posted 02-24-2006 09:01 PM         

This has been discussed before in previous posts. Barry has also previously pointed out in a previous post “ASTM's screening exam standard adopts Don's model, i.e., no DI decsion until a SR (from the screening exam) is put into a single-issue test”.

I understand the concept of the medical model Don proposes- and it makes good sense, although I have issues. I remember talking with Don about this approach before, and two comments he said to me sticks out [1] if a significant response was present, and the person did not give a qualifier to the question of interest, then no additional specific issue testing was offered; and [2] no additional specific issue testing was provided that covered questions that showed NSR’s. Don related if the person shows SR’s to multiple questions- and qualifiers were in fact given,then a specific issue test was then provided for each question,as "the person who wanted the job would be willing to come back as many times as necessary to get the job." What it boils down to is pre-employment candidate screening- vs Sex offenders- I’d say they are a different breed for the most part. Sex offenders, I find, come up with excuses as to why they show a SR, but not necessarily a qualifier; they are not willing to come back to the office multiple times simply because they want to and at additional expense; the therapist and PO officers are not pleased to have the offender come back for retesting, and retesting, and retesting; and are not happy when the client is given $1,000 bill.

Considering ASTM recommends conducting a follow-up specific issue exam when a screening exam shows a Sig.Response; then I ask "What if" a client "hits" on 1 out 4 questions on a Screening Exam (then truely four more specific issue tests need to be done for reasons stated in the above paragraph). Now if the client takes a ‘specific issue test’on the 1 relevant question he showed a significant response to- and is NDI on the specific; Then what do we say to the PO/therapist about the remaining 3 relevant questions ? No opinion? or NSR (which has the connotation of being truthful) ? I suspect many examiners are conducting a ‘specific issue test’ on the question which showed the significant response- comining up NDI or DI, and ignoring the remaining questions that show no signifcant responses with no follow-up specific issue test.

As recommended by ASTM, I have done multiple specific issue tests when the offender has shown SRs to multiple questions in his screening exam; however I personally have issues with telling a client he is showing a Sig Resp. in a Screening test- and then immediately conduct a Specific Issue Test regarding that very question on the same day. I understand other examiners have no problem with it, and conduct such a test sucessfully. However I just "feel" its like saying "don’’t think of a green cow" and expect the person not to think of one and may have a tendancy to go against the truthful person.

Something differentI have done as well (which I tend to like better to be frank)- is to conduct a confirmatory type test from which to make the NDI/ DI decision. Meaning,if I see SR’s or inconsistent SR’s in the screening exam, then I have the client write out a sentence of denial relating to each relevant question; then ask in a ZCT or Bi-Zone "Did you write the complete truth to each question on that Statement Form you completed today?" And since the subjects answer will no doubt be "Yes"; the mere fact there is an answer response change, from "No"in the screening to "Yes" in confirmatory, the confirmatory paradigm makes the test (I think anyway) to be more closely resembling a medical model approach- meaning a different kind of test altogether- answer response change to "Yes" and a specific issue. And I don’t have to specifically say to the client ‘which’ question in the screening test he was most reactive to in order to conduct an immediate ‘specific issue test’ to reach a NDI/DI decision.

posted 02-25-2006 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Ray wrote “... a person may react to a question other than the one to which they were lying. I've heard this discussed by PCSOT examiners in the past - as in someone might react to the most intest question in an set (reoffending) while lying to a less intense question.”

---

The empirical logic of this bothers me. It seems to suggest that subjects may simply react to the most intense question on a test, whether or not they are lying to that question. If this were the case, then we have a big problem. Obviously, there is more to learn here.

quote:

---

What it boils down to is pre-employment candidate screening- vs Sex offenders- I’d say they are a different breed for the most part.

---

They are both screening tests (fishing trips) conducted in the absence of a known incident, allegation, or open investigation. The differences may exist mainly in the base-rates of problem behavior - which affect the bayesian math that can be used to estimate the likelihood of an erroneous test resuts (something we examiners rarely trouble ourselves with).

quote:

---

Barry has also previously pointed out in a previous post “ASTM's screening exam standard adopts Don's model, i.e., no DI decsion until a SR (from the screening exam) is put into a single-issue test”.

---

This is a good standard. It is empirically sound, and ethically responsible. Colorado's PCSOT standards specify to report test results as SR or NSR.

quote:

---

Something differentI have done as well (which I tend to like better to be frank)- is to conduct a confirmatory type test from which to make the NDI/ DI decision. Meaning,if I see SR’s or inconsistent SR’s in the screening exam, then I have the client write out a sentence of denial relating to each relevant question; then ask in a ZCT or Bi-Zone "Did you write the complete truth to each question on that Statement Form you completed today?" And since the subjects answer will no doubt be "Yes"; the mere fact there is an answer response change, from "No"in the screening to "Yes" in confirmatory, the confirmatory paradigm makes the test (I think anyway) to be more closely resembling a medical model approach- meaning a different kind of test altogether- answer response change to "Yes" and a specific issue. And I don’t have to specifically say to the client ‘which’ question in the screening test he was most reactive to in order to conduct an immediate ‘specific issue test’ to reach a NDI/DI decision.

---

I offered a longer discussion of the lie-on-paper type test questions in another context a few weeks ago. I'll find it and post it, or post a link.

I'm not at all sure the change in answer aligns this with the medical model as Krapohl describes.

The medical (and psychological) model of testing recognizes a distinction between diagnostic and screening tests, and uses them serially to improve diagnostic both sensitivity and the mathematical predictive accuracy.

It is important to note that a single-issue test, after a mixed issues screening test (security, employement, or PSCOT) still lacks a known incident, allegation, or reason to suspect involvement - other than the base rate of occurence (which can be high for some sex offender behavior, and some drug use behavior, for exampe). So this is still a screening type test - just more narowly focued.

I do think there is some legitimate concern with re-doing these (SR) tests on the same date.

I'd like to know more about what you mean by "qualifier" - is this an admission that needs to be excluded in the test question (besides those 36 children...) or some vague or peripheral admission post-test.

Another discussion to engage is the empiricall complications surrounding testing the limits of behavior when the subject admits to some involvement (besides those few dozen times, did you ...)

more later.

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