posted 03-21-2010 08:00 AM            

If a test is conducted with inconclusive or deceptive results and information is reported (post test) which could explain the results but not resolves the primary test issue, how long after the original test can an examiner conduct a re-test and consider it part of the original examination procedure?

I recognize the sooner the better, but what time delay would cause the "re-test" to become a new test procedure; requiring the entire examination protocol?

Jim

posted 03-22-2010 10:17 PM            

I'm looking for opinions on how long I can delay conducting the break-out test to keep it considered part of the original testing protocol.

I hope this clears it up.

posted 03-22-2010 11:36 PM            

This is a good question, and there are probably many opinions.

However, it might be a good example of those situations in which we don't really want to lock ourselves into a particular posture on this. What would we gain by doing so? Where is the evidence that a rule is wise or necessary? How would we know where the boundaries are, and for whom those boundaries of time apply strictly or loosely? The point is, making a rule means we have to follow it, and it also means we are in violation of our rule if we don't.

So, I will argue that it doesn't matter. That the polygraph, like every other test, is a matter of stimulus and response. You conducted a multi-issue screening test. Observed a significant or unresolved reaction to one or more of the targets. Obtained a non-disqualifying admission. And now want to test the limits of that non-disqualifying admission/explanation using a single issue test (which we call a break-out test in our unique poly-jargon). The length of time is not what makes the test valid or invalid. What matters is whether or not you are convinced the examinee is capable of responding accurately and authentically to the stimulus. There is no real plausible argument that too much time causes some kind of interference in the examinee's ability to understand and react to the stimulus. On the other hand, there appears to be some face-validity to the argument that proceeding immediately into the exam, after the failed exam-posttest-non-disqualifying-admission, might be a problem in the form of possibly oversensitizing the issue for a person who has attempted to be truthful when making the non-disqualifying admission. Waiting a short period (next day), would not seem to desensitize a deceptive person, and could easily be argued to provide increased sensitivity to as deceptive person (forced to think about his deception for a longer period of time) and also desensitize a truthful person from the experience of the failed-exam-posttest-nondisqualifying admission.

If the person is of normal intelligence and normal mental health/mental-status, then it should not matter how long you wait beyond an immediate cooling off period (next day). The deceptive person still knows they are lying, and why they are lying. People can practice lying, but they do NOT believe their lies - else the polygraph wouldn't work much at all.

The question about re-test or new-test is probably more spurious and meaningless than we might tend to think. It may be another example of us trying to do too much psychologizing and mindreading again, while communicating in excess jargon or sound-bites instead of coherent and scientific ideas, and forgetting the basic principles of testing (stimulus and response). Anytime we conduct a test, we always have to conduct an adequate pretest that will serve to cause the deceptive person to focus on their deception, thereby sensitizing or increasing his capacity to react to he issue, and will also serve to desensitize the truthful person to the impact of hearing and answering serious questions to which he is being truthful.

I say: test 'em whenever you can or whenever you feel like it.

Simple.

As always... just my .02 cents.

r

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

posted 03-23-2010 11:00 AM            

quote:

---

If the person is of normal intelligence and normal mental health/mental-status

---

posted 03-23-2010 11:35 AM            

Hyperbole aside. Most people (95%) are normal. So, unless they have a very obvious cognitive impairment - the kind that would prevent their ability to find their own way to the polygraph if they had to or wanted to, or if they have the kind of mental health problem than involves Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson following them around in a friggin' flyin' saucer - then test 'em, without concern for some amateur psycyhologizing or malingering excuse.

When they do try to make excuses, most people, in my experience, back off these things as soon as we talk about the importance of getting them to a really competent psychiatrist, because these types of issues are often lifelong and progressive - they get worse, not better, over the course of one's lifetime.

As always,

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.

r

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

posted 03-23-2010 12:50 PM            

The real reason we should all have more psychology training is that so we are sufficiently well informed to not be impressed with psychobabbling and malingering.

r

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

posted 03-31-2010 08:28 PM            

------------------
Ben