posted 06-25-2003 06:33 PM         

We, in the polygraph profession, are at a crossroads. There is a great divide in our profession as to the proper method of chart analysis. Do we score to the strongest, or the weakest control? DoDPI says go to the strongest control, and Backster,(among others) says go to the weakest. So who is right?

I am a Backster grad but I am not opposed to change provided it is for the better. Remember that it was Backster who invented numerical scoring and the seven point scale is the only one DoDPI recognises today.

I don't think our problem in court would be DI vs. NDI. It will more than likely be a DI or NDI vs. inconclusive. The fact that the problem even exists in the first place, is what troubles me and the rest of our profession.

ASTM has made standardization a priority. They want us all on the same page which will be a good thing. The question is, which page will we be on?

Backster presents a powerful arguement for scoring to the weakest control. I am sure DoDPI has an equally powerful arguement for their position.

I guess what I am looking for in this post is your thoughts on standardization.

I beleive that we should get involved and all work together toward a mutually acceptable system of chart analysis. This can only enhance our profession and perhaps, end a decades long dispute.

And lastly, before you go knocking the Backster method and some of his experiments, remember he was not the first scientist to do "different" types of research. At an early age, Sir Isac Newton's mother found him sitting on a chicken's nest. He was trying to see if he too could hatch the eggs in the nest. Look at what his early experiements evolved into!

Your input is appriciated!

Ted

posted 06-27-2003 01:58 PM            

I don't think that ASTM is necessarily the best positioned entity to set guidlines for the profession. As well meaning and qualified as they are, their standardization ideas come from too small a population to accurately represent the needs of the profession.

For example: They have taken a position that a police officer cannot be sufficently objective to perform treatment or corrections based sex offender polygraph testing, but they are silent on the issue of Psychologists and Psychiatrists who provide services to law enforcement being prohibited from post conviction offender treament. I see this as a double standard and I truly believe that this was an attempt by private practice examiners to reduce competition from law enforcement examiners. In my opinion ASTM standards should restrict themselves to "hardware requiremments" where polygraph is concerned and stay away from attempts to objectify the necessarily subjective aspect of polygraph. In fact if we didn't use an instrument to record data ASTM would probably not be interested in setting standards.

Our first step should be testing format standardization. APA and AAPP should meet and jointly publish a code of examiner conduct, and a compendium of acceptable testing formats to be used by the membership, followed by standard rules for question formulation and then scoring. New procedures would be submitted to a joint APA/AAPP committe for approval and acceptance. I would recomend that any format with someone's name attached to it be renamed by the committee. New formats should be a way to improve our results not stroke someone's overinflated sense of ego or memorialism.

Given the choice of being policed by professional polygraph examiners or by an organization that also has to worry about the adhesive capabilities of duct tape, I chose to put myself the hands of professional examiners.

posted 06-27-2003 03:15 PM            

Ted,one minor point about DODpi. They do recognize the three point scale.

Ebvan, I am not sure where you got your info on ASTM but it is not completely accurate. First we do need standards. Second it was not ASTM who decided to write standards for polygraph. Richard Widup and John Schwartz talked to ASTM to find out if they would be a viable place to begin to write standards that were not connected to any specific association so as to try to avoid any conflict between associations.

You are right, it is a small percentage of our profession that is actively involved in writing these standards. Do you belong? I don't know why every examiner does not belong and get involved. They should.

You are way off base if you think anyone in ASTM wrote a standard just to keep people from running tests or only allow certain people to run tests. When that standard was written it was done so by both private and law enforcement officers. The purpose was to avoid having any examiner involved in a conflict of interest. I am a law enforcement examiner and that standard would only keep me from doning tests that my department would not want me to do anyway.

You are right about ASTM having no enforcement capabilities as far as standards are concerned but the associations don't have much more. They can only refuse membership. Sorry to say that if you end up in court they understand what
ASTM is and cases have been won or lost depending on whether ASTM standards were used. I don't know if the same could be said for the associations.

The associations are great and need to have standards, as they do, but many times in the past they have not always agreed. Both the major associations, I believe, see the need for ASTM and are working with them.

Try going to a meeting of ASTM one time. You don't have to even be a member. Your opinion will be heard and listened to. It takes alot of give and take in these meetings to reach and agreement. The process is fair and majority rules, make your vote count. Don't let other people speak for you. Get involved, its your profession.

If you don't belong or aren't trying to make the profession better or think everything will work out, shame on you.

We all know the people on this web site do care and do try to make this profession better, otherwise you wouldn't bother posting here at all, and that is my opinion.

posted 06-27-2003 03:29 PM         

I am looking at a handout from DoDPI titled "Zone Comparrison Test (ZCT)" Forensic Science 502. It is dated September 1997. It reads on page 2 "Only usage of the Seven Point Scale is supported by DoDPI".

Has this changed??

THX

posted 06-27-2003 04:03 PM            

When two of their instructors were here last year instucting us on the LEPET test they told us to use the 3 position scale. So go figure. I think they both work.

What we need to do is have a standard for scoring criteria, which is actually being worked on. I think the majority of us look at the same things but the lines have gotten a little blurred over the years and sometimes we assume something is a scorable response that may not be. We need to stick to scoring only what we can prove to be valid responses. Dr. Raskin was questioned about his scoring criteria when he did his research and he said that the only things he would score are things he new to be a result of stimulation to the sympathetic system and anything else he would not score. I always thought that to be a good decision.

Jack

posted 07-02-2003 06:00 PM         

Nathan Gordon is the Director for the Academy For Scientific Investigative Training. Look up his web site and it should have contact info.