

---

I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of withholding any information from the report.

In the circumstance that there is important medical information that affects the suitability of the subject, or quality of the test data – I believe that information belongs in the report. I'm not concerned about a medical history, but listing all medications and (diagnosed) medical conditions seems important. I had one client who played the MPD (actually now called DID) and had started to see some licensed psychotherapist who treats the disorder. When pressed the client admitted that he self-referred and was being evaluated, but had not been diagnosed. All of this is very helpful to POs, who can then contact the professional and squash any attempt at malingering. A lot of examinees will say they have anxiety, but admit they have not been diagnosed when asked for the name of the diagnosing and treating professional. If a dangerous sex offender actually has anxiety, and that anxiety plays an inhibitory role in treatment and probation compliance, or contributes in any way to risk for offending, then the offender dag-one well better see a doc and get a formal treatment plan to manage that-their anxiety. If not, its just malingering. Well intentioned therapists, too, do a lot of psychologizing about polygraph test results, and seeing information in writing (some psycho-babble excuse, with no corresponding treatment or intervention plan) will help.

If its not on paper, then it doesn't exist. If its not in the report, then what sits in the individual's file, as in my spina-bifida case, is some statement that so and so is a “fit” subject. PO's are then in a position where they are inclined to regard the test as if it were as valid as any other test – and that makes us vulnerable in court.It makes us look silly - thoughtless and cavalier about real empirical concerns. It is not good science to neglect to account for complications.

This is a point of critical professional learning right now. I recently drafted for a Colorado committee, some guidelines for working with special populations and exceptional persons. One response was from a very experienced PO, who also supervises my Spina-bifida case, who said to me “why do we need this.?”

If there is a real issue that is documented, then we had better attend sensitively too it, as there are legal guidelines under which we become vulnerable. Some folks are clearly identified as exceptional under laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act (1990), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), or who were subject to the Education of All Handicapped Act (1975) and the subsequent Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004).

I recently worked on a case in which a therapist and PO neglected to make accommodations for a young adult with a well documented special-ed history due to a neurologically based perceptual communicative disorder (how do you think his polygraphs have gone???). He finished high school at age 20, and got an updated neuropsychological evaluation before requesting accommodations at the community college. His family is quite good and documenting and formalizing such requests. So, guess what happens when he fails out of treatment and is subject to a revocation complaint? This same PO was sued civilly on a previous polygraph case...

OK, enough ranting for now. I have an arguement scheduled...

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)