posted 09-15-2003 07:47 AM         

It's (kinda sorta) modeled after the SKY technique, but includes no comparison questions. Instead, R1, R2, and R3 are compared. It is hypothesized that consistent responding to R3 would be indicative of Cm use.

The test would be explained to the subject as follows, "Some people mistakenly think they can 'beat' the polygraph and then try to distort the recordings. The following test will give you the opportunity to show me that you're not one of those people."

--------------------

Test for Countermeasures

Irr. - Do people sometimes call you ________?

Irr. - Are you wearing shoes?

SR - Would you lie to even one of these questions if you thought you could get away with it?

Irr. - Are the lights on in this room?

R1 - Did you ever read any material on how to manipulate a polygraph examination?

Irr. - Are you in (city/state)?

R2 - Did you ever rehearse any techniques to manipulate a polygraph examination?

Irr. - Do people sometimes call you __________?

R3 - Did you attempt to manipulate your polygraph examination here today?

Irr. - Are you in (city/state)?

-------------

The above is just a suggestion and would probably need some refinement, and of course, validation before being put into use. Any thoughts?

------------------
It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it.

posted 09-15-2003 06:33 PM         

I like it! I use the CVOS type test as a stim test. One of the questions in the test is "Have you done anything to defeat the purpose of this test?" What do you think?

posted 09-16-2003 12:08 AM         

I would be concerned about asking any questions about the subject having attempted to defeat a stim test. If the subject attempts to manipulate the stim test, which includes a direct question on whether he attempted to defeat it, and you don't call him on it, then he will be emboldened when it really counts.

On the other hand, if the subject is challenged re: Cms during the stim test but was not in fact consciously trying to defeat the purpose of the test, he may lose confidence in the polygraph technique instead of gaining it (which is part of the whole rationale for the stim test).

How have you handled this? What kind of results have you obtained using this methodology?

posted 09-16-2003 10:22 AM         

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. When I discuss the polygraph process with the examinee in the pre-test, we discuss countermeasures. When I ask the question about doing anything to defeat the test, I make it clear to the examinee that I am referring to the entire test, not just the stim.

If I see a reaction to this question, I don't confront the subject. Instead, I take extra care to watch for countermesures from that examinee. I have found this to be very helpful in pre-employment tests. I have had several subjects who react to the question, attempt countermeasures and then admit to using them.

Ted

posted 09-17-2003 09:12 AM            

I think asking someone if they tried to beat a test or if they are going to try to beat a test might cause some problems. Also by focusing on this area by running a pre-test chart you run two possible risks; 1 you might shift their psych set to counter measures as opposed to the actual test and 2 if you are in a situation where you might have to run six charts and a stim they might run down on you and not provide sufficient information on the last chart or two.

Just something to think about.

Jack

posted 09-17-2003 11:14 AM         

It is certainly possible that a subject attempting Cms might be a genuine NDI trying to help himself along. But as I see it, we still have a professional obligation to do whatever we can to detect/deter countermeasures. What approach are you using?

posted 09-17-2003 11:15 AM            

The CM question I prefer in the CVOS is
Do you intend to TRY to tamper with the results of todays test? Would anyone here be interested in going over the basics of the CVOS and the type of anecdotal data it can provide regarding possible countermeasure, evidence of psychological set, undisclosed drug use etc.as well as how to handle observed reactions to each critical question.

I'd be willing to try to cover it in a post or two but it would take some time. Just let me know and I'll take a stab at it.

posted 09-17-2003 11:53 AM            

I was simply pointing out, in my previous post, that running charts for CM's prior to the test might shift their focus and or wear them down. Especially people who havbe no idea what you are talking about.

posted 09-17-2003 12:04 PM         

I think those are very good points you make regarding asking the subject about Cms prior to teh test. I think it also makes it more likely that if the subject had no idea about Cms before the test, they are more likely to get on-line and try to find out after the test.

What I don't understand is how just asking the subject what they know about polygraph before the test makes it "easy" to spot them during the test. What indicia are you using?

posted 09-17-2003 12:18 PM            

Hard core CM users, the ones that know what they are doing are the real problem and a counter measure chart may help with them.

Some one once told me, it may have been Elmer, that they keep a copy of Georges book inplain site on their desk just to let them know he keeps up with the Anti's

posted 09-17-2003 12:29 PM         

I agree that it's a good idea not to raise the subject of countermeasures unless the subject mentions it first. I also prefer not to even use the word "countermeasures" (instead use: attempts to distort the test, etc.) unless the subject first mentions it.

And keeping a copy of George & Gino's "book" is also a potentially good deterrent to countermeasures, but on the downside it's also advertising them to those who might not have been to the anti site.

But what I don't see is how any amount of pre-test deterrence actually makes countermeasure detection simpler. The difficulties involved are why I've been working on the "Test for Countermeasures" I posted above. If you've got an easy method for spotting countermeasures, I could really use it!

posted 09-17-2003 01:59 PM            

I tell them in the pre-test that the test focus is on two area's (pre-employment)their suitability to be an officer (relevant questions) and their overall honesty and integrity (comparison). I tell them we will ask questions about both area's. I also tell them we have known truth questions (irrelevant) that I know they are answering truthfully. I tell them these are also known as "control" or "comparison" questions.

Of course on the test they try their CM's on the irrelevant questions which is very easy to see(physical). They mental counter measures, in alot of cases, are discernable also but I believe they show up as delayed reactions or even what you might think of as confusion.

Hope that makes more sense, Jack

posted 09-17-2003 03:22 PM         

But what concerns me is that, in my opinion, a determined opponent is not likely to mistake the irrelevants for comparison questions. The Lie lays out the difference pretty clearly, I think, so I expect the smarter ones are still going to attempt their Cms on the comparison questions.

------------------
It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it.

posted 09-17-2003 05:40 PM            

I do have the pneumatic motion sensor from Lafayette and it does work in most situations.

Jack

posted 09-25-2003 05:55 PM           

I tend to think we worry too much about counter-measures. If we take some simple steps, like I outlined above, no casual user will be able to tell the difference between a comparison and an irrelevent....I mean, it takes polygraph students quite a while to grasp the difference!

In my pre-employment exams, I tell people that I am not using a test which employs comparisons, but rather a simple relevant/irrelevant test. Then, I use comparisons which don't appear to be comparisons at all....example: Did you ever lie to an oral board? or Did you ever lie on a resume? or Did you ever axxagerate your qualifications to anyone?

Just my two cents' worth.

Chip Morgan