posted 02-24-2006 10:25 AM            

(sorry I don't have the capability to provide the charts) During the pretest the male kept his arms folded but was very open in his communications. Also, all we had was that he tickled her privates and she said it was gross.

I ran the examination and asked the following questions: R5: DYE touch (girl) her genitals over the clothing? R7: DYE touch her genitals under the clothing? R10 DYE tickle her genitals? The comparisons were...before...DY do anything sexual that most guys wouldn't?...DY get sexually aroused by looking at someone too young?... and ...DYH any thoughts of sexually touching a child?

Anyway, I ran the first chart and had a +3. The second chart +3. I already have my +6 for a NDI(since it is a Utah Zone/multi issue R5 +3, R7 +2 and R10 +1). However prior to the third chart he started slightly moving as if his back ached. He said it feels like a knot in his back. I gave him a few moments to move around and asked if he wanted to stop the exam. He declined and said I want to continue (the man wanted to clear his name). The third chart produced a -4.

I informed him I would need anther chart as nothing was consistent at this point.(Note I didn't tell him why). He wanted to proceed and he stretched his back a few times and said he was okay to continue. On the forth chart he scored a -3. I removed the components and again reviewed my charts. He walked around for about 5 minutes. He said he felt much better so I asked if he would be willing to submit to one more chart. He agreed and scored a +1.

My identifi is not working and I used poly score to check my hand scoring. Polyscore called him DI. However, when I ran the first two charts on Polyscore it called him NDI.

Now before anyone beats me to death. I would have never began this examination if he stated he was in pain. He did indicate during the pre-test phase that he kind of pulled a muscle the day before but was okay. However it was apparent the sitting appeared to aggravate the back muscle. (they guy does hard labor every day - concrete)

I ended the exam with an INCONCLUSIVE. My gut believes he was truthful as if he was deceptive I would have seen negative scores on the first two charts. Also, his answers during the pre-test were that of a truthful individual (goes back to my Reid Training).

My question to other examiners is - have you ever experienced these types of drastic changes w/no consistency? Would you just have terminated the exam even though the examinee said he was okay to proceed?

posted 02-24-2006 10:48 AM            

You could have three different RQs. You really want to make sure that if he's lying to one, he's lying to them all. As a result, Polyscore is basing its decision on data that is unlike the test you ran.

He could have touched over OR under clothing, and tickling could be a young child's way of articulating what she PERCEIVED to have occurred, which means it's possibe he was only lying to one RQ at most, What were your spot scores? Those are going to be better indicators than a total score becuase of the multi-issue possibility.

What were your time bars? Before what?

posted 02-24-2006 11:12 AM            

The time bars were - before you were 24 and before 2006. He is a 25 year old male and the tickling supposedly happened in January 2006.

posted 02-24-2006 06:04 PM            

Thanks for posting this. It only improves our profession to engage good pc and peer feedback practices. It is somewhat vulnerable however, to invite everyone to look over your shoulder.

It sounds like he's the 24 y/o paternatl uncle of the 3 y/o girl.

I agree with Barry - sex offenders go undetected for some time (until, of course, they are detected). So we don't know at the onset whether someone is or is not a sex offender.

I've tended to use hurt, harm, and abuse type controls on these tests. Family loyalty, betrayal, and criminal behavior are also good.

I've also tended to stick to a single issue test format like the Bizone or Utah, as they offer the most robust diagnostic validity.

From your description, continuing the exam doesn't sound unreasonable to me. He apparently didn't complain of pain at onset and you offered to allow him to stop.

You might offer to retest him. I have done this when I have inconclusive tests that I cannot attribute to non-cooperation.

From the information you provided it is still unclear who requested the test, the father or mother (or him). There is another complicated dimension to this as the test seems intended to exculpate him (which is unneccessary if there is already no ongoing investigation), or to establish that he did abuse the child (with the goal of introducing that as an argument in the custody? or perhaps launching some further investigation of this matter?) It seems to me to be sound to use the polygraph in the course of an open investigation, but would someone intitiate an investigation in response to the test results? Just wondering about this.

posted 02-24-2006 08:35 PM         

In reference to your first question: “.... have you ever experienced these types of drastic changes w/no consistency?” My answer is Yes- and I normally end up with an Inconclusive like you. If you are referring to Polyscore’s evaluation after two charts- again the answer is ‘Yes- as Polyscore requires a minimum of three charts (four charts on a bi-zone), and it’s a combination of all the charts from which a reliable decision is reached. Unforntunately you can not make a direct comparison to your hand score with Polyscore like you can with Identify (which drives me nuts at times when I disagree with Polyscore’s decision.).

Suggestion for you- look very closely at the reactivity scores provided along the side of each Question for each chart. If you see Cht 1 C4 reactivity, let’s say around .85, then on Cht 2 C4 is around .90; and then Cht 3 C4 is at the opposite end of the reactivity scale, with something like .15 - there is a big discreapncy there; and if you are also seeing during the exam Cht 1 R5 is around .10; then on Cht 2 R5 is around .15, but on Chart 3 R5 is around .90 ; inspect your charts very carefully as he is probably engaging in mental or physical countermeasures and not getting caught at it. Meaing if there is a big spread of reactivity on at least one Control and a big spread on at least one Relevant, be extremely cautious- look for evidence of a countermeasure- particulary mental indicators.

When I see a very low reactivity to a question on one chart, but a very high reactivity to the same question on a different chart and both an RQ and a CQ are involved(but they do not necessarily have to be on the same chart), I color code them by highlighting the low and high reactivities to each Question involved– makes it stick out lot better. By giving the same color code to extreme reactivities to the same Question makes a good lead-in presentation to confront the client. By asking ‘why’ such a big discrepancy on a CQ and suggesting he was not being totally truthful (fishing for a qualifier/admission) and if he admits being deceptive to the CQ- then I go with what mind-game he was playing to appear ‘truthful.’ Therefore is probably the same mind-game to appear truthful on the RQ’s as well.

In regards to your second question: “Would you just have terminated the exam even though the examinee said he was okay to proceed?” On reading your synopis of the situation, I probably would have continued with the exam as well- in hopes of coming up NDI. But since the hand score is INC/ and Polyscore is DI; I would invite the guy back for a retest at no cost in fairness to eliminate the ‘pulled muscle’ as possible ‘excuse.’

In regards to your RQ 5 and 7 questions - and just another persons viewpoint as I’m sure others may not agree with me either; I probably would not have used the word ‘genitals’ but would have used ‘vagina’ instead; the rational being most of those I have come in contact with, think in terms ‘genitals’ are male body parts- unless a quick sex education class is given. I would also have said “touched her vagina over her clothing for any kind of sexual reason;”or “sexually touched her bare vagina”, the rational being to eliminate any thinking on his part of picking her up between her legs (buttocks being in the palm his hand) during any legitimate contact/ play as I presume he has known his ‘neice’ since birth. R10, I might have said “Do you know what her bare vagina feels like ?”

Personally, I have no issues with your controls- although I also understand if the guy has some major sexual history there is always the risk of them being over powering. Rnelson comparatives “hurt, harm, and abuse type controls, and Family loyalty, betrayal, and criminal behavior” I like as well.

posted 02-25-2006 08:57 AM            

Your information on understanding the charts and developing the post-test is very helpful. Do you show the examinee the charts? I'm uncomfortable with that, and haven't done it for years, since hearing Barland advise that it represents "coaching" for those examinees who are motivated to improve their countermeasures (Barland probably said it differently).

Taylor, I think I'm a little unsure whether you used a motion sensor and whether it revealed anything.

Another detail (probably meaningless) is that I had a conversation with a nurse, who advised that you can't touch someone's vagina over their clothing. The nurse also advised that the vagina is the inner part of the anatomy, and that it would be more accurate to use "vaginal area."

I don't like the question about "DYK what ***'s vagina feels like," and prefer the language of "sexually touch" for the reason that Bob offered. In a situation like this, in which very important decisions and assumptions may be made in response to the polygraph test results, I believe it is best to stick with the most robust diagnostic techniques we have. Those DYK type questions are intended to broaden the sensitivity of the test. There is always an empirical trade off when doing this (in all types of testing, not just polygraph), of an anticipated, though unknown decrease in specificity. We cannot depend only upon the logic of language to support the empirical meaning of polygraph test results when someone does or does not react to a test question. The most robust factor underlying reaction or lack of reaction is behavioral involvement in the issue under investigation. For this reason, I prefer questions that are behaviorally descriptive and time-delimted (for example: "During January 2006 (or more specific if possible) DY sexually touch name's vaginal area?" and "During January 2006 (or more specific if possible) DY sexually touch name's vaginal area at any time?" This way the test remains compliant with single issue scoring requirements.

I would tell the subjec that sexual touching is any kind of rubbing or touching of the someone's sexual organs (vagina, breast/chest area, buttocks, or penis) either over or under clothing, if for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, or sexual couriousity. Sexual contact includes having, causing, or allowing another person to touch one's own sexual organs, either over or under clothing, for seuxal arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, or sexual curiosity. Sexual contact includes sexual hugging and kissing activities (which had better be different that the way one hugs or kisses one's mother or grandmother), and also includes sexual touching during wrestling, horseplay, tickling, playing, or even sports activities (frottage), or other sex-play games like "mommy-daddy," "house," "doctor" (that is - touching or showing private parts kind of 'doctor' not just pretending to give shots kind of 'doctor'), spin-the bottle, strip-poker, or those ubiquitous middle-school "truth-or-dare" games, or any other game intended to provide a context for sexual behavior. (We're not limiting ourselves to the Bill Clinton version of sexual contact here.)

How many offenders have told us they didn't have sex with their victim, but when we ask them "at any point do think you might have rubbed your bare private parts against her bare private parts?" they begin to make admissions." And then, "do you think you might have been trying to see if you could insert your [part] into her [part], even a little bit?" and they often admit trying to do so. Then, "tell how much or what proportion of your [part] actually did enter her [part]", and they will admit to a small portion. (this works with digital penetration efforts also).

Telling half-truths or partial truths (even up to 90 percent or more) of the story, while attempting to leave out other parts, is the favorite game of liars. Like using marijuana but not inhaling. Its the missing bits and pieces that seem to change the whole picture.

I got a confession on a very serious murder case last week, something like this... "do you think you might have done a little bit of choking or strangling at that time." answer: "yeah, maybe." me: "OK, well tell a little more about that." (the subject then described his involvement in the assault).

I don't think I would use "tickling" in the test question. This is a good example of the type of "relabeling" that offenders use - though it might also be the language of a young child who does not know how to describe an assualt. Sexual touching is sexual touching, even if disguised as something else.

Re-labelling is the second favorite game of liars - "she's not my girlfriend, we just see each other," or "I didn't steal it, I just borrowed it," or "it wasn't a date, we just went to dinner," and of course "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

When people can't hide the facts, and can't hide from the facts, when the facts are going to speak for themselves, liars simply shift responsibility for those facts onto others - blaming - "we have it on credible intelligence..." or "I was just holding that for a friend," or "that's not my gun," and my favorite, "she had sexual relations with me, but I didn't have sexual relations with her."

How many times have we heard offenders tell us about some three year old or five year old initiating some activity. (ya' can't take those little predators anywhere...)

So, I think I'd try to clear your subject (Taylor's) of sexually touching the child. If he can't clear that, then you have a very serious issue (sexual touching) with which to leverage a confession of tickling or other behavior.

For now, I just realized its a weekend, and I'm supposed to be sloshing around in the snow, with my 14 year-old son. Perhaps I can bribe him into fixing my linux system and web-login.

r

posted 02-25-2006 03:12 PM            

I had this battle once before, and I went to the experts at the Assoc. for the Treatment of SOs, and they all agreed that asking a question in which we ask the examinee's motive, specifically sexual gratification, is a bad idea. They also added that offenders reframe everthing they do so that by the time they get to us, even if sexual gratification was their main motive when the acts occurred, their brains don't recall it that way. (They used some really long, fancy, scientific names to describe the process.)

The APA told me that (the sexual gratification taboo) is one of the test questions on their PCSOT tests, and it is a topic that is supposed to be covered in their certification classes, but I still keep seeing those types of RQs asked.

I realize you've got to qualifiy this in order to avoid legit touching, but I'd come at it from that angle rather than the one the researchers admit they don't fully understand. That is, ask if any touching occurred for non-parental or non-hygienic purposes. It's not perfect, but it's harder to get through than the other - if the offender offends for a reason other than sexual gratification (or convinces himself that's the case).

posted 02-25-2006 03:59 PM            

I chose the word gentials and in the pretest spoke of all the contact that could come between the vaginal and buttock area. I didn't want him to think he can touch the 'taint' spot and not be held accountable. I also only had the 'tickle' from the little girl. Like someone else said, that could just be the girls version when in fact he was digitally penetrating her and that is why I did a multi issue RQ.

As for the purpose of the exam. As reported the Father had a restraining order placed on him because of this incident (the ex wife has made prior accuasations on marijauna etc....it seams like she changes when it does't go her way - but believe me I am not excluding the fact that the uncle could have done something. The father submitted to an examination to determine if he knew of anyone abusing his daughter. He asked his brother if he would take a polygraph and the brother immediately agreed. The brother is not the sharpest tool in the shed but hes no dummy either. The matter was investigated by DFS and they found no incriminating evidence and therefore are not charging him with anything.

And yes, I do have the 'butt pad' sensor. I did not detect any visual movement nor was any detected by the pad.

On the comparison questions, I usually do throw in some hurt or lie questions. However, this man was upset that the allegations were against him and so I used all sex controls thinking I would get a fair test. I should have used at least one different control. As I stated, there has never been other accusations nor any suspicions on this man. I also know how offenders abuse long before they are caught.

posted 02-25-2006 04:46 PM            

What greater joy, than a bunch of polygraph examiners discussing questions...

Acutally, this is a lot of fun, so thank everyone for your professional and personal opinions, and thanks double for maintaining a friendly and supportive professional atmosphere. This would not be possible any other way.

So, on to the argument...

quote:

---

I don't like the question about "DYK what ***'s vagina feels like," and prefer the language of "sexually touch" for

I know I wrote this, but I actually don't like "sexually touch" all that much. I generally stick to "sexual contact" or whatever description of the kind of touching or offense is extant in the allegation.

I know a well-respected examiner that regularly uses "sexually touched," though I can't say how well that actually works. That examiner and I sometimes differ (friendly professional argument) on the breadth and focus of these test, and we've had many discussions about QC over the past few years.

The quote below very closely matches Colorado's statutory description of sexual contact (the statute acutally has some confusing langugage about "or to abuse.")

quote:

---

I would tell the subject that sexual touching is any kind of rubbing or touching of the someone's sexual organs (vagina, breast/chest area, buttocks, or penis) either over or under clothing, if for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, or sexual couriousity. Sexual contact includes having, causing, or allowing another person to touch one's own sexual organs, either over or under clothing, for seuxal arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, or sexual curiosity.

---

I'm curious what other state's statutory language would indicate.

This langugage (below) is the typical discussion language that I offer during the pretest interview.

quote:

---

Sexual contact includes sexual hugging and kissing activities (which had better be different that the way one hugs or kisses one's mother or grandmother), and also includes sexual touching during wrestling, horseplay, tickling, playing, or even sports activities (frottage), or other sex-play games like "mommy-daddy," "house," "doctor" (that is - touching or showing private parts kind of 'doctor' not just pretending to give shots kind of 'doctor'), spin-the bottle, strip-poker, or those ubiquitous middle-school "truth-or-dare" games, or any other game intended to provide a context for sexual behavior or sexual touching. (We're not limiting ourselves to the Bill Clinton version of sexual contact here.)

---

Now, the real problem here is an epistemological and language classification problem.

Epistemologically, things (objects) are not defined by human behavior, and human behavior is not defined by intent.

This means that tables are tables and chairs are chairs. However, we sometimes use human behavior to describe things, as in "a chair is something that you sit on." If things were defined by human behavior, then sitting on a table would cause the table to be (or become) a chair - in fact a table is a table, even when one sits on it. Similarly, a hammer is a tool used to drive nails. One could use a rock to pound a nail into the wall, but its still a rock - being used as a hammer, just as a table can be used as a chair (to sit on). With pornography, I've heard well-intentioned (though naive) therapists instruct their clients that masturbating to non-pornographic television shows, such as That 70s Show, or Everyone Love Raymond, "turns those programs into porngraphy." Some offenders have admitted to me that they like this idea, because it effectively prevents us from then differentiating or identifying their use of hard-core pornography. (and while most pornography may not be unlawful, it is often a violation of supervision and treatment rules, and many offenders tend to engage in more troublesome behaviors when they are all revved up from using porn.) Only, now because we let them throw us a bone (token admission) of the sit com - we are less able to differentiate offenders who do and don't hoard pornography at home (though the POs could do always do a home search). The real problem with masturbating to sit-coms isn't that they are then pornography, its the offenders lack of self control - tickling the same-old pornography issue, and inability to refrain from getting seriously triggered by relatively innocuous stimuli (innocuous compared with other stimuli). Its the behavior that is the problem, not the thing (sit com or porn).

Think about it, if human presence, human behavior, or human observation (a behavior) defined the nature of things, or events, then the answer to the age-old question..."if a tree falls in the forrest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Would be - NO, because sound is defined by the human observational presence. This is widely regarded as a very narcissistic human suggestion. Sound (vibration and movement) occur whether humans are present or not.

Now, with human behavior it is the result that matters most, not the intent. The word "accident" causes confusion at times. For example: it matters not whether I meant to turn my truck upside down (or so my insurance company says), the fact is it was upside down. Whether I step on your foot by accident or on purpose, what matters most is the result that your foot hurts.

The complication with sexual behaviors is that there are legitimate non-sexual reasons for touching a child's (or adults) private parts - parental contact (diapering, wiping, bathing, dressing, applying medications to rashes), or medical examinations.

So, sexual behavior is, in part defined (statutorily) by sexual intent.

I recall attending an APA/PCSOT class a couple of years ago, with well known trainer/board member who advocated the use of the term "for sexual reasons," though I have never been comfortable with that language.

And in reponse to this...

quote:

---

I realize you've got to qualifiy this in order to avoid legit touching, but I'd come at it from that angle rather than the one the researchers admit they don't fully understand. That is, ask if any touching occurred for non-parental or non-hygienic purposes. It's not perfect, but it's harder to get through than the other - if the offender offends for a reason other than sexual gratification (or convinces himself that's the case).

---

This depends upon the deductive logic that if its not for those reasons then it must be for sexual reasons. Like the Dr. Suess's Cat in the Hat - the way to find out where something is is to find out where its not (or something like that - its been a while.)

This seems to me to be far less robust than a straightfoward question about behavioral involvement (sexual contact, sexual touching), and actually seems to endorse or legitimize the actual offender's distorted justification (well, OK uncle lester, you may have touched her for those reasons...).

Yes, some offenders offend for reasons other than sexual arousal, though most of those statements are made by researchers and theorists who don't use polygraphs. This seems to be a far less common assertion from offenders subject to polygraph. We know from victims that certain types of rapists are unable to become aroused during the assault, but that is not common. Most do admit to some arousal. When they don't try this conversation. "Wow, you must be among the most dangerous of all offenders, you don't even need to be aroused to offend." adding "that's really dangerous, because there aren't even any warning signs when you might do it again, at least if you offend while you were aroused you could learn to recognize the warning sign and learn to use your treatment tools to make a different choice," "in your case they'll probably just have to keep you locked up, cause there are no warning signs and you can't reliably get ahead of your offending with a different choice." Most will roll over and discuss their level of arousal.

(the same conversation works with offending as a choice - "if its not about choice then therapy won't help, because therapy is about learning to make choices... but your offending can happend any time anywhere with out anything to do with choice...")

(and with offenders who won't examine they're motivations, or reasons for offending - what us therapist types call 'issues' - "if there are no reasons, then you are trully very dangerous, and will remain very dangerous, because there is nothing to fix, at least if there were reasons or issues or motivations to offend, then we could possibly start to fix some of that...")

What fun.

So Donna,

Thanks for the follow up. (I'm reading and typing fast because it is a weekend.)

I think your questions may be about as good as it gets. Its never perfect. There are always alternatives. And every exam represents a series of choices, trade-offs, and compromises.

It sounds like your making every effort to give the guy a fair and competent test, with respect for both the safety of the child and the potential disruption of the test result to the subject and family.

We'd all love to see the charts. Perhaps Ralph or I could help. Either way, its been a very interesting learning discussion.

Great work.

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

posted 02-25-2006 05:55 PM            

You could always mix up the questions and attack from both angles, I suppose. Again, nothings perfect.

ATSA isn't just a bunch of researchers. They are practicioners who have been around for a long time. So far they like polygraph, but it's not as big a tool as we'd like it to be (yet). It's an organization I've been saying I'm going to join for some time, and it's probably time to get a move on. Some of you might want to check it out as well.

Taylor,

posted 02-25-2006 06:44 PM            

I wouldn't say they support it. I've spoken several times with Peggy Heil, an ATSA board of directors member. There is an undercurrent to discredit the polygraph, but including language in their standards that the polygraph may lead to false confessions. The Journal of Sexual Abuse also published as research, and andectodally based study/report that illustrated a group of offenders who claimed they felt compelled to make false admissions to pass the polygraph - I'll find it and post it on my site.

Done -
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/Kokish_2005.pdf

and here's another something for grins
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/Maxims_from_Ezell.pdf

found while browsing through the computer just now - Tom Ezell is a salt of the earth type who seems to have been a real center of gravity for a bunch of people in the AZ area. Good guy. Not so subtle allusion to a Nietzsche title, just for fun.

He teaches the Utah tests (and others) and Utah scoring.

I could host other's charts if desired, or talk you through the use of .htaccess and http security protocols (brain damage for some).

Its easy to install and use the CutePDF creator to print charts to .pdf for anyone who can't already do that.

r

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

posted 02-26-2006 02:26 PM            

I read the study as rather positive to polygraph. In the end, it doesn't tell us too much as we're counting on sex offenders to be truthful in their self-disclosures, and the reason therapists are using polygraph is because their clients are liars.

The researchers acknowledge all the potential problems with their study, which is intellectually honest, something many so-called studies lack.

I still get a kick out of people citing Ekman's book for polygraph accuracy. (I'm a BIG fan of Ekman, but he knows little to nothing about polygraph.) He hasn't done any research on his own in that area; he just regurgitates what the anti-people say. (Look a the study - Saxe? What does Saxe really know about polygraph? If his own research were positve, he'd twist until it wasn't, but maybe I'm too opinionated.)

They make a very valid point that there is little research on screening exams, and that is what most sex offender testing is. I keep seeing the polygraph profession cite single-issue test studies on accuracy and then try to apply that to screeing exams. It's not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend it is.

I am surprised at the apparently low base rate of liars though.

The 26% who were called DI and then made up admissions to get out of there doesn't add up, but they admit the purpose might have been to try to make some lose faith in a method that worked all too well.

posted 02-27-2006 06:57 AM            

And the inquiry is both necessary and eventual.

There are things that bother me about this.

As you pointed out, they did not differentiate between RQs and CQs, neither did they they differentiate between sex history polygraphs and maintenance polygrapsh (which seems to me to be somewhat important).

The article is also devoid of much description about what happened with those five-percent false positive results.

And while five percent seems small - its not.

The article lacks integration of the concept of screening tests, and that positive or inconclusive test results are both considered unresolved until further information is obtained through investigation confession or further testing. Which might also speack to the lack of integration of these important concepts into the community supervision teams' (including the polygraph examiner) understanding of this.

So, it seems to me that the thrust of this article was to establish that polygraph gains false confessions.

There are a lot of discussions to be had about the types of questions, and techniques employed, as there still seems to be a lot of variability around the country.

I'd like to initiate a discussion, perhaps here, about target selection in maintenance and sex history polygraphs.

The data collection method also concerns me, as the offenders' therapists remained in the room while they completed the survey. This gives the impression that the survey was conducted in the context of a therapy group - which creates some selection and impression-management/motivational overtones to the data collection.

The biggest thing that concerned me was that this was published while the ATSA board was somewhat embroilded in a standards revision that resulted in standards language that polygraph may lead to false confessions. So, it seemed to me to rather convenient.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being too suspicious.

posted 02-27-2006 09:14 AM            

Generally subjects will say either they never touched for any reason or they touched for an innocent reason and it was mis-interpreted. Leaving you with two questions, Did it Happen? and if it did, what was the intent of the subject?

I try to resolve the did it happen question with the polygraph charts and I generally try to resolve intent issues in pretest. Example:

"So Skippy, (just a random subject name)" we know why we're here together today don't we? Now little Sally Sue has made some serious accusations about you touching her private parts/gentital area/etc. You and I both know that once in a great while little girls misunderstand what's going on. So a question I have to ask you is: Skippy have you ever touched or come into contact with little Sally Sue's Private parts in a way that she might have misinterpreted as that wrong kind of touching that we warn little kids about. ( I elaborate if necessary)It may have seemed innocent to you, but we have to look at the world through her eyes right now. So with all that in mind have you ever touched her genital area for ANY reason.

[ No? Well thats good. Skippy, when I ask you that same question on the test what will your answer be?] NO? Outstanding !!
Or
[ YES? Really, tell me what happened.] (after explaination I construct a qualified RQ that eliminates the innocent reason for touching) So Skippy if I were to ask you on the test, Have you ever touched Sally Sue's genital area for ANY reason besides putting calamine lotion on her rash, what will you say? NO? Well that's outstanding Skippy. As long as you don't lie to me today and as long as you didn't do any of that wrong kind of touching we talked about, I believe you'll do fine.

posted 02-28-2006 06:41 AM            

So, here we are with a few varied aproaches.

Mixed issue test to theoretically improve the sensitivity of the test by approaching the allegation from different "angles," with the trade off of some increased likelihood of inconclusive results and test results that are difficult to interpret (meaning, not scores).

Single issue test, with its more robost diagnostic specificity.

Test questions that directly address the issue of sexual touching, sexual contact, or touching for sexual purposes - with the limitation that these questions do not attempt to account for an offenders rationalized intent of touching for non-sexual reasons, and that sexual contact is in part defined by intent.

Or test questions that attempt to establish the touching of private parts by eliminating the touching of those parts for any reason other than sexual reasons - the cat-in-the-hat, or convoluted method (find out where it's not?) that attempts to establish that touching was or was not sexual by ruling out or confirming intent other than whatever lame excuse an offender offers for some admitted touching.

(note the shameless bias here)

Either way we are investigating the subject's intent. One is direct. One is not.

I hope I don't sound to cranky this morning - I have a very bad headache, and I'm off to jury duty. I doubt they'll let a polygraph examiner sit on a jury, but it would be interesting.

We should thank TAYLOR for initiating this very interesting discussion. It's really helpful, and will only promote greater understanding of our work. I suspect that we would be at risk for developing some localized or ideosyncratic practices without such an opportunity to hash ideas with others across the country.

So, thanks to RALPH for the board.

I have another interesing (PCSOT) test that I'll post the charts and questions on when I get a chance.

r

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

posted 02-28-2006 08:27 AM            

I don't like conditional clauses in relevant questions, because if I'm not very careful they begin to turn black and white to grey. We use conditional clauses intentionally in comparison questions to broaden their scope. Relevant questions should be as simple and narrow as possible. We can't keep it simple every time, but that should be our goal.

posted 02-28-2006 11:05 AM            

I was joking about the KISS thing, as I've been repeatedly falsly accused of making things way too complicated.

And you know what they say about opinions. Like certain parts of the anatomy, everyone needs one, and anyone without one is full of sh$%^*.

r

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

posted 02-28-2006 11:40 AM            

K.I.S.S. is a valuable reminder, it keeps us from telling someone how to build an atomic clock when all they have asked of us is the current time.

but again.... That's just one man's opinion

posted 02-28-2006 12:46 PM            

As I stated in the last comment of my original post, 'I am sure I already know the answer .....'. I test convicted Sex Offenders regularly. When I tested this guy, I over analyzed this and shouldn't have tried to determine what type of touching (over/under/tickle...) he may have done and focused and ANY contact. Once in a while you just have one of those days and this must have been one of them.

posted 02-28-2006 04:04 PM            

I have only one thing to say. Pre-test, Pre-test, Pre-test. This is so often where we drop the ball. The better the pre-test the simpler the actual test questions and test will be.

Any time someone asks me what they can do better or how they can improve their skills I almost invariably say Pre-test. We have all heard the term "garbage in garbage out" well the pre-test is where you sort the garbage and dump it. It is the foundation of the test.

I really wish all examiners but especially less experienced ones, would read these discussions. The information exchange is great and it certainly gets you to thinking.

Jack

posted 02-28-2006 04:52 PM            

Proper preparation prevents piss-poor performance practices.

Just reading and arguing this stuff seems highly informative.

We all know the test is only as good as the examiner, and only as good as how effectively it was conducted. We also know that none of us does our best work every single time.

How many of us acuallly take the time to solicit feedback when we are unsure of something?

Professionalism is in part the art of giving and receiving feedback in a manner that supports better work and better understanding. Hind-sight is always 20/20, the guy in the back seat always knows a better route, and the armchair quarterback can see the whole play in advance.

Feedback is invaluable. But in the end it is just feedback, and just our .02. I think its important to respect that a competent examiner is going to make the best out of whatever mess is presented.

There is always a better way, there is always more to learn, and its never perfect. The good news about the polygraph is that the test seems to be sufficiently robust that it works despite a few minor complications.

After all this discussion, I'm really curious about the outcome of any re-test.

Jury duty is over, and I'm punchy from boredom. I did get some work done and I had time to get materials put up on another exam.

r

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