|
Author
|
Topic: Bi-Zone Scoring Question
|
AD
Member
|
posted 06-09-2004 12:46 PM
  
Can anyone post their thoughts on scoring ranges for a criminal Bi-Zone exam (two relevants). I understand some use +4/-4 for two charts and +6/-6 for three. In addition, some use the weakest control to each side for scoring, other use the strongest. Thoughts?I have been using the strongest control on either side of the relevant (gives even more benefit to examinee). This what my class was taught a few years ago. IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 06-09-2004 01:32 PM
as I practice scoring it:+ in both spots; +6 overall = NDI - 3 in any spot = DI (though a - in either
spot = interrogation...) everything else = Inc Both bracketing CQ's to their respective RQ. C8 (outside issue Q) is still in play for possible Inc. as for the weakest CQ comparison, that's a Backster "thing"! I'm DODPI trained and don't adhere to ther unless they're "defective." There is some merit to the weakest controls, though. Jim P.S. Don't tell Cleve, I use his SKY sometimes... [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 06-09-2004).] IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 06-09-2004 01:51 PM
I mostly use +/- 6 overall in the three chart Full ZCT and +/- 4 with the three chart BI-ZCT with a +2 in every spot for NDI and the or a –3 in any spot for DI. I use the strongest response from either of the bracketed controls in each tracing. There are several scoring methods out there and as long as you have received formal training in them (school, seminar, etc), they are approved methods, and you follow the guidelines I opine you will be covered in your decision.
IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 06-09-2004 02:08 PM
Information from DODpi from August 2002, shows:1. DI, minus three (-3) or less in any overall vertical spot or a grand total of minus four (-4) or less for all spots scored horizontally. 2. NDI, there must be at least a plus one (+1) or greater in each overall spot total and a combined spot toal of plus four (+4) or greater. 3. NO, if it is not DI or NDI, it is NO. This is the scoring that I use. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-09-2004 02:55 PM
According to DoDPI's Don Krapohl, research shows +/-4 for three charts is as accurate as +/-6 for four charts.The official DoDPI rules - last I knew - for NDI require a positive score in both spots with a total score as above. A -3 or less in any spot is DI regardless of the chart total. IP: Logged |
AD
Member
|
posted 06-09-2004 08:25 PM
Thanks for all the great insight. What's the overall opinion of stopping with TWO Bi-Zone charts when you are able to reach a +4 NDI or -4 DI with two charts? IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 06-09-2004 09:40 PM
I like to collect as much data as reasonably possible. I do an acquaintance exam, three relevant issue exams, and a CM exam every time. This process, along with all the other paper work, standard procedures, and a S.C.A.N. statement, takes me approximately an hour and a half to two and a half hours for every exam from start to finish, minus that added length of talking to those who have a hard time coming out of denial. Although two R.I. exams are sufficient, it takes one all of an additional 3-5 minutes to collect a third chart. My personal preference is to go the extra yard to help further reduce the possibility of an error. IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 06-10-2004 06:46 AM
AD,I was told once by someone at the Backster school that if you run 2 charts and they are "CLEARLY" NDI or DI, why waste (interrogation) time by running more charts that will simply reinforce past conclusions (or something to that effect). Though doctrine is to complete the process, in my private testing if I run a Bi Zone and after 2 charts, the numerical obviousness of the charts are +/- 6, in both spots (3 point scale), then I stop and proceed as necessary. One more chart will not alter the outcome. This, of course, is a rare occasion but it sometimes occurs. While cutting short an "obvious" test goes against the grain of researched and trained doctrine, I don't know any reasonable argument against it and I see no (obvious) ethical dilema. Jim IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 06-10-2004 09:12 AM
Run three charts. Remember that standards require you to follow proper procedures when using any technique. Correct me if I am wrong but current procedures for the bi-zone require three charts.It's only time. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-10-2004 10:09 AM
I learned to run four charts for a Bi-zone. I run three and use +/-4 when it's obvious what's going on.
FYI, Polyscore is designed to score a four chart test - not a three chart Bi-zone - so my guess is that's the standard.IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 06-10-2004 11:34 AM
OK Jack,I agree that following the rules is important and agree that 3 charts versus 2 is defensable, if challeneged. Because I said so, is not. If you are under time contraints (for whatever reason) and the charts are absolutely clear, why not? There will be no change in outcome. Is a chart that read +6 and +6 = + 12 any "more truthful" than +3 and +3 = +6? Or, visa versus..? Additionally, should I run 4 charts because the Polyscore algorythm, "says so?" enjoying the banter! Jim IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 06-10-2004 11:41 AM
I believe that PolyScore takes that data which you collected and compares it with the parameters set in the program, obtained from confirmed charts. Considering the fact that the MGQT and ZCT are scored the same by the program and they have different standards for construction, I am not sure that the fourth chart for the BI-ZCT is a matter of standard but that it may provide closer data to that in the database that it is compared with.APA Standard is: 3.9.5 Examiners shall collect a sufficient number of charts so as to acquire sufficient data for proper evaluation, in conformance with a validated testing technique. AAPP Standard is: H. The polygraphist shall produce a minimum of two polygraph charts relative to the testing issue. I am not sure of what the ASTM Standard is.
[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 06-10-2004).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-10-2004 12:37 PM
J.B. You may be right about your Polyscore reasoning. I'm not sure. As I said, my polygraph school taught me to do four charts with the Bi-zone. It was Don Krapohl who told me the fourth chart was not necessary if I adjusted my cut-offs to +/-4.If a test looks close (as I'm scoring in my head as I go), I'll do the fourth chart to see if that tips the scales. It's much like you do with a UTAH test: If after three charts, the results are INC, then run two more. Score all five and what you get is what you get. (They claim it will usually result in a conclusive score.) So, I don't think it's unorthodox to run three or four charts depending on the situation. The data we have though, shows you need to adjust your scores (with the bi-zone - not the UTAH test) depending on how many charts we run. IP: Logged |
AD
Member
|
posted 06-10-2004 09:31 PM
I'm not sure how many charts the latest polycore version is designed to score but I've been getting conclusive results with polyscore scoring only two bi-zone charts. (Used as quality control only) IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 06-11-2004 09:25 AM
If the proper running of the bi-zone or you-phase test you are running specifically states that two charts are enough so be it. I am just saying that we should not deviate from running the test the way it was run when researched and shown to be a valid test. That goes for any formatI have run the bi-zone where the third chart puts the overall result in the inconclusive range when if I had stopped after two it would have been conclusive. I don't know why that happens, maybe the subject just woke up and realized what I was asking, or maybe they thought of something related to the comparisons. Maybe I did something wrong in between charts and ruined the psych set but I can't go back and leave that chart out and the training I got on this test says three charts so thats what I run. We here are all reasonably intelligent and certainly understand our profession. Personally I have no problem with the idea of using two charts if a score is obviously conclusive but I didn't make the rules or do the research and quite frankly this is the type of thing that hurts us. When examiners make changes based on thinking that they can do it better. Maybe they can but they can't back it up with research to prove it. I believe that you could take any testing technique and leave out sacrifice relevants or symptomatics or nuetrals and probably have no statistical difference in the outcome of most exams but to do so on any test that calls for them would invalidate the test and that is not my decision to make. I may be a little over the top on this but I really believe that if we are going to survive as a profession we can't be cowboys and change things because we "found a better way". If you think you can improve testing or come up with a better technique great. We need that and we need people who can do that. Just do the research to prove it works and I will be behind you all the way. Lord knows I am not that kind of person. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 06-11-2004 01:21 PM
AMEN Jack Altering test structure on a criminal specific or pre-employment test is just asking for trouble. It's like leaving out that confusing appointed attorney thingy in the Miranda Warning. Does anyone think that Baxter or DODPI would stand up in court or a disciplinary hearing before a State licensing Board, or professional association and endorse an altered test format? I don't have the time, the desire, and probably possess insufficient intelligence to conduct my own research and validation studies. I decline to disrespect others hard work by bastardizing their product. If you have to do it, do it all and do it right.
------------------
but then, that's just one man's opinion
IP: Logged |
AD
Member
|
posted 06-11-2004 02:09 PM
Great thread! As we can see there are many varying opinions on this issue. Various types of exams, training techniques, and scoring differences, etc etc have somewhat "muddied" our profession for some time. Until a formal standardization is set for all polygraphers,training institutes, and associations, these types of issues will always be open for discussion. I was simply noting in my previous thread that polyscore will in fact score a Bi-Zone after two charts. [This message has been edited by AD (edited 06-11-2004).] IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 06-11-2004 05:16 PM
Ad, well said so how about everyone joins ASTM and helps in the development of standards for all professional examiners.I just had to say it, Jack P S everyone have a great weekend. ------------------
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 06-12-2004 09:00 AM
ADIf the examinee is left handed, I compare the relevant to the control on the right. If the examinee is right handed, I compare it to the control to the left. This is something Sackett taught me over cocktails when I was in Canada. Yes, we all need to join and participate in ASTM! Ted IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 06-14-2004 08:22 AM
Ted I'll have a double of whatever you guys were drinkingIP: Logged |
Nate Gordon
Member
|
posted 06-14-2004 11:07 AM
I am confused about how we invent terms in our industry. Cleve Backster's
Tri Zone Comparison Techniques are named such because he identifies three
zones of interest: the red zone (relevant questions) to draw the
psychological set of the deceptive, the green zone (comparison questions) to
draw the psychological set of the truthful, as later verified suspect, and
the black zone (sym,ptomatic questions) to ensure the examinee has the
capability to focus on the question with the test structure. Three zones:
red, green and black.If an examiner decides to only use two relevant questions in their zone
format they still have THREE ZONES! They have two "spots" - THREE ZONES.
What is a bi-zone???? Also, what is the difference between a Zone and MGQT? Is it that one is a
single issue format and the other a multi-issue format? No! Backster has
two multi issue zone formats - the S-K-Y and Exploratory. The difference is
format structure. The techniques derived from Reid, which the MGQT is, are
made up of two relevant questions followed by a comparison question, and
then two relevant questions followed by a comparison question again,
interspersed with irrelevant questions. Zone formats have even numbers of
relevant and comparison questions, positioned next to each other, and
usually are presented in a comparison - relevant sequence. REID - MGQT 1. Irrelevant
2. Irrevant 3.Relevant
4.Irrelevant 5.Relevant
6.Comparison
7.Irrelevant 8.Relevant
9.Relevant 10.Comparison Zone 1. Irrelevant
2. Symptomatic
3. Weak relevant
4. Comparison
5. Relevant
6. Comparison
7. Relevant
8. Comparison
9. Relevant
10. Symptomatic If I decide three relevant questions are not sufficient for my case and decide to develop a "new technique", which looks like this, what do I have? NEW TECHNIQUE 1. Irrelevant
2. Weak relevant
3. Comparison
4. Relevant
5. Comparison
6. Relevant
7. Comparison
8. Relevant
9. Comparison
10. Relevant Is this "new technique" a MGQT or Zone? All I have done was taken the Zone format, thrown out the symptomatic questions (2 and 10) and replaced them with an extra set made up of a comparison and relevant question. It is not an MGQT. It is a Zone! How confusing it is to name this "new technique" the AFMGQT? We certainly have a long way to go to clean up our acts! Sincerely, Nathan J. Gordon
Director
Academy for Scientific
Investiagtive Training www.polygraph-training.com
IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 06-14-2004 11:53 AM
It is of my understanding that DoDPI calls the You Phase a Bi-Zone. This is prevalent in the literature and in reviewing some ASTM reports of the test methods reviewed for standardization. I believe that you too Nate have a variation of the Zone listed for review?IP: Logged |
Nate Gordon
Member
|
posted 06-18-2004 08:08 AM
I do use a Zone - Integrated Zone Comparison technique. My remarks were that we should use our knowledge of polygraph to properly name things. There is no such thing as BiZone since it has THREE ZONES (Black-Red-Green), and the AFMGQT IS NOT a MGQT, it is a ZONE! IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 06-18-2004 08:25 AM
NateWould it be more accurate to call the AFMGQT by some other name;such as Multiple Issue ZCT? ebvan IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 06-18-2004 10:50 AM
Nate,I understand your point on the Zone, as I have heard Cleve Backster talk about it, and it is well put given that the test is administered as Backster designed and instructs for his theory. I think that the terminology BI-Zone could be accurately used with Backster’s terminology if we look at the test in a different way. If we assume that the symptomatic questions are as effective as research has shown, we may include the symptomatics but eliminate them as a zone. Now we are left with two zones "Red" and "Green". Aside from the previously mentioned Backster Zones, two other zones fit his terminology inasmuch as the Irrelevant serves as a Buffer Zone and the Sacrifice Relevant serves as a Dampening Zone. Since we are talking about trying to get to an intelligent and proper use of terminology, let us look at the definition of zone. Webster’s best-fit definition, for our purposes, of zone is that of “a region or area set off as distinct from surrounding or adjoining parts”. Zone is akin to “gird”. The best-fit definition of gird is, “to encircle or bind with a flexible band (as a belt)”. So if we look at the exam structure, possibly the most fitting part of the exam structure to be labeled “zone” are the spots. So if we have three spots it would be a Tri-Zone and two spots a Bi-Zone. After all, it is the Zone of Comparison Technique. Just my thoughts on the subject. [This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 06-18-2004).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-21-2004 10:17 AM
I probably should create a new post, but I'll test the waters here since the issue arose here.Last week I completed phase one of a research project I hope to complete in the next few months, but I need some help. My goal is to come up with suggested cut-off scores and a probability table for the Bi-Zone test using the Kircher values OSS uses. (Later, I hope to do more with the data, but one thing at a time.) How many would be willing to send me copies of confirmed Bi-Zone charts? (The more I have the better the end results will be.) If you are interested, then how many of each (DI / NDI) could you send me? (If you decide to send them, I'll need to know how each test was "confirmed.") Later, I'd like to compare the "standard" Bi-Zone scores to those tests in which the symptomatics have been removed. (For those of you who don't know, research has shown they don't do anything; though, a recent study has shown they make it more difficult for the innocent to pass.) I'm curious as to how many people run the tests in that mannner so I can figure out if there is enough data to do anything with. Once I come up with some conclusions, I'll let everbody know what I've learned.
IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
