posted 11-09-2004 12:48 PM            

I had this issue come up last week when I was testing an applicant for a dispatch position.

Great applicant. Been working in PD's as a dispatcher for 20 years. Passed many tests in the past.

2 years prior to this desired job change, she was married to a Police Sergeant who raped her continually during the marriage and then attempted murder by strangling her and leaving her for dead. Only by a miracle did she live. When the husband found out later that night that she lived, he went back to the house and committed suicide.

Okay, so here is the deal. This woman could barely keep any composure and talk about this issue, but got through telling me about it. When I tested her and we got to the did you ever commit a sexual crime question, she responded strongly. I asked her about it and she said that she can't hear that question without picturing the rapes that occured during her marriage and began to cry.

Now for you cynical examiners out there, I am a softy, but I draw good boundaries and I'm telling you, I believe this lady was telling me the truth and she has the facts to back up her story...dead husband in the grave.

Somewhere in school I remember talking about the testing of sexual victims, but don't remember all the details. I am attending the sex offender training this next week, but would like to get some insight on if you have had this happen to you in the past and if so, what did you do to get the person to a point where they could 'pass' that question.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com

posted 11-09-2004 08:38 PM         

I concur with Eric in that asking a generalized ‘Did you ever commit a sex crime' type question of a "sexual assault victim" during a pre-employment test could induce a ‘legitimate' victim to recall the traumatic event (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome); therefore ‘tainting' a "Deceptive Finding" as a potential false positive. The truthful examinee would have a ‘reasonable' excuse as to the cause of the responses. After all, we are merely recording ‘emotional change' in our charts (fear-guilt etc) from which we ‘deduce' deception when there is no other cause for the response (such as anger, noise, cold, etc, etc). In addition, the ‘deceptive examinee' (whereas no true sexual assualt occurred) would also have a ‘built in' excuse and be able to avail the same arguement.

Although you didn't say what your exact phrasing of the question was Ralph, I'm presuming the ‘real' issue at hand was trying to address whether or not she had sexually molested children. I might suggest a more ‘specific' type of sex question might have been usable and appropriate. I'm of the opinion that asking her a variation of "As an adult, Have you participated in illegal sexual acts with a minor under the age of 14 (or 16- whatever your state law is) ?" would not conjure up ‘reliving' her rape (however I'd add, if she was molested as a child and was withholding that information, then we may have a similar problem though).

The testing of a ‘sexual assualt victim' over the specifics of the event results in the same potential ‘tainting.' If ‘Deception is being indicated,' how can we argue it was not due to ‘reliving' the traumatic event? Hence some States due not allow the testing of sexual assualt victims. In the past, when I tested sexual assualt victims, I preferred developing test questions over an
"Evidence Form / Statement." In other words, I would entitle a piece of paper "Evidence Form" (with emphasis on making it look Official) and number blank lines 1-10. I then asked the vicitm to write out ten true statements relating to the‘facts of the offense' (being sure she included the essential elements of the crime). The test questions in a ‘specific issue ZCT format' would then be variations of "Did you lie on that Evidence form you wrote for me today?"

In the past I've also attended lectures at APA where Shirley Sturm lectured on the use of ‘Confirmatory' type tests ("Where you lying in your statement when you said....") or direct questions (Did he make you have sexual intercourse by force/ tear your blouse / put his hands on your throat/ have a knife..etc) and allowing the victim/examinee to use ‘Yes' answers.

posted 11-10-2004 05:51 AM            

as a pre-employment test, "getting into the weeds" of victimization is not that necessary. In other words, finding out she was sexually abused by her late husband and that on one occasion when she called the police on him, he committed suicide, probably would have been enough for that format. Getting ALL the gorey details might have been too much...

As for the questions, testing victims in sex offense cases (in my opinion) in a no-no. However, regarding PE testing the completenes of what they have reported is not
and I accomplish this almost daily. My questioning is geared towards ommitted information (lying or withholding rather than the sex act itself) by asking, "Are you now concealing information about committing an unlawful sex act." This takes the pressure off of the (victimization) act, and on to the potential lie about withholding information itself.

On a side, while I appreciate all that we have done to address the possible false positive nature of this type of testing and forcing victims to "relive" the experience, I also think the manner in which it is introduced plays a large part as well. If testing for hidden information, it allows for disclosure without reliving the entire experience.

My thoughts,

Jim

posted 11-10-2004 07:20 AM         

Testing of sexual assault "victims" in California is illegal. I do not know all of the reasons as to why but I would assume that your topic is part of the reason. A victim (of any crime-sexual or not) may be suffering from PTSS and you can get responses that are not reliable.

I agree with Sackett. A question that addresses total honesty in a given area rather than a specific incident may be your best bet.

posted 11-10-2004 10:30 AM            

"In a field study of comparison question polygraph examinations conducted by a law enforcement agency (Horvath, 1977), all but one of the false positive errors occurred on victims of sexual pr physical assault or robbery (G.H. Barland, personal communication, September 18, 1982). Because of these problems, the American Psychological Association has raised concerns about administering tests to victims of crimes (Mervis, 1986). Such applications should be approached with great caution and only when there is a strong basis for suspicion." (If anybody wants the reference info, let me know and I'll post it.)

I suspect this is the reason California doesn't allow the exams.

I've done them, but I do statement verification exams (as already described) in an effort to avoid the problems Ralph describes.

posted 11-10-2004 11:25 AM            

Thanks for the feedback, that was very helpful.

Just a couple of items. I didn't really dig for this info...basically, the rape part of the story didn't come out UNTIL she responded to the sexual crime issue. I'm guessing it was naive for me to not have seen that coming after having the rest of the story of the attempted murder...but that is when it came to light. I had gone through the sexual crime list and she responded no to all of those in pre-test as far as being a perpetrator.

Anyway, I used an R&I with controls mixed in...basically the format that had been used previously in this location. I'm not sure there is an actual name for this method. I have to say I really don't like the pre-employment tests due to the sheer volume of questions required. There was another examiner there also testing who was using...no kidding between 12 and 16 relevants per test.

Okay, so now having the full story, what would have been your method for a confirmatory test after this disclosure...which came after the first series of charts.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com

posted 11-10-2004 11:37 AM            

having obtained that information, after the exam, it would not be uncalled for to "break out" the topic into a bi-zone type format and run a "RU withholding (or hiding) information about U committing an unlawful sex act" against lie to obtain a benefit/something you're not entitled to, etc, controls. Making this about the lie, not the sex... You should be OK, if she is truthful. Either that or a "statement verification" test as suggested by Barry...

Jim