posted 01-05-2006 01:03 AM            

"I want my boyfriend to take a polygraph, He wants me to move in but im not sure, I have my reasons. If I take him to get a poly. with a list of questions will they let me know what if any questions he failed? Can I watch them give him the test?oh ya that is rock not roch sorry about that ----"

Barry - Unless the requested exam is unethical, illegal or improper to administer for any other reason, what business do we, as examiners have to tell anyone they have "issues?" In the response to this question meddling has already occured. Issues, polygraph won't fix them, spend your money on counseling, a clue it's time to move on!

After listening to the reason(s) the exam is requested we either accept the assignment or don't. What would be so wrong if an examiner chose to conduct this examination? I don't believe we know if anything would be wrong as the exact reason(s) were not identified in the question posed by "beach2." I don't know, in this request, if there wasn't an allegation of serious criminal conduct that could be resolved with an examination. Today, more and more persons are checking backgrounds of individuals for many reasons. In this instance there could be a valid reason why this member wants to have an examination administered. We don't know as the reason(s) were not identified.

As I initially read the question presented by "beach2" I suspected there may not be a valid reason for an examination. But, I don't know as "beach 2" was not specific. I have no problem advising a prospective client, after hearing (all) their information, they may want to consider an alternative manner in resolving their concerns.

I don't understand your statement indicating an examiner "would refuse to even conduct such a test." What type of test?

END.....

posted 01-05-2006 06:39 AM            

Part of our job is screening out what is a good test and what isn't. Not doing so is unethical. Now, with that said, I didn't say nobody would do the test; I simply said many would refuse it.

Why not ask the girl to list out her questions and see how bad this gets really fast? I might be reading tea leaves here, but I'd guarantee this is a garbage test in which she'll want a dozen questions answered, most of which polygraph isn't going to help her with. Giving her a false sense of hope is not the answer.

Bottom line: I wouldn't do the test. I do know some who would tell her such a test will do little to nothing for her and only take her money after she relizes what a feeble attempt at fix she is buying, but then that's her informed choice.

posted 01-05-2006 11:28 AM            

The first sentence of your response is exactly my point, " - won't do what is likely a (cheating) test - ." My point, we don't know as the members reason(s) were not specified.

In this example you, I, we, don't know if this could be a request for what would be a "specific test." We don't know if this is purely a "relationship issue." Its possible this deals with an unreported civil/criminal issue.

The member was not asked to "list out her questions" but was told she had issues, etc., etc. As I indicated in my response I initially suspected there may not be a valid reason, but I, you, we, don't know!

No, I would not run an examination without a valid reason nor would any other competent and reputable examiner. In this instance we don't know what the reason(s) are until defined by the member.

What I don't agree with primarily, and the reason I responded in this forum, was the content of your answer to "beach2." In your words, "why not ask the girl -?" Then we would know exactly what she is looking for!

posted 01-05-2006 02:42 PM            

As for beach2 I think we have an obligation to let her know that numerous questions can't be asked in a polygraph - and it won't be the cure all. We should have found out her concerns. I too was surprised with Barrys answer. I am more concerned with this discussion as it appears because I would run this type of examination some may believe I am unethical.

posted 01-05-2006 03:40 PM            

I never said fidelity tests were screening exams. What I said is she claims to want a host of questions answered. If that's the case, then it's a screening exam. If you tell her to reduce it down to one question, then you're not giving her all the answers she wants, so what's the sense - regardless of what she wants to know?

All we know is her boyfriend wants her to move in, and she has her reasons for not doing so. Why did she tell us that in a question regarding polygraph unless it is relevant? I don't think I'm out on a limb here, but as I said, perhaps I jumped the gun. I'll ask and we'll find out - maybe.

She tells us she is between a rock and a hard spot, and polygraph seems to be her savior. I don't think so.

So we know she doesn't trust her boyfriend. Then she adds she wants to watch the test itself (in the form of a question). Why? She is already questioning the polygraph process (and the potential results) and her future examiner. Do you want to have that debate with her? Neither do I.

Does this sound like a test your going to run?

Why would you allow anybody in the exam during the pre-test phase? That is the most important part of the test. If you mess that up, you mess the whole test up. An extra body can do no good whatsoever. I don't even let lawyers in during the pre-test with the exception of the first few minutes in which I go over the guy's rights.

I am not prepared to call those who do fidelity tests unethical; although, I know some who would. So, no, I don't think you're unethical just for doing these types of tests.

What would you charge a girl like this anyhow? (I don't mean numbers, but how would you structure your fees: one flat fee until done or fee per test, or per day?) Do you do only one single-issue tests and still leave her hanging? If so, you're not providing what she wants. (She's got multiple questions, and they're all important to her. You can't just say pick the most important and ignore the rest. If you can't help her, send her on to somebody who can.) Do you do a four or so question screening exam? If the guy reacts to one of the RQs on the multi-issue test (i.e., a screening exam), do you call him DI? If so, that would be considered unethical under ASTM standards. If he reacts to a single RQ on the screening exam do you do a breakout test on that issue (as ASTM requires)? If he goes NDI on that, what do you do with the other RQs he didn't have issues with on the screening exam? We know that a person doesn't necessarily react to the RQ to which he's lying, so would you go back and do a follow-up screening exam with everything but the RQ you cleared in the breakout test (as suggested by DoDPI)? It could be a very long road to a resolution.

Are you prepared to explain all that to the customer before you take her money? You'd have to wouldn't you?

A simple did you do it test would be no problem, but she's not asking for that. Do you think you can restore her faith in the boyfriend with only one test as you suggest? It appears she'd going to make a decision to move in with him based on that.

posted 01-05-2006 04:04 PM            

Back to fidelity exams - I charge a flat rate - and make it specific not a mulitiple issue. All this is discussed prior to the examination with the comments to consult a therapist first.

As for letting her sit in on a test - I am with you - I don't allow anyone to sit in on my tests other than another examiner on rare occasions. Usually when I am sponsoring someones internship.

posted 01-05-2006 09:39 PM            

I still can't figure how it is a screening exam if you ask one question on the matter in a U-Phase or ZCT. When it all boils down, they want to know if the person cheated - it doesn't matter how.

I realize we don't have all the facts like we would on a criminal examination. We only have a he said - she said.

posted 01-05-2006 10:12 PM            

How valid the second is I don't know, but I suspect you'd get OK results. It's the same argument I use with pre-employment exams: What's the difference between "Have you ever set an illegal fire?" (in your entire life)and "Did you set that (particular) fire?" in an arson case. Some say the one is valid, the other, voodoo. (I think it's probably a pretty good test.) I think we all agree the question "Have you committed any serious crimes you have not disclosed?" would be a screening exam. Whether you stick it in a Bi-zone or not, you're still screening and validity is less than a "did you do that crime?" test.

When somebody comes to you and says, "I don't trust my loved one," DI and NDI aren't going to solve the bulk of her problems, and that's all we have to offer. This girl was asking for help that goes beyond what we can offer - whether she realizes it or not - regardless of whether we could formulate a good test.

This is another one of those debates that will linger on on the polygraph community for some time I suspect. Many examiners will refuse the tests, and others will do them. I have a good friend who will do them, but only after he spends a lot of time trying to talk them out of it and the reasons why. His feeling - and I can't say he's wrong - is they know fully well what they're getting before they write the check.

posted 01-05-2006 10:12 PM            

I'm surprised at the statement, "what's the sense - regardless of what she wants to know." If approached it is our responsibility to try and make sense of a request to determine if we have a valid issue that can be tested.

Why become concerned because a client does not/may not trust an examinee? I have been asked many times if a client could be present during an examination. I don't permit others in the examination office and I don't care why this question was asked. I don't see this as questioning my ability or the procedure, I see this merely as a question of interest. I see no reason to "debabte" anyone (client/examinee) about anything. We conduct an examination following acceptable procedures, explain this to the individual and that's the end of the story!

To my understanding it is (not) unacceptable to allow someone in the room during a pre-test interview. It (is) unacceptable to allow any persons to be present during the in-test phase. I prefer to be alone with the examinee as I believe I achieve the best interview/interrogation results this way.

My fee for a specific exam is the same regardless of issue, i.e., robbery, theft, assault, homicide, etc. If I believe an additional exam may or should be conducted I add an additional fee if the additional exam in completed.

I'm prepared to explain almost everything a client/examinee may ask. If I can't I get on the phone and find someone with an explanation/answer that is accepted.

Barry - in my opinion you are reading too much into the question presented by "beach2." I can't answer your question as to how many questions I would ask as I haven't learned what this member is seeking. As has been discussed there may not be an issue suitable for a polygraph examination. Also, because of the limited information we have I can't answer your multiple questions.

END.....

posted 01-05-2006 10:31 PM            

My questions were general in nature regarding these types of exams when you don't have an investigation to point you to a very specific issue, so you don't need her info to respond; although, most were intended to be rhetorical.

I get paid to read into what people say (and sometimes I get paid to teach others to read into what people say), and I'm usually right, but I already said I could have jumped the gun here. I'm not a betting man, but If I were, I'd bet the farm on this one. (If she's got lots of questions, "did you cheat?" aint gonna cut it!)

posted 01-06-2006 01:58 AM            

I don't believe an "investigation" is required to deal with what may be a "specific issue." An allegation of wrongdoing with no police investigation, I'm sure you're aware happens. We don't need an investigation to point to a specific issue but we do need to know what the allegation(s)are.

As stated before, I disagree with you as we do need "beach2" to respond and provide more information. " - don't have a very specific issue - don't need her information to respond -," how do we determine whether or not we can help anyone without this information?

How can I or anyone else respond to your questions about an issue(s) we know nothing about? Rhetorical or otherwise, the problem(s) "beach2" has NOT identified are the foundation for an exam or reason an exam should not be administered. How can any exam or question be structured if there is no proper foundation?

No disrepect, but I'm not interested in what you're paid to do & even less on how often you are right.

Have you never encountered an exam request where answers to many questions were sought?
But, after sitting down and reviewing the issue, most if not all questions referred back to one primary issue? Many questions were then narrowed down to the best primary and secondary relevants to the satisfaction of the client. Isn't this what we do in structuring an MGQT or ZOC, narrow the questions down to the heart of the issue?

I never indicated (I) permit anyone, much less the "accuser" in the room during an exam. Read my post again. I doubt there's a competent examiner that would allow an "accuser" be present during any part of their process.

END.....

posted 01-06-2006 08:49 AM            

I have been reading the discourse and I just have a few constructive points to add.

Although we can all openly discuss our opinions here and should to further our knowledge, discourse should be kept to facts(e.g. State Laws, Case Law, ASTM, APA, AAPP standards, Research) and not personal opinions.

I believe CHSBOY defined screening very well.

posted 01-06-2006 09:19 AM            

Yes, we get requests from investigators to ask too many questions, but we deal with them objectively. They don't have an emotional stake in the results, and they realize polygraph is a tool, not the end-all. We tell them what we can do, which means we reduce it down to one (or a perhaps a few) issues. Most investigators aren't happy that we do that, but they realize polygraph is not the panacea, and they will need to employ other investigative tools to find the rest of their answers.

In the present inquiry, we have a girl who wants her boyfriend tested, for what we don't know. Since there is no investigation, the examiner may well be the first person to spring the specifics of the allegation on him. Again, we don't know, but the examiner will clearly be the first to well define the issue as a layperson doesn't know what we can do.

Polygraph in criminal cases is a tool of utility, which is why we don't get bent out of shape on how valid it is, nor do we care that we are bias against the truthful as it is a price we are willing to pay. In the present case, all that changes, but our process doesn't. An investigator knows polygraph isn't perfect. If we use the NAS numbers, there's a 14% chance our results will be wrong. So, when we're done with this test for beach2, what do we tell her? Do we tell her to use this info to guide the rest of her investigation? There isn't going to be one. She wants a definitive answer - one nobody can give (unless he confesses). If we say he's DI or NDI, what does she do with that? She's got to make a major decision - if moving in is in fact the issue.

In a criminal case, our investigators know what to do with a DI or NDI: They rule out (at least temporarily) the NDI, and they hone in on the DI, looking for real evidence to make their case. They don't do it (make their case) based soley on polygraph. If you call a guy NDI, he just goes on the back burner. They return to him is evidence send them back there because, as you know, polygraph has exonerated when DNA has said otherwise.

In the present case we have a g/f who doesn't trust the b/f, so what are the possibilities? We find him NDI in which case we tell her he's probably telling the truth. Is "probably" good enough for her when she's being ruled by emotions? If we find him DI do we tell her he's probably lying and send her on her way? What good does that do her when emotions get in the way of objectivity? She's still left unsure, and now she's out some money to boot. In what way can we "help" her?

We don't charge people based on polygraph results alone, and yet we offer to confirm or dispel her suspicions with just a polygraph test - something she is considering doing. (Now, she might have evidence, but if so, she didn't tell us. If we look at the evidence, then that requires us to go beyond the scope of polygraph and become her investigator.)

When I made the comment about being right, I wasn't attempting to persuade you to blindly accept my position. I was simply saying you probably aren't going to get this leopard to change his spots, especially since these spots seem to work for this leopard. I think you read too much into that one. Regardless, I've already conceded you may very well be right. I might have been trigger happy.

Nor, did I say you allowed people in the room with you. If I recall correctly, you told her she - the accuser - might be permitted in the room for the pre-test. I don't know anybody who would allow that.

posted 01-06-2006 10:38 AM         

Backster refers to it as the "Target Intensity". A "1" would be very low and a "5" would be very high. The higher the rating, the more likely you would have a successful and accurate test. Backster also teaches the "distinctness of issue" theory. IE: the less distinct the issue is, the more room there is for rationalization by the examinee.

A question like "Have you ever been unfaithful to John?" would rate a 1 or 2(Screening exam). A question like "Last Saturday,did you perform oral sex on Mike" would be a higher rating(Specific Issue).

I do agree that an infidelity test can be either a screening exam or a specific issue exam. It depends on the amount of accurate information you have and what your "Target Intensity" rating is. It also depends on if you KNOW FACTUALLY that an incident occurred or you suspect that an incident MAY have occurred.

A screening exam should always be followed up with the specific issue exam before a call is made.

Ted

posted 01-06-2006 10:48 AM         

You are correct and thanks to you, I am now having flash-backs about my days at Backsters! I will probably have nightmares tonight as well. I want my mommy.

posted 01-06-2006 12:44 PM            

You ask when would I run an exam without an investigation and why.

I would likely do this when a high profile financial business has one employee, and only one, that prepared cash for a night deposit. When the deposit is placed in a "night drop" & when only one bank employee that processed this deposit reported cash was missing. In my experience I've learned most financial institutions historically do not want negative publicity, especially when it involves internal theft. They try to avoid law enforcement involvement.

The only "investigation" needed in my example, in my opinion, is for the institution to confirm cash is missing and to learn the involved persons denied they (stole) any of the cash. Once they deny involvement, in my opinion, there is a good possibility a proper examination can be administered. This would obviously include a good pre-test to review facts as reported by the examinee.

I agree it's always best to conduct an examination (after) a thorough investigation. We could say that simply asking the persons involved in the example I cited is not a thorough investigation. But, given my example is more really needed. (Only) two people handled the money and one reports some of the money is missing. I do not agree an investigation in the pure sense of the word is always needed.

As a police and now a private examiner I choose not to conduct any examination with only "limited information," it's not likely a proper exam could be administered. In my opinion it doesn't matter who drops the "bomb" on the examinee. By the time most, if not all persons arrive in our offices they believe they are going to be administered a polygraph examination. Whether or not an examiner decides to conduct the examination after the pre-test is another matter.

I have no interest whatsoever in any stake a person may have that requests an examination.

Once the exam is requested and I determine a proper exam should be able to be administered, I deal with the examinee at the proper time. I believe our responsibility then shifts (completely) to the examinee. To ensure they are suitable for an exam and to structure and administer the best exam I can. Once I've conducted a proper & complete examination, I'm confident with whatever opinion I render.

I for one am getting bored with my repetive answer to your question about "beach2." In my opinion I can't conduct any exam for this person as the issues have not been identified. Once I know what the issues are, once I determine the issue(s) are suitable for our polygraph process then I will worry about the numbers you identify. I don't tell "beach2" anything! I ask her to identify the issues as I would any investigator or other prospective client.

I'm not trying to have you change. I simply comment about why/how I would or would not do something relative to our process. While we may vary our technique I'm confident members in this forum are qualified & competent examiners following proper examination procedures.

END.....

posted 01-06-2006 01:04 PM            

Even in your bank example, the bank did an internal investigation to arrive at the facts and issues, so there's an investigation there. And your're right, sometimes there's less info than you would hope, but you've got enough for a test. I've never seen a bank investigation in which some neutral, objective party didn't conduct the investigation, which makes my point.

posted 01-06-2006 02:16 PM            

As far as the fidelity test go, consider this. If the young lady requesting information comes to you and presents the situation just as she does here in her post but adds, "I don't believe in Polygraphs. I don't think they work but it seems to be my only option". Would you do that test? If you later told her that her boyfriend was lying she would probably buy that. If you told her he was truthfull would that settle the issue? I don't think so and I think you have now been unfair to the boyfriend for subjecting him to a test that won't be believed if he is truthfull. It may be that all you did was get paid for a test that didn't help either one of them.

My problem with fidelity tests is just that. Am I going to help the situation? I think sometimes you can but alot of times the issue is lack of trust and not solved by a polygraph.

When I read her post originaly my first thought was that this was a fishing expedition, the results of which should not be a basis for moving in with someone.

Jack

posted 01-06-2006 02:50 PM            

All "beach2" has said is " - I have my reasons." How can this member possibly be told anything of substance relative to polygraph without knowing these reasons?

An analogy: Do we go to our doctor to solve a medical problem but not tell them the symptoms we are experiencing? We can't help the member if we don't know the reason(s) they are speaking with us any more than a doctor can help us if we arrive in his office and simply say we need help to solve a medical issue.

END.....

posted 01-06-2006 03:59 PM            

Once again, all "beach2" reports is they have their reasons but NONE are identified. I wouldn't have a prospective client in my office very long that was inquiring about a polygraph test but did not identify the issues/reasons.

In reviewing my responses maybe I'm throwing people off track by stating "reasons" when I mean ISSUES. "beach2" wants an exam administered. All along I've only been interested in knowing (what) "beach2" believes the boyfriend has done. The reason/issue that could have occurred and prompts a request for an exam.

What are the reason(s) they want the boyfriend to be administered a polygraph, interchanged with what the issues are in which he is suspected of involvement. I'm only interested in what the boyfriend may have done or is involved in.

I'm not concerned with how "beach2" would use the results, i.e., move in, move out, etc., her reasons. I only want to know what this boyfriend may have done.

posted 01-06-2006 06:41 PM            

Did "beach2" answer you request via email and report what they suspected the boyfriend was involved in?

If you'd rather not respond about this topic further let me know and I'll wait for another topic to be brought out.

END.....

posted 01-07-2006 02:05 AM            

Regarding your post at 2:16 on 1-6:

If "beach2" is in my office and tells me just as she wrote, I don't know what she wants. Even if we presume this is a fidelity issue more information is needed before I could advise her whether or not I may be able to help her.

END.....

I don't concern myself whether a client and especially an examinee believes in the polygraph process. As examiners we believe in the process and this is what counts. If "beach2" made this comment (but) requested the exam (of what I determined was a suitable issue); and the boyfriend volunteered to submit to the exam, yes, I would probably administer this exam. How "beach2" dealt with the results is not my concern. If, and a qualified if, it's obvious there can be no benefit I will not test.

In the administration of a proper exam, if there is a conclusive opinion rendered, do you disagree the client & examinee, one or both could benefit?

But, back to my original point about "beach2," we don't have enough information about the issues or her concerns about the boyfriend to know if we can help her situation.

There's a statement about beating this poor horse. It's not my intention to beat on any topic but to learn from the feedback of all examiners. Who is right is not a concern of mine. What is right regarding an issue in the administration of an exam is my concern.

I have experienced many examinee's who volunteer and submit to an examination. After all is said and done, if I run a "DI" and receive an admission or confession I usually ask one question. I ask the examinee (why) they submitted knowing the extent of their involvement in the issue. Their answers are different but very similar, "I thought I could get by - I didn't think this worked - I figured I had a 50-50 chance."

posted 01-10-2006 11:11 AM            

Your statement, in either case (761), is correct. More information is needed before a test, for this situation, is done.

Jack