posted 08-16-2006 07:23 PM         

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-16-2006).]

posted 08-17-2006 12:54 AM            

I've tested a number of people who've been tested that many times.

After a while its pretty clear from the sub-text (unstated) part of the conversation that some offenders regard all that stuff you described as just "schtick," (whether they know the word or not).

(This is the part when the examiner acts like a jerk.) (This is the part when the examiner acts like an empathic friend.) (This is the part when the examiner tries to confuse me.) (This is the part when the examiner offers excuses.)(This is the part when the examiner climbs in my face.)

I've had to admonish a number of examinees that no polygraph examiner in the world has ever used the words "flying colors."

It is a real issue that therapists are unconcerned about the control question problem (its not their problem), when their clients pass the test. They regard the test results as accurate - passing is passing - the subject told the truth. Period.

Another concern is that a lot of therapists remain under-educated about testing priniciples, and understand the polygraph only in terms of what they were taught by whomever was their particular polygraph examiner. Social Workers (its always fun to pick on those bleeding-heart socialist-worker types) are especially poorly trained in tesying scienced - though they are sometimes the best trained at systemic intervention and systemic understanding.

The result is that we have created some highly regionalized understandings of polygraphy, that don't generalize well across the broader system field of polygraph testing and sex offender treatment.

I commonly tell sex offenders that there is no such thing as a "B" in treatment. In high-school or college they can blow-off %20 of the work and still get a good grade - maybe a "B." But in the real world - building %80 of a house or %80 of a bridge will get you fired or out of business. Following 80 or even 90 percent of the rules is not good enough.

Sex offenders with colleg degrees sometimes tell me they work harder in treatment than they did in college.

just more schtick...

(this is the part where ray lectures me for the 10th time about being completely honest)

... and I'm pretty good at things like lecturing (just ask my 14 year-old), and moralizing, empiricizing, and psychologizing...

I'm not at all sure it helps our profession to "mystify" the polygraph any further. I would never tell an examinee that the examiner had more power to "pass" an examinee that "mere empirical evidence."

I love words like "stinks" because they are empirically vague.

I can find a lot of reasons to support the paradigm or SR/NSR result. I don't consider this to be simply the lesser of two evils, but think there might be reasons to regard this schema as more empirically and ethically sound - compared with giving DI/NDI results to probation and parole officers (whose desired IQ is about 90 to 95 - so they follow the rules without making up new things for themselves) who want to regard the test [b]results/b] in a very concrete and literal manner. Just see Veeder and Tanner (1998) for an example of even well-educated folks doing this - and I respect both Veeder and Tanner. (Jim Tanner is a Ph.D. sociologist in Colorado, who runs the KBSolutions.com website. Greig "Darth" Veeder is a clinical social-worker, and investment banker, with historic connections to Faye Honey Knopp and another well known researcher in polygraph and sex offender treatment.)

Imagine going to court on a revocation complaint with nothing more than a failed polygraph test - a great way to put the polygraph test itself on the chopping-block (as happened in Montana - which I think no longer uses PCSOT).

Testing polygraph-savy subjects is [u]not[/u] uncomplicated.

for stat...

use [_quote_]quoted-text[/_quote_] to quote excerpted text - replace "quoted-text" with the excerpt of your choice. - just remove the underscores to make it work.

I learned that from my 14 year-old - see, kids are sometimes useful. (Actually, I had a good time teasing him this evening about going to see the Red Hot Chili Peppers - with his mom.)

For an interesting look at what happens when a countermeasure savy subject stops using cms, see
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/111304.html

to login use
user: polyguest
password: torquemada - like the spanish inquisitor

this is a very intelligent subject who had completed over 20+ prior polygraph tests, and had been observed using countermeasures by some very competent examiners. the subject is a tallented musician who used to play with some band from the 70s that sang some song about some hotel in california...

the challenge with this chart is to prove any use of countermeasures...

Unfortunately my brain is shot for the night, from testing knuckleheads, and from prepping a training for our state court administrator's office.

It's also been a busy day of thinking and re-thinking complicated cases here in colorado.

r

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

posted 08-17-2006 02:26 AM         

Interesting comments in regards to PCSOT and /or LE Applicant testing in multiple issue screening tests in regards to final opinion. I report as a final opinion either SR or NSR (per guidelines of ASTM although I’m not a member) and as being recommended by Don Kraphol during his “Best Practices” series- which makes good sense. At the APA seminar I spoke to Dan Sosnowski cause I was curious to know what the ‘schools’ were currently teaching, I understood Dan to say he renders DI/NDI calls on PCSOT exams as opposed to SR/NSR (which kinda surprised me with Dan being a member of ASTM as well). Maybe the APA and ASTM can get together on this matter since Don was elected APA Pres. As PCSOT examiners- we all need to be on the same page (back to standards arguement).

Personally however, I prefer making a DI/NDI call- I think probation officers/therapists want to see ‘those words’ for offender confrontation purposes if DI (assuming no immediate post test admissions). SR, by virtue of symantics is ‘softer’ and gives the offender more ‘wiggle room.’ Also, we all know in multiple issue screening, due to the anti-climatic damping concept, DI to one RQ- DI to the whole test (in the past I’ve had a DI response to one RQ- but the offender admitted deception to an RQ which showed no significant responses in my opinion). But when reporting a SR being present to one RQ (particularly if the RQ which is most responsive is identified in your report), - it tends to suggest no problems on the remaining RQs which may not be the case.

I realize the current trend is to conduct a follow-up specific issue on RQ’s showing SR’s (which may mean 1-2-3-or 4 more tests). However I’m not in agreement with conducting an immediate follow-up test. To me its like saying ‘don’t think of that green cow on the next test even though you were showing significant responses to the question a moment ago.’ Therefore I have the offender return on a different day for any follow-up testing. Unfortunately I struggle with the time equals money issue being in the private practice arena (as I’ve commented on during past posts) - another day should be more money. I’ve already been accused of purposely evaluating SR’s just to have them come back for additional testing at additional cost to give ‘kick-backs’ to the probation office. (we all know offenders don’t have money trees in their back yard either)

LE applicant testing is slightly different I think - and a ‘softer’ SR-NSR is more palatable to someone who is merely seeking a job and is not being called a ‘liar’ (yet). I think the vast majority of the testing is being done by examiners who are ‘cops-government employees’ and are being paid a salary no matter how much time they spend doing multiple tests. The applicant has no problem in returning “as many times as necessary” because they want they want the potential career. Offenders don’t want to be in your office in the first place, and they don’t have an unlimited budget.

I generally introduce CQ’s as being significantly important to therapist/probation to determine if the are engaging in ‘thinking errors’ and possibly in their ‘cycle’ (ei Since ...., Have you betrayed the trust of (wife/ girlfriend/ boss or support person) by lying to them for any reason?” Have you had inappropriate sexual fantaises of an adult female your therapist would not approve of? ) With admissions to CQ’s- I tell them they are great risk to engage in a relapse behavior- but glad to see they just haven’t done it yet (the Rqs). Your report could reflect the NDI call, with an added paragraph wherein the offender admits engaging in ‘thinking errors’ to support people with a blurb on their CQ admissions.

posted 08-17-2006 09:07 AM            

quote:

---

Personally however, I prefer making a DI/NDI call- I think probation officers/therapists want to see ‘those words’ for offender confrontation purposes if DI (assuming no immediate post test admissions). SR, by virtue of symantics is ‘softer’ and gives the offender more ‘wiggle room.’ Also, we all know in multiple issue screening, due to the anti-climatic damping concept, DI to one RQ- DI to the whole test (in the past I’ve had a DI response to one RQ- but the offender admitted deception to an RQ which showed no significant responses in my opinion). But when reporting a SR being present to one RQ (particularly if the RQ which is most responsive is identified in your report), - it tends to suggest no problems on the remaining RQs which may not be the case.

I realize the current trend is to conduct a follow-up specific issue on RQ’s showing SR’s (which may mean 1-2-3-or 4 more tests). However I’m not in agreement with conducting an immediate follow-up test. To me its like saying ‘don’t think of that green cow on the next test even though you were showing significant responses to the question a moment ago.’ Therefore I have the offender return on a different day for any follow-up testing. Unfortunately I struggle with the time equals money issue being in the private practice arena (as I’ve commented on during past posts) - another day should be more money. I’ve already been accused of purposely evaluating SR’s just to have them come back for additional testing at additional cost to give ‘kick-backs’ to the probation office. (we all know offenders don’t have money trees in their back yard either)

---

I agree with Barry - we need to keep the polygraph in the realm of science, and refrain from the impulse to sell confidence or convenience to willing customers (i.e., PO's and therapists who are sometimes too hungry for simple answers and simple leverage).

I think a lot of use have observed specificity problems with SR/DI results on mixed issues tests. Which is why folks like Mr. Sosnowski and and Mr. Dutton keep reminding us about the error or split-calls and "DI to one means DI to all."

As I indicated before we generally like our POs to be by-the-book procedural types, who hold offenders' feet to the fire, without making up new things along the way, and without doing too much psychologizing and excuse-making. However, in an overly concrete (perhaps sometimes rigid) mode of thinking, those same POs take the test results literally, and perceive test errors when the subject later admits to lying to a question to which they didn't go DI while asserting they still didn't lie to the question to which they did go DI. I think this problem can also contribute to cycnism among smarter offenders - and that cannot possibly encourage their authentic engagement in treatment. Say what you like about the efficacy of treatment, but studies show treatment does help, and we'd probably prefer have offenders authentically engaged rather than some form of superficial compliance that becomes another manifestation of duplicitousness deviancy and dangerousness (just another iatrogenic potential).

POs and therapists have been taught to understand polygraph tests - by polygraph examiners. They employ the language and concepts that we teach them. While it is difficult to teach more complex concepts, like "significant reactions" to people to desire a checklist of rules or procedures and simple explanations.

Its not about being "softer" or "soft on crime." Its about being more empirically accurate about what we allow ourselves to assume our test results actually mean.

I, personally and professionally, would rather engage the challenge of educating people, than give in to simplistic or reductionistic thinking.

I also think its time to replace the arcane and troublesome adage "DI to one means DI to all," with something more useful. However, I haven't yet come up with a pithy and memorablle one-liner to make the point more accurately. (brevity is not my strength).

Here is a link to a description of a brief conversation about polygraph accuracy.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/accuracy/accuracy.html

This offender is historically not nice guy, and once kidnapped a 12 year old male.
During the time he was in my treatment group his daughter died in a fire.

He's now completed a 12 year probation sentence (and 12 years of intensive treatment in which he lived in a shared living arrangement with other members of the treatment group). He's one of I think two people who've ever completed treatment at http://www.about-the.org (run by none other than Greig "Darth" Veeder, who also spearheaded the early formation of Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board."
http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/Sex_Offender/index.html

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

posted 08-17-2006 10:49 AM         

My friends, I don’t disagree with either of you regarding ASTM- and is ‘why’ (even though I’m not a member) I make every effort to abide by the ASTM standards by rendering SR/NSR decisions in screening exams. I just prefer everyone is on the same page regarding the ‘proper terminology’ and that is being taught by APA accredited schools who should be teaching - in the realm of Science. As to selling confidence- don’t we all claim to have it? and confidence comes easily when the Sciences/Research supports the ‘criteria we evaluate and ‘what it means.’ Yet we have way too many egos out there that get in the way, which henders standardizing. As you say, and I do agree, neither the attorney nor therapist should tell us ‘how to test’ and ‘proper terminology’ to report our final decisions. 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.

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? The wife may not care in an infidelity type case, the attorney may or may not find it of interest, whereas the counselor /therapist may find it to be very relevant.

posted 08-17-2006 11:20 AM         

I admire so many fellow polygraphers for the ability to adapt in small incremental ways to newer research methods/findings---but ultimately, as stated before, I believe we need a MAJOR shift/innovation in the way we detect deception (excuse oversimplification) and that sadly, I feel the tools are right there on our laptops and in those sensor boxes----and yet seemingly so far away.
Do we make control questions hotter? Do we have Offenders read thier hand written denials aloud while the charts are rolling? Do we use R&I and perhaps take the greatest arousal on the tests (superrelevant) and make that a ratio based control? Do we try to psych-defeat the countermeasurer by using ploys, tricks, or perhaps the interesting Lynn Marcy pretest technique? Do we need to invent more components such as my oral countermeasure bonnet? Do we keep testing and researching validity/scoring/etc of existing Control techniques over and over until the anti-site laughs itself to death at our static art? Someone will win---it's either us or them. I believe that the scientific method is the benchmark of our art, however, I believe that per scientific research guidelines there will be too much elapsed time between the Needs Analysis, Identifing Phase,Solution Analysis, and Implimental Phase when it comes to polygraph countermeasures and how we will combat the widely available instructions for using them.