posted 04-06-2005 06:48 PM            

There are guidelines for minimum times for legal criminal tests 1 year 3.5.3 APA. I cannot find anything about record keeping for private tests that do not have any legal implications.

The reason I ask is recently a client asked me to review charts of a test she had conducted by another examiner.

I requested the charts from the examiner and they informed me they only keep the records of the test for 14 days and then delete them.

They refuse to let me review them as the charts are their property and suggest the client get a second test done by another examiner. Plus the fact that they delete them after 14 days.

This cannot be in line with any association standards this in effect protects the examiner from any accountability along with the fact that a client surely has the right to their charts and an independant evaluation if required.

This is also very unfair to the client as an independant evaluation is going to be much cheaper than a re test.

Any thoughts about time frames for keeping private test records not for legal purposes.

Is there any guidelines on the subject that anyone can point me to.

thanks,

posted 04-07-2005 07:30 AM            

I don't know of any requirement to retain private charts (though) there may be; however, my point is that I have seen this too. Here locally (Kansas City Metro area), there are a couple of so-called professional examiners (not APA or AAPP members) who run private tests and immediately after reporting the findings to the examinee, destoy all records within days. In fact, I have had potential clients go to them, simply because their fees were lower then later report back to me the findings of the exam and admit, "I wish I had listened and gone to you."

This is, in my opinion, extremely dubious, as any professional should allow a QC check by another qualified examiner at examinee expense. I know I do (and have).

The problem is that there are some (or, many) private examiners that know they are runnning improper exams and do not want anyone else seeing their "private" documents, for fear of being discovered as "chart rollers" thereby being discredited as a professional.

Suggesting additional testing, rather than QC review is in itself a questionable tactic to develop more revenue and should be viewed as such. Not that additional testing might not be needed; but not at the verification expense of the original exam.

Honesty + Ethics + Training = Professional

posted 04-07-2005 12:22 PM         

There is simply NO EXCUSE to not retain polygraph charts/exams for a minimum period of time. People who destroy them so quickly usually do so so nobody else will see them and challenge their opinion.

With the technology we have today, it is very easy to store multiple exams on a flopy or hundreds of exams on a CD....again, there is no excuse.

In criminal cases, the appeals process can take years. What happens when a post polygraph confession is challenged 5 years later? The answer is, you had better have the charts!

Every crinimal exam I have ever done is recorded on video, on a flopy or CD and in hard copy form.

I also have copies of every private exam I have ever done in the past five years. I may purge my files someday but I think 2-3 years would be a safe minimum to maintain!

posted 04-07-2005 09:11 PM            

The examiner is an APA member. I think Jack was involved with ASTM is there a guideline they have on the subject in relation to private exams and record keeping.

I too have kept every exam I have conducted since 1996 and filled up my hard drive with them so, I bought another computer as I needed to upgrade anyway.

I have no problem giving my charts out for a QC to another examiner but this guy does it would seem.

Does anyone know if ASTM have a guideline on the subject.

Thanks,

posted 04-08-2005 04:18 PM            

Violation of any ASTM standard is also a violation of the ASTM ethics standard.

The examiner in question could have set himself up for a negligence suit depending on the circumstances. I'd guess - and I'm not a lawyer - that it could be argued that s/he owes a duty to the examinee to keep the tests for a potential QC, and s/he breached that duty by destroying the data, which apparently has harmed (financially b/c another test is now needed) the examinee.