posted 04-04-2006 05:55 AM            

I have noticed some common features in the forum posts about these tests.

According to these posts:
1. Generally, the applicant has not heard anything in over 30 days.
MY GUESS This may be explained by the fact that our government tends to move pretty slow in bureaucratic matters.

2. The examiner has told the examinee that there was some problem with or reaction to a single question, but they need to take another look at the charts.
MY GUESS Regulations may require Quality Control Review before disseminating results.

3. The examinee has no explanation for the
reaction.
MY GUESS The poster may be less than honest. Based on my experience most examinees know why they reacted.

4. The examiner has indicated that a re-test may be indicated following further chart review.
MY GUESS I am starting to wonder if this is just a smooth way to move the subject out of the testing suite without confrontation.

5. The examinee is unable to obtain any further information after leaving the test site.
MY GUESS The Feds have placed the examinee in the "file and forget" category of applicants and are trying to avoid telling them they are no longer under consideration to prevent some perceived liability issue.

I don't recall any postings saying that the examinee finally received his/her test results or asked to retest.

I don't like to guess.
If someone is familiar with Federal testing procedure, I would be interested in knowing the correct explanations for these occurances.

posted 04-04-2006 01:43 PM            

We do see a pattern though. And, the individual agencies don't seem to follow DoDPI guidelines, so my guess (again) is that the answers depend on the agencies involved. (And it's not a complete guess, that's what appears in what little is published about federal tests.)

Keep in mind the feds seem to play the numbers game, and we know polygraph examiners are better at catching liars than identifying truthtellers. If a person has problems on a screening test, then it can be argued that bringing him back in increases the chances of a false negative. After all, he's already "failed" one test. A screening test isn't like a criminal test in which a person's psych set goes nicely to the correct question type (for the most part). You're setting CQs to go up against some unknown relevant issue - the size of which is unknown, e.g., two joints instead of one, or drug dealing to kids (in a general drug involvement question). You could easily make a CQ relevant since you don't know the real RQ issue(s), and the cost of errors - to the feds - is very high. Even if errors aren't your concern, the time might be a factor. If everybody who had SRs on a screening exam were re-tested it could mean a whole lot of re-tests.

I have my own philosophy about screening tests, but I understand agencies must make their own decisions based upon their needs after evaluating how much error they are willing to tolerate.

posted 04-05-2006 06:14 AM            

Even the most basic protocols indicate a specific issue "Breakdown" test when a significant reaction is noted to a relevant question on a multiple issue test. DODPI's LEPET even requires a breakdown test for N.O. relevant questions. Most of the posts never describe anything like a breakdown test.

Even if an agency has an unstated policy of disqualifying a candidate for any SR they should at least follow up with a rejection letter stating that they had simply chosen a more suitable applicant and no retest would be conducted. No followup leaves the examninee in Limbo. Anecdotally it seems that an overly large number of polygraph gripes result from the Fed's pre-employment process even though their examiners should have access to the best education and training.

Any policy that denies an examinee the actual results of their examination seems unethical. It would violate most state polygraph laws and makes the examinee justifiiably suspicious that he wasn't getting a fair shake.

I accept that some testing formats need to remain secret to defeat countermeasures, but I also think that the aura of mystery that some agencies and examiners drape around polygraph is damaging. We're not talking about formats here we're talking about post-test procedures.
Polygraph is either science, magic, or bunk. This shroud of secrecy makes it appear to the public that our science is instead, the latter two and contributes to the efforts of the "F.O.G.".

My comments are not intended to criticize or offend any particular agency or examiner. If fact, I presume that all Federal examiners must follow their agencies policies and protocols or face the consequences.

I completely undertsand that my comemnts aren't going to change the way the Feds do their work, but as you may have noticed, I am more than a little bit opinionated and cannot resist the urge to voice it.

posted 04-05-2006 12:01 PM            

Also keep in mind that state laws don't apply to the feds. They can run tests any way they want to unless federal law (or federal policy) says otherwise.

These people seem to know their results: They had a problem with a question.

Even post-test procedures are a bit clandestine, and rightfully so. When we advertise how to challenge the hiring process her at the local level it seems to be an open invitation for a pain in the neck. We only grease the squeaky wheels, so to speak.

Again, for the most part, I agree with you, but I'm not prepared to indict anyone because I just don't have enough information. I'll continue to push for breakout tests (and follow-up screeing tests after that asI discussed elsewhere), but the only place breakout tests appear as standard practice is in the (voluntary) ASTM standard. Even ASTM still doesn't require follow-up tests after that, and DoDPI and the scientific evidence both indicate that should be done. The APA is working on a pre-employment test protocol, but we'll have to wait to see what it says.

As an aside, I actually tell people in my pre-test that polygraph isn't mystical and magical. If the person read the CM sites, he's expecting me to present it as such. I throw that out just to keep him off balance by not following the script George has told him to expect - if he's read it. If he hasn't, it doesn't hurt anything.

posted 04-05-2006 03:59 PM            

A few weeks ago I submitted a question to DoDPI that (might) involve their polygraph examination procedure. I was advised the request must be submitted by way of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letter.

I then submitted my question via FOIA and I'm now waiting for a response.

For the "feds," secrecy is the nature of the beast. Does anyone really believe if an examinee wants to challenge their hiring process that they (or their artful) attorney, won't find some way to initiate the challenge? Does anyone really believe there are that many ways to challenge the process that haven't already been identified?

I submitted my question as I read of an exam procedure I never even considered. No doubt others can give me feedback but since DoDPI personnel were reportedly involved I figured I'd go right to the reported source of the information. It's not something that will change the manner in which I conduct an exam, more curiousity than anything else. I was very surprised to learn I needed an FOIA letter for an answer.

It seems we're getting too paranoid about countermeasures.

posted 04-05-2006 05:49 PM            

As for George, what is the real benefit in spending time reading what is placed on his site?

posted 04-05-2006 06:27 PM            

I know you said that you are awaiting an answer from DoDPI but you never explained what the "exam procedure I never even considered" was. Maybe if you ask here it will stump us all and spark some constructive discussion.

Also, the ASTM committee on polygraph or one of the national professional associations might have information regarding your question.

Then again, you could just ask George. He is an expert on polygraph, has talked before the NRC, and basically knows everything there is to know about polygraph.

Just kidding!

posted 04-06-2006 10:52 AM            

One way of looking at this question would be to ascertain whether there are any set procedures for the position of the examinee’s body during the examination. If there are specified testing procedures that define the examinee’s position and they do not include lying down, then that would not be a recommend procedure. However, unless a standard procedure specifically states that those listed are the only acceptable and/or names something as prohibited, one may still use it with sound discretion.

The APA standards are here; http://www.polygraph.org/standards.htm The AAPP standards are here; http://www.policepolygraph.org/standards.htm I believe that ASTM requires a membership or fee to review/receive their standards. I have a copy from my employer’s membership but it would take me some time to type it and I have not found anything contradictory in that literature pertaining to this issue.

I could not find anything that specifies how an examinee’s body must be positioned. This is not to say that there are not any standards governing this particular issue, as there may very well be something in a state law, rules and regulations promulgated by a licensing board of a given state, or a state association. I just could not find anything related in the national information.

Maybe someone else knows about something unwritten or that I was unable to find in my searches?

posted 04-06-2006 12:52 PM            

When I worked dope, I read High Times and Easy Rider. When I worked scams I read whatever I could find about the old time con men. When I got assigned to work cult investigations during the satanic crime fad in the 80's I could quote the satanic bible.

Like I said, it pays to know your opponents I read George, Doug and the gang whenever I get the chance. We in Polygraph are blessed because neither one of them know when to STFU.

By the Way Poly 761 see what you can find out about Mosso's Scientific Cradle He was investigating testing subjects in the prone position in the 1890's

------------------
but then, that's just one man's opinion

posted 04-07-2006 07:35 AM            

Thanks for your information. Read a little about Mosso. Appears the "scientific cradle" was devised to measure blood flow from one area of the body and then in another while a person was (prone) on their back (1878). What I didn't read was the makeup of this "cradle."

As to the FOIA request, (if) this procedural information is being discussed in public, I don't see how it can be so sensitive. But, as I've stated, DoDPI has their reasons if the question I submitted is not answered.

END.....

posted 04-07-2006 10:24 AM            

I have never met a single representative of DODPI that didn't leave me with a very positive impression of them and their agency.

I also have never met an ATF or FBI guy that didn't have a few boxes of ammo in his trunk to share in the interest of inter-agency cooperation. The latest polygraph information is the only free ammo DODPI has in their trunk. Some of it they are permitted to share with a wink and a nudge and we are entitled to the warm fuzzy feeling we get when we have the inside scoop. Some of it they are not permitted to share with anyone, period.

I just work for a municipal agency in the middle of podunk America, but when my boss says that the "Lid is on" something I won't tell anyone. I don't care if I read the same info on a billboard. Heck I won't even dream about it. I fully expect DODPI folks to act the same way. It isn't anything to get upset about. They are just following the rules.

When they review your FOIA request they really don't know you from George or Doug. They have to consider the worst possible consequences before deciding what can be released.