posted 04-18-2006 10:48 AM            

Here's something to consider. APA requires PCSOT specialists to have 15 of their 30 hours of continuing ed in PCSOT-specific training. It does not require examiners who routinely do criminal specific exams to have any kind of continuing education or certification of any kind.

The examiners doing the criminal specifics are using mostly single-issue procedures that have been validated by research, meaning that we have a pretty good idea how accurate they are. The PCSOT examiners are using mostly multiple-issue exams that have non-specific issues covering a broad range of time. There is no research that specifically addresses that methodology.

Given those conditions, the criminal specific examiners who don't get 15 hours of continuing ed every two years will not be able to do sex offender testing in some jurisdictions because they can't get certified, but the PCSOT examiners, many of whom rarely do any criminal specific work, can take on murder cases or whatever they choose.

posted 04-18-2006 11:44 AM            

I've heard examiners say without PCSOT, an examiner can't do one of the "breakthrough denial" tests (I think that's what they're called). Those are simply single-issue tests we in law enforcement do all the time. For example, a person is charged with a sex crime, but he pleads to an assault (for whatever reason). Probation wants to know if SO therapy is the way to go, but the probationer denies the sexual assault. He wants a test on a run-of-the-mill sex case. Must a PCSOT certified examiner conduct the test? Some say yes simply because the test is post-conviction. That thinking would seem to imply that those of us who do such tests all the time are somehow less than capable to run those exams. It's the same test whether I test him before or after he takes the deal in court.

I've read a friend's PCSOT manual he got at PCSOT training, and some of what is taught in there we've discussed here before, e.g., should an RQ ask about intent (i.e., sexual purpose) when we know from the literature that not all sex offenders offend for such a purpose? All the speciallized training in the world isn't going to help if your teaching things that are incinsistent with the psychological science has concluded on the topic.

I see these tests much like the pre-employment tests I do all the time. I'm going to get most of my info in the pre-test. I do well with those because I know what the employer is looking for me to discover, and I know how to talk to people. The polygraph portion of the exam is the easy part.

Yes, I see a strange imbalance that can only cause in-fighting in the polygraph community, and a house divided against itself will surely fall.

I do think most of those pushing for PCSOT are sincere and are really trying to better the profession of polygraph. For the life of me though, I don't know what you'd spend 30 hours discussing. There are still two schools of thought on something as simple as appropriate CQs (sex or non-sex), which are you going to learn about during CE hours? What if CE training differs from basic training?. (If research supports the difference in approach, that's one thing.)

Don't get me wrong, I support PCSOT and I think the basic PCSOT training is necessary to tell an examiner what his role is in the process as well as what P&P and the therapists are looking for, etc., but again, I don't know what adding more polygraph CE hours would do to make one examiner more competent than another. It certainly could open the door for questions such as yours, especially when the inconsistency is this obvious.

posted 04-18-2006 02:09 PM            

The requirement that examiners who want to be PCSOT certified must have 15 hours of PCSOT training bi-annually raises a couple of interesting considerations. First, given the limited opportunities for training, if an examiner opts for general polygraph training rather than narrowing the focus to PCSOT, he/she is apt to be eliminated from PCSOT certification and consequently PCSOT testing. Second, if the only training an examiner is getting is PCSOT, how qualified does that examiner remain in general concepts? I've attended a few PCSOT sessions and I know that what's discussed often has no relationship to basic test practice (things like question formulation, countermeasures, etc.). It is often skewed toward maintaining relationships with therapists and probation officers, the "treatment triangle" stuff.

I'm left with the impression that PCSOT folks are trying to create an exclusive club -- and that ultimately they will suffer from lack of general training.

I again ask, is this about education or restricting competition in business? PCSOT certification is not just a credential that denotes training. In the non-polygraph world, the people who buy the tests, it is simply a license to practice. If you don't have it, you don't get the work.

posted 04-18-2006 05:29 PM            

PCSOT training is not just about market access (marketing) and regulation.

Its about raising the lowest common denominator of our work (the people who don't read journals, don't go to training, don't continue to assimilate newer information from related science disciplines, and don't read this board.)

Ebvan is correct that PCSOT subjects are likely to be tested a lot. I've tested a number of subjects who have completed over 20 or 30 polygraphs, and one who had completed over 50 tests. We really ought to think about what we are doing.

When I was just out of graduate school, I had a clinical supervisor named Greig Veeder (darth-Veeder) who once told me "Ray you're in the businsess of Fu#$%ing with other peoples' lives, and don't you forget it." He was a little abrasive in his method, but he had a good point.

I agree that good science is good science, and that it does no good to needlessly mistify our work. In fact, we had better be motivated to understand our work, because our detractors certainly are.

The thing about PCSOT tests is that there are sometimes important regional, legal, and social pressures influencing the emergence of PCSOT work and PCSOT markets. Responding to these local concerns is important as it develops our experience and momentum as a profession, and provides opportunity to educate ourselves and our consumers. We should always, however, have a longer view towards standardization and the opportunity to learn from others in other locales. The absense of broader professional consensus could one day make some of us look a little silly (and undermine the credibility of out work) if we take too many conceptual left turns and can't agree on anything.

In the absence of standards based reasonably on sound empirical principals, the nature of the work is vulnerable to being shaped (misguided) by charismatic or forceful personalities and not science.

Training is just training. All professional disciplines require ongoing training. A few years ago, I attended a PCSOT training at which one or our beloved directors repeatedly used the example language "for sexual reasons" and "for a sexual reason," which is and for symantically synonymous with "for sexual purposes." I, and others in the class, didn't like this question language, but hey we wanted our tickets punched, so at some point we just wrote the answer on the test and moved on. (not that I wasn't a little bit of a gadfly.)

We all know that questions about intent are not as robust as questions about actual behavior. However, it seems to be that polygraph tests about issues of intent seem to appear in some of the more notorious court cases (Woodward, Delorean, and others). So, it aint pretty, but it happens.

Standards matter, and professionalism matters.

Hopefuly, our standards of practice are based on sound and emerging emperically based principles, and not simply some strong personality or forceful opinion (both of which are usually a guise for a very narrow mind.)

Polygraph is a peculiar field that may be more vulnerable to professional arrogance than some other fields. In polygraph, our arrogance is grounded on the idea that we're in the business of telling everyone else what the "truth" is. Never mind that philosophers have been trying to define "truth" for something close to 2400 years, and how many of us could define three or four of the major theories of truth. Our version of truth is probably best understood as a pragmatic form of corresponse truth (Russell), in that we accept people as truthful regarding their descriptions their involvement in behavioral events (physical evidence is developed through other investigation methods), when we can confirm through reaction-probability models that they are not attempting to decieve others regarding those behavioral events of concern (whew).

Some forms of soft-science (therapy, for example) are known and tollerated for wishy-washy and vague - especially some of that crazy new-fangled reichian-body therapy crap they teach at places like Naropa, in the free-republic-of-Boulder, CO. Or take a look at "applied Kenesiolgy." These are as bad as CVOS.(OK, end of rant/tangent).

In polygraph, we like things to be more tangible and describable in common language of science.

Standards of practice and ongoing training are the best proactive tools for averting the serious problems that would affect the entire profession if some professionals refused to develop beyond the arcane teachings (and sometimes equipment) of 5, 10, 20, and 30 years ago. All of our training ages.

The alternative to standards and training requirements would be a PCSOT profession that is unregulated, and highly regionalized and ideosyncratic. There would be little uniformity, little unity, and little professional consenus. As J.B. McCloughan pointed out a little while ago, such dissention would make us highly vulnerable to our enemies and detractors. If anyone wants to imagine what happens to an under-regulated polygraph community, just set your way-back memory machine for pre 1988.

The goals of training are to get us accurately oriented to a particular type of work, then keep us current with good science, and provide our consumers with a confident and sensible experience that helps them meet their goals, not ours.

So, Barry, while I understand and agree with your point about basic polygraph is basic polygraph, in the larger polygraph profession we do tend to specialize. I think I understand a little bit of the math and science underlying the polygraph, but that doesn't mean I'd be all that good at counter-espionage polygraph. I know nothing about how spies think, live, work, justify their activities, become spies, or go about their spying. In PCSOT circles, I feel a little more useful, as I'm somewhat familiar with psychodiagnostics, psychopathology, and differential diagnosis, medications, testing and measurement, therapy methods, victimology, suicidality, offender treatmen, and the developmental courses of organic and social pathologies. That comes from years of working in this field. I'm sure the same is true in law enforcement, investigative work. Seasoned investigators begin noting and synthesizing more information more quickly, and the result of their work matters.

Simply put, expertise matters. We would be a wiser profession to appreciate and encourage expertise.

Peace,

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

posted 04-18-2006 06:56 PM            

I think we agree. We do need people who specialize, but they need to be taught how to get into the offender's head, so to speak. It is there the admissions will flow. Teaching somebody how to plug CQs and RQs into a blessed format does not a specialist make. The "sexual purpose" (etc.) shows we're missing the mark. It is well accepted that we don't know why some offenders offend, so why should we pretend we do? Perhaps that's the arrogance to which you refer.

posted 04-19-2006 07:26 AM            

In all seriousness; ego in a polygraph examiner is a valuable defense mechanism. To put it bluntly, all Polygraph Examiners are thought of as Sons of Bitches by the people we work for. Wait Wait!!! put down the pitchfork and hear me out.

If our results fail to confirm the suspicions of the Investigator/ Therapist/Lawyer,etc. who hired us, they think of us as a "No Good S.O.B."

If we confirm their suspicion, we're a "Good Old S.O.B." The only thing that never changes is the S.O.B. part. Our egos allow us to lock our heels and call them as we see them no matter what anyone else thinks.

On the downside, ego sometimes fosters an unhealthy elitism. If you look at the APA requirements for membership, an applicant with a Baccalaureate degree in Graphic design or Geology, who completes an accredited polygraph school and an internship with the minimum number of examinations is admitted to the organization almost with a rubber stamp and NEVER has to attend another days polygraph training in his/her life. That same applicant who doesn't have a Baccalaureate degree, but instead enters polygraph school as an experienced investigator must have an additional 108 hours continuing education AND pass an oral and written assesment to upgrade to full membership. This seems a bit like an elitest presumption that a B.A. in graphic design or a B.S. in Geology is of more value to the polygraph commuity than continuing education, relevant experience and training.

I am all for continuing education. I consider the APA requirement achievable under my present circumstances. What I resent is the idea fostered by this new rule, that PCSOT testing approval/ certification by APA requires continuing education when simple membership does not.

I further resent the fact that in my state, the Department of Corrections requires APA PCSOT certification to engage in PCSOT testing for persons under their supervision and that APA requires membership in their organization to obtain the certification. This rule requires me to join APA in order to conduct business regardless of my polygraph training or qualifications.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against APA. I agree with its code of ethics and principals. I resent being forced to do something that robs me of my freedom of association. While neither the Department of Corrections or the APA are wholly responsible,it is similar to being forced to join a union.

posted 04-19-2006 02:54 PM            

I no longer do post-conviction testing, but I prefer to keep my certification so I can assure the occasional prosecutor or defense attorney that I'm fully qualified (in their eyes). However, I'd prefer not to have to sit through 15 hours of training specifically directed at PCSOT testing. Why isn't general training on the usual stuff good enough?

posted 05-11-2006 01:14 PM            

Only recently have I've seen the one sidedness of most choices the APA has made regarding PCSOT and CE requirements and as brought to our attention before in an earlier post a divided house surley becomes a house no more.

I can only hope that the APA considers foremost all members needs without any self serving interests either in the public or l/e sector.

posted 06-12-2006 10:32 PM            

One aching question I have regarding the training issue is what are the continuing education requirements for the other two in the “triad”?

Personally I do not see what all the much to do is about with this type of examination. Every examination and examinee has the potential of twists and turns that are unexpected. It is no different than the routine car stop that takes a veteran officer’s life or the car that crosses the centerline and kills the seasoned driver less than two miles from their home. One must always be on their toes.

posted 06-15-2006 10:13 AM            

As I have indicated in past discussions on this issue, my main concern with this type of examination is that it could open up another OTA and EPPA episode. The remainder of my opinions are applicable to all examination techniques.

PCSOT training requirements could easily be dealt with by incorporating a distant learning process which utilizes the internet or digital media as its platform. This is over and above the requirements of other polygraph examiner standards. Many currently taught subjects and offered at the annual seminar could be applicable to all types of polygraph examination procedures, including PCSOT.

Because this type of examination requires the examiner to work together with the therapist and probation officer, some specialized training and knowledge of the inner workings of this “triad” is necessary. Also, I believe that any examination conducted should have some form of formal training required.

posted 06-15-2006 09:58 PM            

I am still not convinced that the examiner needs to be part of a triad, any more than a police examiner needs to understand the philosophy and goals of a prosecutor, or a defense examiner needs to understand the defense attorney's planned trial strategy. You're absolutely right that "charts are charts." To go back a step, "case facts are case facts," and that is what we form our pretest around and what becomes the basis of our question formulation. To take it back even one more step, sound understanding of how polygraph works and doesn't work should be the same for PCSOT, pre-employment, screening, or specific issue exams. I don't want to get inside the mind of a therapist or have him help shape my exam, any more than I would invite that from a defense attorney in a criminal case. I'm obviously not convinced that specialized training in working with non-examiners will ever improve an examiner's skills in conducting an exam.

posted 06-16-2006 11:03 PM            

quote:

---

To take it back even one more step, sound understanding of how polygraph works and doesn't work should be the same for PCSOT, pre-employment, screening, or specific issue exams.

---

I have very little to add to this very important and very interesting discussion, but I'd like to punctuate these points further.

PCSOT, pre-employment, and security/counter-espionage may have some empirical similarities in that they are all screening type tests, looking for possible problems in the absence of known issues. Thus, the underlying empirical priniciples should be similar - if we employ differing principles for these tests, then one would have to wonder what charismatic authority (vs. empirical priniciple) propelled that.

Investigative or diagnostic testing of known incidents, while base upon the same physiological and psychological priniciples is a somewhat distinct empirical pursuit.

As a recent argument/example, I would offer the issue of the meaning on inconclusive tests...

cattle that test inconclusive (or positive) for BSE (mad cow) are no longer permitted in the human food supply, while inclusive (or negative) tests for pregnancy or cancer are insufficient to form a basis for invasive medical procedures.

While the psychological and physiological principles of the polygraph are the same for both screening and diagnostic testing situations, the pragmatic/empirical principes are distinct in some very important ways.

In the end, I agree that "charts are charts." Some charts however, simply cannot pass the sniff-test - they stink. And that tells us something.

r

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

posted 06-19-2006 05:16 PM            

Welcome to the board!

An interesting statement you made;

quote:

---

...I wear two very distinct hats. One hat is the forensic examiner and the other is the clinical examiner. In my HUMBLE opinion, they are two very different frame of minds.

---

Could you please elaborate on these two different "hats"? I am assuming forensic = law enforcement and clinical = PCSOT?

posted 06-19-2006 06:30 PM            

These discussions always seem to remind me of a parable by John Saxe.

Please allow me the space to share it with the group. It has served to keep me both open minded and grounded at the same time.

A Hindu Parable

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen.

posted 06-20-2006 10:29 AM            

Here are a few of the areas I have concerns about:

Mixed issues are favored, even when a single issue would be sufficient.

Comparison questions are often weak relevants, covering exactly the same period of time as the relevant questions.

Nobody addresses the unknown factor of asking relevant questions that cover an extended period of time and are phrased in broad terms, a contradiction to what most schools teach and what has formed the basis of nearly all research. I know we've been doing it for years with pre-employments, but we could not offer any research to establish validity of pre-employments when faced with the EPPA legislation and we can not do it now for PCSOT. I don't mind that deficiency, because I know that PCSOT tests do produce information, just as pre-employments do, but the validity of the test results is a separate issue. In many cases, examiners are offering test results spiced up with computer evaluations as though the examiner could guarantee a known level of validity. Maybe some of the PCSOT training ought to try to correct that misconception.

The rush to satisfy the demands of the post conviction market -- which is a big cash cow -- has led polygraph down some questionable paths that specialized training has so far either ignored or encouraged. I would rather see training in basic concepts, stuff that we know works because we've got the research to support it.

posted 06-20-2006 10:58 AM            

To keep this somewhat brief ( well maybe not.) PCSOT is not a distinct field separate from the rest of polygraph testing. If it was, I would be arguing that PCSOT folks should stop what they are doing until their validity and reliability studies are better developed. I will agree that there are some desirable additional skills for the PCSOT segement of polygraph but I find the difference insufficient to change the animal from a dog to a cat. They are undeniably bound together on one end by the science and on the other by ethical conduct.

PCSOT testing formats should be restricted to those with some utility regarding multiple issues; reporting responsibilities may differ somewhat, but the underlying science is the same. A brand new examiner fresh out of basic polygraph training may not conduct the best possible PCSOT exam, but he/she certainly has the tools to do one.

The initial discussion here is about whether or not it is appropriate for APA to direct and control the field of PSCOT training to the detriment of refresher training in other polygraph skills by requiring too great a training standard to maintain PCSOT certification. Some examiners believe that the number of PCSOT refresher hours required is excessive and unnecessary when weighed against the actual needs of a competent examiner. I happen to agree especially when I view the requirement against the fact that the APA does not require ANY continuimg education as a condition of general membership.

In closing, everyone here exercises their need to rant (me probably more than most) but your cautionary statement "I need to remind the members here that when conducting treatment exams you must caution examinees against giving identifyable details with regard to pre-conviction sexual history victims/offenses." as well as your braggadocious "I have dominated my little corner of the field by way of "getting it." comment is well... I just find it off- putting considering the caliber of some of the members of this forum.
I consider this group a collection of some of the finest people I've never met in person. They are reflective, thoughtful, always willing to help and they care about improving the profession. You won't find polygraph hacks here, they don't either don't care or feel they have nothing to learn.
------------------
but then, that's just one man's opinion

PS
By the way. In case you haven't been properly welcomed. Greetings I genuinely look forward to your input.

posted 06-20-2006 04:23 PM            

Specialization isn't always a bad thing but, the nature of PCSOT testing is such that I believe that one who only does PCSOT runs the risk of distancing themselves from the basics.

To adopt your psychotherapy analogy, at some point a psychotherapist who only does sexual surrogacy treatment may very well end up as just a prostitute with a diploma and a letterhead subjecting the entire field to justifiable criticism.

APA, with the greatest intentions in the world, may inadvertantly persuade examiners to forgo generalized continuing education because of the economic stress created by the PCSOT refresher requirements. It makes more sense to me to require some continuing education each year with specialized PCSOT related training every 3 years or so. If they were to adopt this idea, they should require SOME continuing education for all members.

posted 07-12-2006 11:36 AM            

The article goes on to explain that the 30 hours of training required every two years now include a required 15 hours of PCSOT-specific training. How can you have mandatory continuing education for a suggested 40-hour course that does not lead to certification?

As an aside, no one seems to have noticed that the same by-laws section that requires continuing education for PCSOT also requires it for evidentiary exams. It says:

3.3.5 A polygraph examiner shall, where applicable, comply with all state continuing education requirements. A polygraph examiner conducting evidentiary examinations or post conviction sex offender testing shall have completed a minimum of thirty (30) Continuing Education hours every two years.

Doesn't that mean that anyone who does even one examination in which admissibility is stipulated (we're talking murder, robbery, rape, etc.) must also have proven to the APA that he/she has 30 hours of continuing education in the previous two years?

[spelling error corrected]