posted 10-17-2002 01:10 PM            

I think Pre-employment screening is still a viable tool. One screening technique I use is to have the examinee construct a statement of facts relating to past activities and application truthfulness and then conduct a specific issue confirmatory regarding their truthfulness in their signed statement. Failure results in either an admission or a SPOT test to identify possible problem areas for further specific issue testing. This may seem backwards, but it seems effective.

Everyone study the NAS report, NOT the reports on the report, they can be mis-leading and get us into trouble.

I think we will find some unexpected allies whether we want them or not. Williams and Matsche would end up selling french fries at McD's if it weren't for Polygraph.

Standardization of technique and scoring may hold the secret to saving our profession.

posted 10-17-2002 11:03 PM            

A brief summary of some ways the NAS review panel suggested to improve polygraph. First, develop a sound theory. Second, Conduct further research not funded by entities dependent on the polygraph and peer reviewed by accredited professional journals, also not dependent on the polygraph. Finally, search for updated technology that provides better measurement of the physiology, both in components for the polygraph and other instrumentation.

posted 10-18-2002 03:52 AM         

I was out on a field assignment to test a high priority candidate for hire
as well as some others last week when the NAS report came out. Well, the
high priority was SR, and after several hours was still unable to resolve
the outstanding issues.

posted 10-18-2002 09:25 PM            

I am sorry to hear of your experiences and the rather unprofessional antics of your fellow workers and supervisor. Although I am not a supporter of the use of polygraph for pre-employment screening, I do realize that there are many dedicated and professional examiners who carry out this troublesome task due to government policies.

I think of our career as law enforcement officers much in the same way as that of a soldier’s at constant war. We are always at battle with crime, terrorism, racism, and many other foes that spring in the paths of our daily patrols of society. As is common in war, we are further burdened with political policies that sometime hamper or endanger our mission and a relentless media that is quick to find fault and slow to exalt praise in it.

For you, I leave these quotes:

quote:

---

Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

quote:

---

It is the unconquerable nature of man and not the nature of the weapon he uses that ensures victory.

- General George S. Patton Jr

---

[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 10-18-2002).]

posted 10-21-2002 09:13 AM            

Employers use applications to make this prediction whether or not polygraph enters the picture. Noone appears ready to declare that process questionable or unscientific even though it obviously is. Truthfulness regarding disclosures made during application and interviews is a vital part of employment decision making. Fear of potential liability makes previous employers reluctant to candidly discuss their former employees.

No one is attacking the psycological pre-employment interview which uses the way an individual answers questions to quanitfy suitability for employment even though the result of such an interview is a wholly subjective one.

I don't know of any company or government organization that does not at least consider termination of consideration, or employment based on the discovery of false information in an application.

Polygraph can provide valuable insight into the issue of truthfulness in the application process that is not available by other means.
Unfortunately some bosses seem to want you to cover 15-20 issues in an exam and some examiners resort to poor polygraph practices to please the bosses. A single issue exam regarding application truthfullness seems to leans towards the type of examination less criticized by the N.A.S. Report

I think that complete applications, thorough background investigations, and good polygraph exams, work in concert to identify persons unsuitable for employment.

I am less sure about periodic post-employment screening examinations unless they can be focused on a specific issue.

posted 10-21-2002 10:05 AM            

I keep telling the powers to be here that it is the information gathered not the results of the test that really show the benefits of pre-employment screening.

We have started several criminal investigations this year on information gained in a pre-employment screening, not to mention all the disqualifying admissions we get on a routine basis.

To stop doing pre-employment screenings would be to allow alot of potentially dangerous or unwanted personnel into the department that a background check, psych eval and drug screen would not necessarily eliminate.

We may not be able to put a percentage of accuracy on a screening test but it is still way above 50-50.

We need to keep working on dealing with countermeasures and not calling truthful people liars. The better we get at that the lower our error rate will be.

posted 10-21-2002 10:53 PM            

The NAS did not say that polygraph has no value in a pre-employment screening setting. The NAS quite frequently speaks of the polygraphs ability to provide valued admissions and deterrence. It speaks of past bodies drawing similar conclusions as to the utility of polygraph in screening. They seem to suspect its value has perceivably less substance than the expected negative results and effects.

Your reasoning on why employers have prospective employees fill out applications does correctly scratch the surface of a much broader scope. There is also the ability of the employer to obtain permission of disclosure, discover less desirable traits from the past and present, and get a basic contact list and area of focus to start their initial background investigation. Regardless, all of these probable things are investigated and decisions substantiated through a background investigation.

No-one has ever labeled or inferred to either background questionnaires or investigations as scientific.

Psychological questionnaires are a different type of scientific test than are polygraphs. Although there are some similarities, I would not brave the comparison of the two. A brief scouring of the available peer-reviewed scientific research on the MMPI will enlighten the reasoning behind this.

You are quite correct to point to the prospective employers use of the prospective employees falsification of an application as grounds for termination within an pre-employment process. Polygraph can and the NAS submits it does provide valuable admissions regarding this and many other issues. However, an applicant’s disqualification from the employment process due to falsification of their application is based on substantiated evidence. A prospective employer’s disqualifying them based only on a polygraph failure, minus any substantiated evidence, is a much different issue.

I think you have confused the true meaning of specific issue/incident with the use of a misnomer definition single issue. Although a specific issue may test on a single issue, that which separates a screening examination from a specific issue is not found in the number of issues being tested. A specific issue test may in fact have multiple testable issues within a single incident. Specific issue testing is more correctly defined as a test of a specifically known incident.

posted 10-21-2002 11:01 PM            

Although the background check, psychological evaluation and drug screen may not necessarily eliminate some of those applicants that a polygraph may, the polygraph has been shown to also inherently and incorrectly eliminate qualified applicants that those same aforementioned processes do not.

We need to separate our assertions from that which is more correctly classified as the polygraphs hit rate from that which is more fallaciously deemed as the percentage of accuracy of a polygraph screening exam. Often the percentages touted in polygraph research are the hit rates for deceptive.

posted 10-22-2002 08:24 AM            

You are quite correct. This is why some examiners are thinking about sometime of chart that would give known error rates for certain types of examinee's and adjusting for that. For example in certain situations with known types of subjects and certain techniques, instead of using a scoring breakdown of + or - 6, it might be +4 -6 to lower the error rate and reduce inconclusives.

I may be explaining this all wrong but that is at least the general idea. Our big problem is not in catching liars but calling truthful people deceptive. Until we can signifigantly lower the rate of false positives we need to continue to focus our attention on this problem.

The NAS report is focused on testing employes of the DOE for sabatoge and espionage and basically only says the error rate is to high in that situation to be acceptable. I saw nothing that said polygraph did not work. It said that accuracy rates are not scientifically accurate due to flaws in the research. It did say that polygraph works and can be a valuable tool. Its just says it is much higher than chance but not as accurate as research might indicate.

posted 10-22-2002 12:15 PM            

It is unseemly for you to presume that because I merely scratch the surface with a comment that I am unaware of the deeper aspects of the full value of written applications. My comment was meant to provide a basis for my remarks and was purposely general. I didn’t feel the need to educate the members of this bulletin board on that issue. I find your statement regarding whether background questionnaires or investigations are scientific is more accurately an extrapolation of your comments rather than mine, even though a reader could easily interpret that you were directing your energy at my statements.

My reference was to the employer who goes with his “gut” based on what the application says and the psychological personal interview being taught and conducted in the corporate world, wherein an interviewer asks a series of prepared questions in an attempt to determine employment suitability based on the evaluators subjective evaluation of the prospective employees response. This has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific accuracy or validity of the MMPI and similar tests. Every officer in our state submits to an MMPI prior to certification. The comparison you said you weren’t brave enough to make came from your observations not mine.

I have never seen an employee in my organization lose an employment opportunity based solely on polygraph results. They have been disqualified based on admissions and facts disclosed by investigation of information, which came to light as a result of the polygraph process. We don’t disagree on that.

Perhaps I did misstate myself regarding a single-issue exam. I think anyone who read my post could easily interpret that I was referring to the idea that we might be better off focusing our examinations on application truthfulness.
Even though I found your tone condescending and offensive, I appreciate your pointing this out to me. I resent your attempt to discount my comments with an editorial blue pencil rather than simply stating your points of agreement or disagreement with what I say. It smacks of elitism and tends to inhibit the free exchange of thought.

In closing I would like to convey to you that even though I may disagree with your opinion on issues, I respect your right to hold and express them without having to submit to personal criticism. I enjoy listening to others. It is one of the ways I learn. I will, however; expect the same consideration.

posted 10-22-2002 09:26 PM            

I adamantly agree with your ideas on adjusting scoring to suite the application. I believe we can choose the types of errors we make. It is a trade off though. If we adjust the scoring to reduce the number of false positives, we increase the number of errors on true positives. I think you are right on track with your ideas and explanations. I suspect that this idea is being looked at as we write.

I apologize if my last post conveyed any sentiments that I think polygraphs do not work. I meant quite the opposite. In my opinion, the scientific minds have been somewhat frustrated by the inability to define exactly why it works and does so in many different applications. I am not asserting that polygraphs work the same for all applications. The NAS themselves submit that polygraph works well above chance, but well below perfect in a specific issue examination. They attach a list of other variables that may be required for this statement to be true.

I do not want to get into a situation of a ‘house divided’ amongst us. I am simply stating what I have ascertained from reading the NAS report and other available research. I give credence to the idea that we can all learn and improve from others’ experiences. Conceivably, we all bring something of value to the table. We are currently enthralled in a full blown battle for polygraph. The anti-polygraph groups are filing lawsuits against federal government entities and lobbying congress for the end of all polygraph screening. Although this current movement is focused on the elimination of polygraph screening, it would not take much for a lobbyist to slip other more restrictive legislation in with other pending legislation on polygraph. This is how the pro-CVSA groups have been operating.

Respectfully Yours,

posted 10-22-2002 10:53 PM            

I did not nor am I now claiming that polygraph has no value. Again, I believe quite the opposite.

My last post to you was not meant to be demeaning. I do not place myself above any one man. I think we are all rather distinguished and honored to be selected to serve society as we do to the best of our given abilities. The emphasis on the definitive words were simply meant to provide focus on those words that are being defined, as is seen in many text books. In my opinion, the emphasis makes it easier for one to revisit that word or words which are being spoken of in the definitive sense after further reading.

I was not suggesting that you are involved in a troubling application. I am pointing to the presumable misuses of polygraph that have brought us to this particular incertitude. There are, as I think you eluded to in the past, other organizations that are seemingly using polygraph in a broader scope. I would add that there are agencies who are ostensibly using such practices as a sole determinant for employment. Because there is little regulation on how some polygraph tests are conducted, there is a wide variance in how the polygraph is presumably being used in a pre-employment setting.

You are correct in that my comments on the other aforementioned process were to broaden the scope of your earlier discussion. In an earlier post, I deducted that you asked the question of why certain other process were not being attacked for their lack of scientific validity. Thinking this was not a rhetorical question, I gave my answer to your question of why I presume it has not.

My inference to the MMPI was in response to your talking of psychological interviews. I see now that I erred in reading what you were speaking of, as I do more often then I would care to when reading, thinking, and writing into the late hours of the evening. I was speaking of brave in a different context.

I think your assertion of how a polygraph may be properly used in a pre-employment setting could make an excellent basis for model:

quote:

---

I think that complete applications, thorough background investigations, and good polygraph exams, work in concert to identify persons unsuitable for employment.

---

posted 10-23-2002 08:18 AM            

The only thing the report really did was to damage the credability of the research done on Polygraph in the last 20 years. Didn't we all know that researching Polygraph was difficult? Didn't we all know that lab studies don't relate well to real world testing? We all new that percent of accuracy on research studies is only for the results of that study an not an overall indication of the accuracy of all Polygraph testing. Most of the research we think of as positive for Polygraph show the results between 80 to 100 % accurate. So we believe that the truth is somewhere in between.

Isn't that essentially what the report said? "well above chance but nowhere near perfect" Well the reported accuracy of Polygraph results from recent research shows it to be well above chance but far from perfect.

The real damaging part to the report is relating to employee screening, particularly relating to sabotage and espinonage by current employees. The report saying this type of testing had to high of an error rate to be acceptable. Maybe it does. Maybe we can correct that and maybe we can't. Our goal at this point, I believe, should be to try to improve the error rate for this type of test. As the report says, this type of test, even with its flaws, is our best tool. The second goal should be to point out that the other types of testing should not be held in the same light as "employee screening tests for espionage and sabotage". That pre-employment screening and certainly specific testing, as reported by the NAS are our best current tool when used properly.

posted 10-23-2002 12:25 PM            

We need to be prepared to deal with those who try to use the report to paint us with too broad a brush.

Could it be that the use of polygraph in espionage screening has evolved to it's current state, not based on it's utility, but on it's economy? By economy, I mean the simple fact that it is an easier and less expensive way, given the number of workers who carry security clearances,to provide a sense of security to the administration of the National Security process than other methods of ferreting out spies.

I believe it is wrong to deny employment based solely on a set of polygraph charts.
Likewise if the intellegence community labels someone a spy solely on polygraph results and then changes their status, they are not doing their jobs.

Why should we sit still and and allow polygraph to shoulder the blame, when the powers that be should be obligated to show proof beyond polygraph before damaging someone's career.

There is no reason in the world why we can't still use our profession to help point them in the right direction.

posted 10-23-2002 10:36 PM            

I think the answer to your question is inasmuch as how many examiners do you see consistently involved in the advancement or betterment of polygraph. I do not mean this in a negative way, although it can be to some extents. Some are content with conducting polygraphs and need nothing more. Sometimes that is where their talent or desire is best utilized. Considering what we may seemingly face any day, I hope, as I gather from your statements you do as well, that more individuals will get involved to a greater extent. Simply contacting the polygraph associations one is affiliated with and offering their talents available for use when they are so needed is of great help. As I have said previously, conceivably, we all bring something of value to the table. Sometimes a talent we posses that may seem trivial to us can be of great utility in a grander scale.

posted 10-23-2002 10:59 PM            

from: http://www.msnbc.com/news/822891.asp

quote:

---

JARRETT: When it comes to telling the truth, it seems lie detectors flunk the test. That's right, this according to the panel of scientists who spent 19 long months studying polygraph machines. They found that lie detectors often say that people telling truth are lying, and vice versa. Still, some experts stand behind the accuracy of polygraphs. A handful of government agencies still use them quite a bit.

For more on this controversy surrounding so-called lie detector tests, we're joined now from San Francisco by Professor David Faigman of the University of California, San Francisco, Hastings College of the Law, my alma mater. Say hello to Dean Kane for me. And with us from Atlanta: Dan Sosnowski, who is the director of the American Polygraph Association.

OK, Dan, this is the esteemed National Academy of Sciences that is now saying you can get away with lying to a lie detector test and the test itself can lie about results by falsely suggesting an honest person is lying. You're the pro. Is the academy wrong?

DAN SOSNOWSKI, AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSN.: Well, it's nice that we are finally get some research in this area of screening.

I tend to agree with the academy saying that there is a lack of research showing that the polygraph is an absolute scientific tool in that particular area. But, obviously, the results that we come by with the polygraph is great, because individuals who are coming in are telling us constantly information that they would never divulge if it wasn't for the polygraph.

JARRETT: Well, but that doesn't mean that the test itself is reliable, but it may be a good coercive technique. Look, they spent 19 months, Dan, studying polygraphs. They came to the conclusion it's not reliable enough to use in employee security screening for federal agencies. Would you use it for that purpose?

SOSNOWSKI: Oh, absolutely. We have to look at what's being done and what kind of questions are being asked and what's the end result. Are individuals coming in there-not just as a coercive tool. If individuals clearly fail a polygraph-and that's by having physiological reactions observed on the test-we afford them the opportunity to say what was bothering them. And they end up telling us a lot of information.

JARRETT: Professor, what do you think about the accuracy of polygraphs?

DAVID FAIGMAN, HASTINGS SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, let me be very clear. The committee said that it was not valid, in that it's a very weak tool, something more like an ax than a scalpel.

And so what we're saying really is that the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the FBI, the CIA, should not rely on the polygraph and certainly not rely on the polygraph to the exclusion of other technologies. The validity, the accuracy is extremely weak. It's likely to produce many, many false positives, people accused of being spies when in fact they're not spies or terrorists, or they're not terrorists.

And, perhaps even more troubling, it's likely to allow some people who are indeed spies or terrorists to get through.

(CROSSTALK)

JARRETT: Would you recommend that it be eliminated completely and used for absolutely nothing?

FAIGMAN: Well, we are not necessarily saying that it should not be use for utilitarian purpose. As you said yourself, it may indeed be a very effective interrogation tool.

But, of course, as long as the examinee believes that a refrigerator or a Xerox machine is a very effective tool, then people will come in. And if they're told they're not doing very well on the test, then they might very well own up to minor security violations. Or, as we see in the criminal context, they might own up to criminal activity.

JARRETT: Dan, you want to respond to that?

SOSNOWSKI: Well, again, it's interesting where the studies are coming from and why are they basically saying it doesn't work.

And it's just like if an individual was requested to submit to a drug test-and sometimes they'll say, "Let's go for a 10-panel type of a screen," that means they're looking at 10 different type of potential drugs that's used. If the individual comes back positive, it doesn't mean he's using every single drug. We have to look at in a screening aspect vs. a very specific type of a situation.

JARRETT: But would you disagree with what the professor said, when the professor said, in terms of accuracy, it's extremely weak.

SOSNOWSKI: Well, just a stand-alone, where you're going to look just only at reactions, possibly it is somewhat weak. But we have to look at the whole totality of that picture.

JARRETT: Gentlemen, I'm so sorry. We're out of time. I hope you'll come back.

Professor David Faigman, Dan Sosnowski, thank you very much.

FAIGMAN: My pleasure.

SOSNOWSKI: Thank you.

---

posted 10-24-2002 07:53 AM            

If we start spouting things we can't back up or make statements about the report without being sure of what we are saying we will make things worse.

Assuming we have read and understand the report then we have to accentuate the positves in the report, just as others are highlighting the negatives. I am obviously predjudice concerning Polygraph and anyone I talk to about Polygraph is going to know that. That means I have to be able to back up what I say and I have to do it unemotionally. We as a profession can't get involved in a macho type discussion with our detractors and we can't do as they tend to do and take statements out of context.

When someone says, "this report says Polygraph doesn't work" our response should be "that is not what it says". We can't let them get away with the exaggerations and blanket statements they like to make but we can't get emotional and argue with them.

The report says, Polygraph is the best tool currently being used. It says the error rate for employee screening tests is to high to be acceptable. Do we as examiners accept this high error rate or do we try everything we can to lower any known error rate?

Who better than we, know the strengths and weaknesses of what we do. Do we not, everytime we give an examination, try to keep any errors from occurring by running the best test we can possibly run? If not, why not, we should.

On this forum we as professionals can debate, argue, SCREAM, HOLLER or do whatever to try to get our point across but we can not do that with anyone outside the profession.

To some examiners running Polygraphs is just a job, a way to make money. To most of us it is much, much more.