posted 01-09-2012 10:34 PM         

"...and the term "scientific muster" as if there is some science-czar that will ultimately approve or disapprove..."

Geez, Ray, don't give Obama any ideas!

posted 01-10-2012 06:44 AM            

Now, a little less rhetorically, I think we can all agree with the NRC (2003) conclusion that polygraph is less than perfect and better than chance. Whether it’s “good enough” depends on your politics. Gold, no. A turd, certainly not. It’s just the best that science can currently offer. Inasmuch as the NAS also concluded that there is no other method that can outperform the polygraph, a blanket statement that the polygraph is not good enough ignores some painful realities about the alternatives. (Factoid: In the history of the US, a background investigation has never caught a spy.)

Returning again to what this debate is really about, the marketing of practice tests, there are no APA prohibitions. There are no professional roadblocks to you going forward. As you can see, though, some of your professional colleagues have serious reservations about it, but this is not the same as being illegal or contrary to professional standards. We are having trouble seeing through the style of your argument to the merits of it. Who knows, your idea may just work. However, many of us believe there are better ways to make contributions to the profession and service to the public that do not depend on a cynical view of polygraphy to succeed. As you go about pursuing your new initiative I hope you will also consider these other ideas.

posted 01-10-2012 07:22 PM         

Skip it's a little odd you should mention those two particular things. Perhaps you could benefit from both?

Please call me at my office in the NH State Prison for Men (Concord) tomorrow. My direct line there is 603-271-1872. (No cell phones are allowed.) I'm running a test at 1300, so try to call between 0900-1230. I want to hear you tell me in person how much of a scumbag and enemy of the state I am.

posted 01-12-2012 09:01 AM            

Face it Dan, You're out there on your own on this one. Sure we've been "poking the bear" in fun a bit with here in the shadows of the message board but have you noticed absolutely no one on the message board has agreed with the 'logic" of your premise and your apparent disdain for the polygraph and it's lack of accuracy or scientific validity does kind of fly in the face of your web site claims of 95% accuracy.

The "court comment" was a nice touch though. It had kind of an Obama administration lean to it.

posted 01-12-2012 04:36 PM         

o About half of applicants are discontinued as a result of the polygraph test process, a test whose scientific underpinnings are widely condemned.

o Inevitably, false positives occur, perhaps a very high number of them -- no test is perfect, after all – and some very good people are eliminated by way of sheer collateral damage.

>>>>>Enter a marketing opportunity for the polygraph industry<<<<<

o Many honest applicants understandably fear the polygraph, perhaps about a single issue (e.g., drugs). So…
o Reach out to the fearful applicants.
o Exploit their fear (point to literature, court decisions and horror stories).
o Offer a professionally conducted practice test, along with a convincing rationale for taking one.
o Run the test(s); simply give the result. No charts are released or shown. There is no “coaching”.
o The examinees either get their fears assuaged or confirmed, and the examiner makes money.

From an industry (capitalist) standpoint, it advances the industry. What’s the problem?

From an ethical standpoint, it provides a remedy to the aggrieved. What’s the problem?

From a professional standpoint, it lends legitimacy to the polygraph. What’s the problem?

Skip:

o Your MO toward me seems to be to personally attack and discredit the “enemy” (i.e., anyone out of time with your goose-stepping brigade of robotic poly-troopers). Why? Can’t you argue the merits? I’m not in the army anymore, chief. Last time I checked it was perfectly OK for civilians to question authority -- even if the APA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Defense.

o Efficacy isn’t necessarily linked to science. Hook up that 8th grade dropout to an honest-to-goodness Xerox brand polygraph instrument -- being sure to tell him it was just serviced by Brother Domenic (Remember that great commercial from the 1980s?) -- and watch the efficacy come to life. “It’s a miracle!”

o Taking money for tests… I have no problem taking the $23.62 per hour I get paid (no bennies, btw, just straight time) from the State of NH for running PSCOT exams at the prison (about 600 exams over the past five years) or the hundreds of dollars I charge my private clients. I know the polygraph “works,” but it’s not because of the science. It’s almost entirely art.

o You seem to be suggesting that I do not run solid tests. What makes you think that? I’ve had tests reviewed by the NH and MA offices of the AG and the State Police. Same with my QA analyses. They concur with my findings. Your psyops bluster puts me on the other end of the spectrum. What causes you to do that to me?

o Just because no one else has stepped forward in such an open manner as have I, don't kid yourself into thinking that I'm alone on this one.

o I’m sorry that my mention of the word “court” rubbed you the wrong way. Perhaps I should have said “food court.”

Barry:

Your questions are immaterial to the marketing objective, which is to sell practice tests to a segment of society that necessarily gets victimized by a flawed screening process. My argument is that roughly half of applicants are eliminated as a result of the polygraph process. (Exactly where and how in the process it occurs doesn’t matter. They only heard that surviving post-polygraph is a 50/50 crap shoot, and they’re scared.) The key is to EXPLOIT the fear factor and convince the applicant that a practice test is in their best interest.

BTW, the NSA’s slickly produced pre-poly “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” video is a real howler. Those testimonials are priceless! I should know -- I used to produce similarly spun corporate propaganda videos.

Yes, the polygraph works, but it doesn’t work because it’s “scientific,” It works because (and usually only when) a very artful dog-and-pony show is part of the process in the pre-test “psych out” phase. It takes a certain -- and decidedly unscientific -- “knack” to run these tests and get high accuracy with them. Why should that be something to be ashamed of? I contend that the shame should come from foisting the polygraph off as being scientific in its own right, absent the obligatory psychological dog-and-pony show – not to mention the many other other variables that can influence the outcome.

Dan

posted 01-12-2012 06:16 PM            

You missed my point, but I tried. If you can't offer what you claim, isn't that a problem? Why is your error rate going to be better than somebody other than you? How many false positives will you get that will turn people away from ever trying for the police test they would have passed? It's bound to occur. If there's no science, stats or whatever to tell you if it's worth it, then how do you justify it? Your argument depends on the assumptions that you hold in contempt.

If you perform the "art" correctly and consistently, you get good results. You just defined science.

posted 01-12-2012 09:26 PM         

Web site duplication

posted 01-12-2012 09:27 PM         

I think I see now why you are so confused and angry.

Take care,

Ted

posted 01-12-2012 11:12 PM         

I'm dead serious, man. My rate when I started in 2007 was a little over $20/hr. And get this: the gig is capped at 29 hours per week, although a typical week is less than that.

The <29 hour-per-week cap is so the state doesn't have to pay any benefits, pension, earned time, etc. (NH likes to balance its state budget and has many such positions in state government, with more on the way, as well as increased outsourcing.)

It is not an easy living, and working behind the walls is most unpleasant.

The position had been vacant for the previous 14 months prior to my starting date of 02JAN2007. The examiner who did it before me did it for about 8 years, but he was a retired state trooper. Anyway, I figured I'd do it for a year or two, rack up some PCSOT cred, then move on.

I'm still there.

Why do I continue to do it? It sounds like a cliche, but my main motivation is "for the children" (victims) -- past, present and preventable. Inasmuch as I am revulsed when putting the squeeze on a skinner (after hearing about more crimes or details of their instant offense, or deviant behaviors, the info gained from the polygraph process greatly aids the therapists running the program.

Realistically, we may only get through to about a third of the SOs in "treatment," but at least it's something...

posted 01-13-2012 07:12 PM         

My hat is off to you brother. If you can do the work in the prison that you do and do it for what you get paid, you should be applauded! I don't have what it takes to deal with the "skinners" on a day to day basis-at any price.

My only concern with your posts is that it appears that you are involved in a field that you have no faith or confidence in. You are administering an exam that you feel is not accurate or valid in the scientific community. So why are you doing it?

This forum is a great place to "take off the gloves" and exchange ideas. I don't take any of the digs personally.(Just ask Ray!) If you can't run with the big dogs, then you should stay on the porch.

And for the record, I have never hung up the Chief's coat or provided him with a Danish-it was a donut!

Take care, stay safe, and keep the bad boys in your facility!

Ted

posted 01-15-2012 10:07 AM         

I agree that this board can be a fun but sometimes rough-and-tumble forum that's not for everyone. That said, the heated discussions usually end up being informative in one way or another.

You said:
>>>>My only concern with your posts is that it appears that you are involved in a field that you have no faith or confidence in. You are administering an exam that you feel is not accurate or valid in the scientific community. So why are you doing it?

Good question. I do polygraph because it "works" and can do a lot of good in some applications. Indeed, it's very satisfying when it does.

You chose a very telling pair of words, "faith" and "confidence." I have both, but not for any scientific reasons (which do not and cannot exist, IMHO).

Polygraph is much more akin to religion than it is to science.

I have complete faith and utter confidence that a polygraph test, employing the rituals of carefully crafted questions and an artfully choreographed dog-and-pony-show psych-out pre-test, to a naive and fully cooperative test subject will be accurate more often than not.

But there are a hell of a lot of variables in the mix.

If that sounds a lot like the bottom line to the 2003 NAS report, so be it. Maybe they were on to something.

One doesn't have to "buy into" the alleged science behind polygraph testing to be able to use polygraph effectively.

The pursuit of polygraph science is kind of like the arguments to prove man-made global warming is the main reason behind "climate change." Some people believe in it and get overly invested. They buy a Prius, outfit their home with CFLs, condemn smokestack bidnesses, have a portrait of Al Gore above their bed where a cross or a crucifix once resided, etc. Applying that to polygraph, I feel that all of the statistical alchemy in the world will never overcome the polygraph's inherent and deep weaknesses.

As someone on this board is known to say, "But that's just one man's opinion."

Ted, I look forward to buying you a beer and the chief a doughnut (or a rice cake, if that's his style these days) whenever I can afford to get to an APA shindig. Unless of course, a certain wholly owned subsidiary of the DoD petitions the The Commissar to send Seal Team Six -- or a ninja dude on a motorcycle flinging a magnetic satchel charge on my car -- to dispatch this out-of-step enemy of the state.

Dan

posted 01-16-2012 09:31 AM            

quote:

---

I have complete faith and utter confidence that a polygraph test, employing the rituals of carefully crafted questions and an artfully choreographed dog-and-pony-show psych-out pre-test, to a naive and fully cooperative test subject will be accurate more often than not.

---

posted 01-17-2012 06:27 AM            

And, on a personal note, where does this animosity for the DoD come from? They represent a very small minority of APA members, and there are none elected to the APA Board. Most are private examiners.

I'm just asking....

posted 01-19-2012 09:35 PM         

Good questions.

I have long contended -- as documented on this very board -- that polygraph is much more of an art than it is a science.

It is my position that the Quadri-Track is a very highly refined art form. The pre-test selling of the fear and hope questions is especially fragile, and requires a very delicate touch.

With its (relatively) convuluted structure, complex scoring rules and elaborate psychological manipulation of the test subject, the Quadri-Track is the antithesis of the dumbed-down approach to polygraph that is the current trend.

In my view, the Q-T is not for your garden variety polygraph examiner. It's for the polygraph artist -- and they are few and far between.

That's the difference.

As for your "animosity" charge, I don't rightly know. The edge you detect might be a learned behavior that's typical of many a Backster graduate and devotee...

Or maybe it stems from the fact that the feds seem to change scoring rules about as often as some people trade in their leased cars...

Or maybe it's because the feds don't abide by APA recommendations (video recording)...

Or maybe it's the Higazy case...

Or maybe it's that a small cabal seems to hold such sway over an entire "private" organization...

Or maybe it's because a guy practically gets accused of being an A-P enemy of the state because he considers offering private practice tests to applicants who are freaked out by a 50+% failure/DQ rate on the polygraph...

As Ted (not a fed) said: "You're either in or you're out."

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 01-19-2012).]

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 01-19-2012).]

posted 01-20-2012 08:57 AM            

Dan, as a humble private hack examiner from the opposite end of the country, I feel your pain! I have done, and hope to do again, all the types of testing the examiners with government paychecks and retirement benefits so easily disparage.

Like Gordon, I see the need for state regulatory boards, but I have reviewed shoddy and even faked results by respected board members in more than one state. Where do you file a complaint about that?

There was a time when I would have agreed that the APA was federal examiner dominated. Not for a bad reason, they just had the resources to attend every yearly meeting to make their votes count. Because of Don's leadership all members now have the same ability to cast a vote. Thank you Don!

And. lastly artful turd or science? The art is the ability to correctly analyze the case facts to formulate and ask the proper questions. I don't agree that subjects must be sold a pretest bill of goods for a proper result. I find that people given a reasonable objective pretest explanation of how things work still make excellent subjects. Although I understand only a small fraction of Ray's work, my limitation not his, he is the best thing that has happened to polygraph, ever, the direction he is pushing for is our future and someday we will have an acceptable theory to account for what we see every day we go to work.

posted 01-20-2012 10:06 AM            

quote:

---

It is my position that the Quadri-Track is a very highly refined art form. The pre-test selling of the fear and hope questions is especially fragile, and requires a very delicate touch.

---

So by "art" you mean the questions must be developed in a certain way in order to consistently achieve a certain outcome (correct results). The implication being if you don't do that right (and it takes a special examiner, so you say), you'll end up with the wrong results. You claim to know this based on the work some of you have done in regard to the Matte QTZCT, and from that past data, you expect to see similar results with future tests.

You've employed a logical fallacy (equivocation) in which you've renamed "science" with the word "art" in order to argue it's not science.

quote:

---

With its (relatively) convuluted structure, complex scoring rules and elaborate psychological manipulation of the test subject, the Quadri-Track is the antithesis of the dumbed-down approach to polygraph that is the current trend.

---

posted 01-20-2012 04:35 PM            

As for your view of DoD examiners, your animosity seems well entrenched, and perhaps not amenable to new information. This does not mean it is not worth the effort, though. For a more balanced view let me say that he DoD examiners I know work exclusively for the protection of the public, deal with some of the worse criminals there are, and do their best work in war zones far from our shores. I have seen their sacrifices first hand. There are heroes among them that most people will never know.

posted 01-20-2012 05:07 PM            

Please feel free to insult away! You certainly wouldn't be the first to insult me and would probably have to stand in a line longer than a wait for an Ipad 5. As one of those "examiners with government paychecks and retirement benefits", I am comfortable accepting any insult you wish to throw but it won't change the fact that if someone is charging the public to do something they absolutely know in their own heart is a scam or is inaccurate or unreliable, then they really should consider a more satisfying and fulfilling line of work.

posted 01-22-2012 03:02 PM         

What does my personal opinion of polygraph have to do with Tom Armitage's demonstrated abilities?

You say polygraph is science. I say it's art.

Backster pun aside, you make it sound like it has to be an either/or situation. Does it? If so, why?

Maybe it's both. Maybe it's neither.

Polygraph has eluded scientific capture for some eighty years. But today the statistical alchemists are hot on the trail, bamboozling everyone in their path as they attempt to shoehorn a Frankenstein creation into a gilded cloak of scientific legitimacy.

posted 01-23-2012 06:36 AM            

Don

posted 01-23-2012 07:57 PM         

Please fix your web site!. These duplicate post are making for far too much reading!

Ted

posted 01-23-2012 07:57 PM         

From your posts here, I am guessing that you have never been on the witness stand in regards to any of your polygraphs. I also doubt that you have ever been challenged or had to defend any of your exams.

Jim Matte wrote a book several years ago that referred to the "Art and Science" of polygraph. I agree that is is both, but without science, it has no value. That was SEVERAL years ago. Again, wake up and smell the decade.

If you are an "Artist" then you should have a studio on the water in some big city where people could appriciate, view and perhaps, purchase your work over a glass of wine. Or perhaps watch you as you perform a moment in Men's Expressive Dance.

If you are ever called into court to testify on one of your artistic polygraphs,
don't be surprised if you see a polygraph scientist such as Don, Mark, Ray, Barry and the like, sitting at the opposing table.

We have to be able to explain to the world why what we do has value, validity and is reliable. To do so, we must back that up with "science" which we have, and continue to do. "Art" does not make the grade.

I am really wondering when you are going to update your web site. It shows some amazing accuracy rates and no reference to "Art".

And Grandpa Don, I am 5'7 which is exactly why I stay off of crowded buses.

Ted

posted 01-23-2012 08:33 PM         

My only concern here is that when you get challenged in a court of law as an "Artist"
You will need a Scientist to save your "Artistic Self".

posted 01-23-2012 09:16 PM         

Ted:
Don't worry. It is my opinion that polygraph results have positively NO business in the courtroom. Polygraph is a great behind-the-scenes investigative tool. But to offer polygraph "test" results in a court of law? No way. Polygraph results are best left to pre-trial negotiations and/or for strategic manipulation of the media.

posted 01-24-2012 06:43 AM            

If you still are earnest about your "practice test" marketing drive, you should be aware of some of the characteristics of screening exams conducted by federal examiners.

1. You will need to find out what the test topics are for the given agency.

2. You will need to find out what the hiring standards are for the given agency.

3. You will need to find out what testing technique(s) the federal agency uses.

4. Each exam can take as much as 4 hours, and result in multiple sessions.

5. You will need an independent QC.

This will require a lot of homework on your part so you can make the practice test realistic and meaningful, and you aren't likely to get much help from the examiners you aim to replicate. It will be a significant undertaking. You can take shortcuts, of course. But then, the practice tests wouldn't really be doing what you are marketing them for. Customers are almost certain to find your service less than what they expect.

And as a last try to be helpful, I'll urge you take a second look at the domestic violence and drunk driving work. Seriously. If you want to really do something worthwhile, and maybe save a life, this area makes a lot of sense.

posted 01-24-2012 08:14 AM         

Thanks for mapping things out for me. Your outline is consistent with the tips I've received from former federal examiners who run such tests.

You said:
>>>Customers are almost certain to find your service less than what they expect.<<<
I sincerely doubt it.

And I appreciate you steering me toward DV/DWI work, I really do. But I've explored it and there's nothing cooking in my neck of the woods.

This month marks the beginning of my sixth (!) year doing PCSOT behind the walls at the state prison. As has been pointed out, the compensation is very meager, but is a true reflection of "the new normal" that is so much a part of today's economic landscape.

Dan

posted 01-24-2012 08:21 AM         

BTW, the accuracy number on my web site isn't my claim -- it's the APA's.
http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-research

posted 01-24-2012 12:07 PM            

I don't know where the 50% fail/DQ estimate comes from, but maybe it is not something to be concerned about.

Polygraph ethics, like law enforcement ethics and government ethics are often consequentialist/utilitarian ethics. Ethics is the philosophical discussion about right and wrong, good and bad - is their such a thing as evil? (aside: all the evil things I am aware of were done by humans not demons). In a practical way we have to decide whether we think something is good or bad (right or wrong) based on some objective standard - or we are talking about how we feel, and that will tend to be influenced mostly by how I feel about some action vs how someone else might feel about it. In that case ethics is a matter of violence because the person who prevails will be the person who can win the fight. If not violent, then ethics will be a matter of economic$ and who can buy the most general agreement. Or ethics might degrade to a question of beauty (aestetics) - but usually not. It will ultimately be about power or money (which is actually about power.) The principles of consequentialist/utilitarian ethics tell us that an action is good (ethical) if the benefits outweight the harms resulting from the action - and if the benefits are enjoyed by more people than are harmed.

Therefore - if failing/DQing 50% of applicants keeps our federal agencies, military and intel people safe and non-corrupt - and if our federal agencies, military and intel people keep the population of our country safe from harm - then what is the ethical problem? Some individual will be disappointed. That is not unethical.

Clinical ethics differ, and emphasize deontological principles that tell us that we treating anyone as an object - as a means to an end - is simply unethical. Medical and psychological professionals are more often trained in this kind of thinking because it prevents us from doing silly things, such as : 1) practicing experimental medicine when we have known solutions, 2) infecting people with diseases just to see what happens, 3) putting a boy in box for a long time just to see how it affects someone, and of course 4) torture.

So, you see, there is always some kind of dialectical balance between consequentialist/utilitarian ethics and humanistic/deontological ethics - we need both, or our systems don't work for very long.

Back to practical stuff: what proportion of our federal applicants are actually lying?

We will never know with certainty, but we can make some educated guesses. Obviously, it depends in part on the examination targets.

Federal LEPET suitability targets (not very different from civilian police preemployment targets):

1. witholding information about serious crimes

2. witholding information about involvement in illegal drugs

3. falsifying or ommitting information in the application materials (SF86)

Applicants have 3 possible choices:

A. Report perfectly - ommitting nothing, adding nothing.

B. Overreport and exaggerate.

C. Minimize and withhold information.

The only people that can report perfectly will be those rare squeaky-clean individuals with nothing or near nothing to report. Most people will have something to report. If they have near nothing to report it is a simple matter of telling everything. If they have more than near nothing there will be a human difficulty in remembering and summarizing.

Think about it:

1. serious crimes (all crimes are serious if you get caught)

2. illegal drugs. maybe I've tested too many people from the university of the free republic of boulder colorado - but recreational drug use is culturally normal and tollerated among young people in the US (not saying its legal or ok - just be realistic).

3. withholding/omitting information in the application materials. keep in mind that these materials sometimes request more personal information than a colonoscopy (as they should when selecting people to be trusted with national security and public safety)

Federal jobs are not bad so far as jobs go. Pay seems OK and benefits are not too bad. Plus there is the prestige of working for the those elite groups. So they will have perhaps more applicants than actually jobs to fill. They can afford to be selective - and they should be selective.

If they have a lot of applicants the odds are great that a lot of people will be tempted to under-report and withold information.

Drugs is the obvious discussion example: a lot of people have more involvement than single-digit experimentation ("experimention" would mean they can remember each and every time - which would also mean they know exactly why they need to withold something). Note: we most always use the word 'experimental' when interviewing people - but that does not mean we classify, clinically, there use as experimental if it actually recreational (more than single digit), or instrumental (self-medicating/coping) or addicted.

The problem for us is that anything more than single-digit experimentation will mean the odds are great they do not and cannot recall each and every time. Most people will belong in the category of either experimental or recreational (non-instrumental, non-addicted) use). People in the recreational category cannot and will noot report everything "perfectly." So they have a choice: overreport/exaggerate or minimize/underreport/withold some information.

Our real objective is to differentiate the boundary of recreational and instrumental drug use - and exclude persons who need better coping skills

Regardless, there will be nothing for the examinee to gain by exaggerating and over-reporting. People don't make false admissions unless they are externally motivated - by threats, legal circumstances that might be mitigated by malingering, and of course perhaps torture. Most people will succumb to the human tendency will be to underreport, minimize problems, withhold some details and ommit information. It's just human. It's why we need to polygraph people.

What percentage of people actually lie. I'm sure someone at the agencies knows, but I don't.

Let's be optimistic and assume that only 1 out of 5 people will lie regarding each of the target issues: crimes, drugs, SF86. A base-rate (BR) of .20 for each target would be considered low to moderate (artistically speaking)

The Sidak equation (1- the inverse of the BR raised to number of independent issues) tells us that with three targets and a BR of .2 for each target, we will have a combined BR of .488. This means that even if only 20% of the people are lying to each target, nearly 50% of applicants will be lying to one or more of the questions.

So...

Statistical alchemy tells us that maybe it is not all that concerning that 50% fail. Maybe this means the process is actually working as intended.

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

The art/science debate is really just another distraction into mindless hyperbole.

The polygraph is used to guide investigations, and is occasionally used in court (despite what people say). It is therefore our professional and ethical responsibility to account for ourselves. That means it is necessary to come to terms with the measurement, and probabalistic aspects of the polygraph - and to demonstrate whether test results are or are not replicatable (they are). To neglect this is to

We will always say - when gazing in wonderment at an individual who can accomplish work easily and with good style - that someone has elevated their work to an art-form. That is not actually an attempt to classify the work as "art."

Let's leave the mindless sound-bites where they belong - with the election campaigns.

Without science - without measurement and math - without statistical theory - we'd all just be talking about how we "feel" about how the polygraph data "look." (interpretive dance anyone?)

So maybe we should thank Cleve Backster once again for suggesting and showing us all how to use numerical scoring.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-24-2012 03:25 PM         

Interestingly enough, the rewrite for this section began last week. The information has now been updated on the website and is available here http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-research

posted 01-24-2012 07:57 PM         

Thanks for cleaning up this thread with a little science and common sense. Like Don,
I can see no reason to continue this conversation.

Dan,
Best of luck to you and your $23.62 per hour "art". I hope an inmate buys your lunch tomorrow.

posted 01-24-2012 07:57 PM         

Would you please fix this duplicate posting thing?

Ted

posted 01-24-2012 11:52 PM         

One thing that bothers me about the 50% failure/DQ rate of some agencies is the assumption that this equates to the false negative rate. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most DQs are (or at least once were) based primarily on admissions by the examinee, either during the pretest or post-test. I'm sure the DI rate without admissions has increased in recent years as a result of the readily available Internet advice to dummy up during the exam, both pretest and post-test.

Can anybody at NCCA provide any insight into a representative rate for "DI without significant admissions?"

Peace,

posted 01-25-2012 05:50 AM         

I'm sure Justice Thomas will soon be modifying his Scheffer opinion, and that court clerks across the land will be topping off their ink pads for all those Daubert rubber stamps.

Ted, thanks for the thought, but it is far safer to brown bag one's lunch when working behind the walls. Maybe I could put out a tip jar...

The FBI's applicant polygraph failure rate hovers right around 60%, according to my insiders. It is not uncommon for strident protests and legal challenges from disgruntled applicants to be quietly $ettled.