posted 11-16-2009 04:17 PM            

I have generated a work item for ballot proposing some additional language to ASTM standard E-2063 PDD Examination Standards of Practice. My goal is to reconcile ASTM, APA and AAPP Standards of Practice so examiners belonging to all organizations are not ever placed in a position of conflict. Additionally, I feel it is important to address the arguably increased potential for a false positive result due to sensitization of a subject who is tested immediately following an adversarial police interrogation. While there may always be a chance for a situation to arise in which a test must be done following such an interrogation, that should not be the norm. I would be interested to hear the justification from any examiner who feels it is appropriate to conduct a deception test immediately following an adversarial interrogation.

Please let me know of any literature related to conditioning and sensitization that would speak in favor of this practice.

Here is the proposed language addressing interrogation;

5.1.3.3 A (deception *) polygraph examination should not be conducted immediately following an adversarial interrogation of the
subject.

* This word was inadvertently omitted from the published work item, which would preclude the use of recognition testing. The ASTM editor has agreed to add the word deception to the language of the standard, if approved, so as to not suggest precluding recognition testing following an interrogation.

Here is the language proposed to reconcile ASTM with APA;

6.1.1 Evidentiary Examination: A polygraph examination, the written and stated purpose for which, agreed to by the
parties involved, is to provide the diagnostic opinion of the examiner as evidence in a pending judicial proceeding.
Evidentiary examinations should be conducted using a polygraph technique for which exists a body of published and
replicated studies demonstrating an average accuracy of 90% or greater, excluding inconclusive results, which cannot
exceed 20%.
6.1.2 Investigative Examination: A polygraph examination for which the examination is intended to supplement and
assist an investigation and for which the examiner has not been informed and does not reasonably believe that the results of
the examination will be tendered for admission as evidence in a court of record. Types of investigative examinations can
include applicant testing, counterintelligence screening, and post-conviction sex offender testing, as well as routine
multiple-issue or multiple-facet criminal testing. Investigative examinations should be conducted using a polygraph
technique for which exists a body of published and replicated studies demonstrating an average accuracy of 80% or
greater, excluding inconclusive results, which cannot exceed 20%.

posted 11-16-2009 05:57 PM            

I appreciate your intent (if I may infer a positive one), but first, ASTM Standards are proprietary and may not be published without permission, lest there be copyright violations.

Secondly, ASTM has no agenda to come into concordance with APA. It is, or should be, the other way around.

Jim

P.S. BTW, I am a member of both.

posted 11-16-2009 07:12 PM            

I think you are right, and I believe Mark already understands your point.

It would make a lot more sense for ASTM to independently illuminate the commonly agreed on path that the data seem to pave.

It is possible that there are a number of different solutions to one problem. The advantage of this is, of course, free-market competition. The disadvantage is that excessive competetiveness can lead to a chaotic experience in the field with numerous procedural, mechanical, or ideological incompatibilities. Standards serve to reduce wasting resources re-inventing fancy things for the sole reason of having somethind different. Standards, and standardized definitions, allow us to communicate complex ideas efficiently, without wasting energy on ideosyncratic words and meanings. That way our efforts can be devoted towards the next real advancement. Standards also ensure that the best path is the most clearly visible to onlookers and outsiders - so they can more intelligently determine for themselves whether a test or result is adequate to serve their decision-support needs.

So, what about the actual merits of the suggestions: 1) regarding timing of deception tests immediately following any interrogation, and 2) standardized definitions for evidentiary and investigative exams?

Are these a good idea or a bad idea?

.02

r

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

posted 11-16-2009 09:09 PM            

I personally believe a polygraph after any confrontational or intensive interrogation is simply setting up an inconclusive or potential false positive result and very unfair to the examinee.

A standard (via ASTM) which prohibits this would allow an ethical examiner to deny any request from higher powers, than would a denial, just b/c it's the right thing to do. Most people requesting "emergency" polygraphs simply don't understand the process or impacts to the process. A standard would allow this to be better understood by "those people."

#2 is already in the works and a moot point since I've already voted. Though I do think the definitions seem accurate and appropriate. I thinks that definitions serve an important purpose for commonality in terminology, and those suggested serve that design.

Any other opinions?

Jim

posted 11-18-2009 01:07 PM            

Your wording seems to be clear. Others should note that Mark has distinguished between running a "deception test" as opposed to a "recognition test." While running a deception test after an interrogation is not optimal, a well-crafted recognition (i.e. CIT) test may be possible after an interrogation.

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

blalockben@hotmail.com

posted 11-18-2009 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Please let me know of any literature related to conditioning and sensitization that would speak in favor of this practice.

---

posted 11-18-2009 02:50 PM            

I'm no expert on the CIT, but isn't that recognition test more associated with screening a number of people in an effort to reduce potential suspects (for example)?

If a full blown interrogation has occurred, I think we've already arrived there...

posted 11-18-2009 08:04 PM            

He's talking about the concealed knowledge test (or CKT). Since knowledge can't be guilty, concealed information test (CIT) makes more sense.

posted 11-18-2009 10:26 PM            

My position was that if we are running a CIT, this means that we are testing people whom we are not sure of their involvement or knowledge of a specific issue. If a suspect has just undergone an interrogation, and we are asked to test him/her, why are we running a CIT?

There must be enough information/suspicion/ evidence to warrant the interrogation in the first place (and the interrogators have probably already presented it during the interrogation). Now we, as the examiners, want to go backwards (coming in neutral with something the suspects doesn't know or has learned through the interrogation) to see if he in fact knows something specific about the issue? This doesn't make much sense to me.

Bottom line; regardless of issue, testing anyone after any interrogation is inappropriate in my book and I would not want to defend that decision in a court. I believe the ASTM standard is appropriate.

Regards,

Jim

posted 11-19-2009 07:43 AM            

I think that this a good idea but how does ASTM resolve the fact that they will let convicted felons join ASTM? I also do not like the idea that folks like Grogan are allowed to join ASTM and have a vote.

posted 11-19-2009 08:14 AM            

I agree that a deception test (Comparison Question Test) following an interrogation is inappropriate.

The CIT is a different animal and as Barry pointed out, should be used whenever possible because it can be defended moreso than the CQT. The problem with the CIT is getting the information needed that has not already been made available to the examinee. To avoid that, the CIT early during the case is what I look for. As time goes on, information is disclosed to the public by a variety of means and eradicates your CIT material.

I work close with our homicide detectives and they are very familiar with how the CIT works. Whenever possible, I go to the scene with them and what I am looking for is CIT material.

An aggressive interrogation may result in some, most, or all of the CIT material being disclosed, so doing a CIT early will usually be the best option and then after a mild interview just to get the examinee to say he doesn’t know anything about the investigation.

posted 11-19-2009 10:12 AM            

quote:

---

I think that this a good idea but how does ASTM resolve the fact that they will let convicted felons join ASTM? I also do not like the idea that folks like Grogan are allowed to join ASTM and have a vote.

Your thoughts??????

---

Six question marks. Now that is a big burning question.,

--------

I cannot speak for ASTM, but it appears to me that ASTM has had the opportunity to hear this concern. You and others have expressed it, and every credible examiner everywhere is concern about the impact and influence of Grogan and his brand of polygraph.

ASTM seems to have defined itself singularly as a standards organization, with no other agenda to pursue. That means they invite experts from various professions to make recommended standards but make no attempt to actually regulate professional activity, and make no attempt to engage in credentialling functions. ASTM seems to intend only to be a facilitator and publisher of recommended standards and best practices.

ASTM seems to recognize that enforcement of standards and response to complaints or concerns is ethical turf that belongs to agencies which have actual authority to do so. Typically this is the local regulatory agency in each jurisdiction.

ASTM also seems to recognize that credentialing is a distinct professional and ethical activity compared to the setting of standards.

So, there are three ethical roles for professions to manage: 1) setting of common standards, best practices, and minimum qualifications for professional work, 2) reviewing and approving/disapproving the credentials of individual professionals, and 3) enforcement and responding to concerns or complaints.

Other professions (psychology and medicine for example) have managed these ethical roles by ensuring their separation. So that the same individuals don't serve all three ethical functions.

Try to imagine just how highly politicized a profession could become if the same individuals set the standards, approved/disapproved other professional's qualifications, and enforced discipline in response to expressed concerns. Then try to imagine that situation if those same individuals were also competing in the business marketplace with the other professionals whom the regulate, approve/disapprove, and discipline. This would be a great business model for those individuals, but would not foster a healthy and conscientious profession that continues to grow, learn and keep pace with other professions and the community's needs.

So, there is a great advantage to the profession when ASTM decides to limit there ethical role. They are perceived as more credible to scientists and courts - because no-one can argue (and win) that ASTM as a whole is somehow influenced by business interests. Individual participants might be - but the intent of standards organizations is to balance the interests of individual businesses against the interests of the larger profession and the needs of the community/consumers.

Professionals participate in ASTM because they do have economic and business interests attached to their professional activities. That's OK. It is expected that the collection of perspectives and discussion activities - without the activity of credentialing or enforcing - refines the end product to something that is less likely to be oriented around business interests and more likely to reflect the actual state of our scientific knowledge.

So Because ASTM does not credential its membership, and because ASTM does not discipline its membership - it is clear to onlookers and outsiders that it has attempted to achieve the best possible consensus of interpretation of the state of the science and best practices - without being unduly influenced by politics and business. We tend to loose this ethical focus and credibility when things get political, because every decision is ultimately political - and politics is about economics.

ASTM, as an organization, has a singular agenda that is not interested in individuals or power/politics or competitive economics. It serves only to as a facilitator – to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of professions - which do compete economically, and can sometimes tend to waste resources through unstandardized activities (just think of how many different phone chargers you've had to purchase, and what a waste of resources that is – even though it does provide market competitive advantages in terms of phone brand lock-in and repeat sales of widgets). So, standardization can served to reduce waste, and improve the efficient use of development and resources, and can also serves to help facilitate the experience of the community and consumers.

ASTM, as an organization, has a singular agenda that is not interested in individuals or power/politics or competitive economics. It serves only to as a facilitator so that it remains clear that its recommended best practices are not formulated in the interests of political or economic advantages.

Grogan, on the other hand, has created an organization that is representative of these exact problems. His organization is designed for his business model. He sets the standards, approves/disapproves of other professionals, and provides enforcement/oversight. Sure, each of us, as individual businesspeople would like to own the rule-book, ball-field, ball, and referee. But do we really want that as a profession or community?

My guess is that ASTM may have considered this and resolved the question by re-committing to its singular ethical purpose, which ensures for courts and others that the standards are a consensus of competing agendas based on the evidence from scientific study – because they set standards only and do not approve/disapprove of credentials or provide enforcement. ASTM seems to have decided some time ago that it will be most effective when it stays out of the turf-wars – economically and professionally. That the best way to facilitate the best standards for any profession is to accept the representative participation of anyone who considers themselves to be a stakeholder.

Try to imagine what kind of profession would emerge in any field of business if a profession decided to restrict the participation and representation of people who thought themselves to be stakeholders in the professional product.

An equally important bunch of question arises now, because you asked, and typed 6 question marks (??????), is:

How have you resolved this?

Do you think that ASTM is ineffective or irrelevant because Grogan is a member?

If so, what has been the real impact or effect of his membership (real, meaning: what has actually happened – not possibilities and hypotheticals)?

Would you suggest that the APA and polygraph professional vacate or boycott ASTM – that this would be good for the profession?

Or, do you think there is any value in the APA or its membership continuing to participate in the formulation of best practice recommendations at ASTM?

Or, would the APA and polygraph profession we be better off without ASTM (or not participating) now that Grogan is there?

All of us want to see the best possible future for the APA and the polygraph profession. My belief is that the best possible future will require the best possible standards, field practices, education, training, equipment and instrumentation, and leadership. The problem is that it isn't always simple, and agendas get confused and competitive. For that reason I sometimes think that the leadership part may be most important, and that the separation of ethical roles is perhaps a good idea – that is what the founding fathers of the US attempted with the three branches of government, in'it.

So, I too wish Grogan weren't there, didn't have a vote, or would go away. I also wish people would always act nice. What now.

.02

r

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

posted 11-19-2009 01:25 PM            

quote:

---

My position was that if we are running a CIT, this means that we are testing people whom we are not sure of their involvement or knowledge of a specific issue. If a suspect has just undergone an interrogation, and we are asked to test him/her, why are we running a CIT?

---

No, that's not it. As long as the investigator doesn't give the critical info away, you can run a CIT in place of a CQT. For example, I ran several on a person who hadn't slept in 36 hours. The best case scenario would have been to run both a CQT and the CITs, but the lack of sleep precluded a good CQT.

Any time you can run a CQT, you could run a CIT as long as you have some info that only the suspect should know. I get the sense you think the CIT is something different from what it is.

posted 11-19-2009 02:12 PM            

for the second time, I know what a CIT is and how it is used. This discussion was, can we do anything polygraph related after an interrogation.

My point (related to the CIT) is (Like Bob G just posted) is that if an interrogation is done correctly and thoroughly, most information usable during a CIT will likely be identified or given up to the bad guy during that interrogation through the use of alternatives, themes and interrogation techniques.

This would, in itself, prevent the use of a CIT, due to the nature and requirement of needing several concealed information issues to use, which will probably not be available. Not to mention the intensity of a good interrogation.

I'm not sure about your department, but we don't interrogate without cause, suspicion or evidence following a routine interview, which is where the CIT is most applicable. Meaning, early on in the investigation, and before information gets published.

Regarding Ray's extensive comments on ASTM. This organization is simply a standards setting organization wherein those interested in fostering a future may participate. Those whose interests are self serving or political are quickly and easily identified and found to be less than persuasive in their arguments; therefore, having little impact.

So, if grogan or even GM wanted to join, nothing prevents it (that I know of), but their intentions and agendas would prevent any influence to the profession b/c of the way and manner in which it is conducted, proposed, voted and posted. The only thing that they would really get out of it is a membership placque, which they pay for, and since GM doesn't test and grogan doesn't conduct exams IAW any professional standards that I am aware of, it means little to the judiciary, where being a member is most influential. BTW, we have to also remember that in most jurisdictions, anyone can be a polygraph examiner.

posted 11-19-2009 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

My point (related to the CIT) is (Like Bob G just posted) is that if an interrogation is done correctly and thoroughly, most information usable during a CIT will likely be identified or given up to the bad guy during that interrogation through the use of alternatives, themes and interrogation techniques.

---

And my point is that if your investigators are giving up all the info, then they are doing it wrong - even with a good interrogation. I would argue that if you're giving unnecessary details away in an interrogation, then you haven't conducted a good one. Why do you need to bring up the point of entry in a burglary? Why do you need to talk about details you'd use in a CIT in a good interrogation? You don't, so it's not the screening tool you claimed in your first response regarding the CIT. Granted, there will be some cases in which it's hard to find details, but you shouldn't be giving them away in any interrogation unless it's necessary. That's negligent.

posted 11-19-2009 02:42 PM            

Step 1: Respond to crime scene or at minimum discuss with on-scene detectives the details of investigation.

Step 2: ID at least 5 things only the bad guy would know and no-one has released to the press or ID'd to the public.

Step 3: Field interview personnel and ID potential suspects.

Step 4: ID probable suspects and request a further interview at the office.

Step 5: Conduct interview of likley suspect, but don't discuss the five things you know the bad guy would only know.

Step 6: transition into interrogation, using themes and interrogation techniques; again, being careful not to discuss or elude to any of the at least five things only the bad guy would know.
_____________________________________________
Here's a scenario:

Det: You're here today because someone burglarized the house at 432 Mockingbird Lane. What do you know about it?

S: Nothing.

Det: Look, we know you did it, because you needed something from that house that was stolen.

S: What?

Det: What does that matter? We know you did it. (break into themes why people steal).

S: When did this happen?

Det: Common, don't be coy. You know when this occurred.

S: No I don't, when was it, I may have an alibi.

Det: No you don't.

S: What was taken, at least tell me that.

Det: Why, you know what you took.

S: But what was it?

Det: You're being smart again, aren't you?

S: No, I just don't know what you're talking about.

Det: You entered that house and went into that room and stole that thing. We know...

S: No really, I didn't do anything at that house and I don't know what you're talking about.

Det: Yes you do, let talk.

S: But I didn't do it.

Det: Yes you did.

S: No I didn't, prove it!

Det: Yes you did, we know you did. Wanna take a test to prove it...?
_____________________________________________

Step 7: Request polygraph on the five things that only the bad guy would know.

Stp 8: Condut CIT after the above steps completed.

OK, Good luck with that!

Jim

P.S. Sorry for the slight sarcasm, I'm feeling little angry today.... Don't know why?!

posted 11-19-2009 04:04 PM            

Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to listen to the most conservative voice in the room.

The fact that two experienced experts have two different summations of this matter is evidence that it aint so simple and maybe isn't something we should be so confident in (any polygraph after a confrontational or intensive interrogation.) Not saying it'll never work, but...

The decision at ASTM will be whether, in the absence of clear and compelling empirical data, there is sufficient convergent validity (from what we know about the basic constructs of the polygraph ) or face-validity (surrounding what we think about the polygraph) to support the notion that the accuracy or ethics of a polygraph may be compromised if the exam were to be conducted immediatly following a confrontational interview will compromise the accuracy or ethics of polygraph testing. And whether ASTM ever makes recommendation based on validation evidence other than empirical data. Of course, empirical validity is most imprressive, but I believe there is evidence throughout ASTM standards in polygraphy and other sciences that they do make standards based sometimes on face-validity and convergent validity. Our conversation should include whether we think it helps or hurts the polygraph profession to allow or disallow these activities based on what we think we know at the present time.

As I said, I'm with Sackett on this, but if the languages is approved without adjustment that won't bother me too much.

.02

r

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

posted 11-19-2009 06:29 PM            

quote:

---

Step 4: ID probable suspects and request a further interview at the office.

Step 5: Conduct interview of likely suspect, but don't discuss the five things you know the bad guy would only know.

Step 6: transition into interrogation, using themes and interrogation techniques; again, being careful not to discuss or elude to any of the at least five things only the bad guy would know.

---

Follow that and it says "interrogate a probable suspect." Please don't say that ever again outside our circle. I know lots of scientists who would foam at the mouth if they read this. Moreover, it's police pop psychology. You should be holding on to some things anyhow. How do you demonstrate a person's confession is real? It's nice when they tell you things they shouldn't know rather than only give you back what you told them.

First, the Japanese pretty much use only the CIT, so it can be done. Jamie uses it all the time - even in murder cases. You are acting like you can't find three (five is better, but three is a pretty good figure) good questions.

Here's one I did once - after a guy had been interrogated many times - in a murder case. He knew the victim was strangled, but we didn't have to tell him with what. Before we showed him the item, I asked about its color. We also talked about its material. I then showed photos. Viola!

posted 11-19-2009 09:37 PM            

I'm not suggesting the usage or utility of the CIT is "less than" or invalid.

Back on point; I'm suggesting it inappropriate and possibly even unethical, to polygraph anyone soon or immediately after a (proper) interrogation, regardless of testing methodology.

We can argue or agree on the CIT in another thread...

posted 11-20-2009 08:56 AM            

quote:

---

However, with that said, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it strictly for utility purposes in attempt to resolve an issue. What I mean by that is I would not score that kind of a test DI because the examinee had been interrogated immediately prior to the test.
Now, is that unethical? I think not. As long as I can articulate in my report why I did what I did. Again, I don’t recall ever doing it that way. I’ve been asked, but once I explain to the detective(s) the problems associated with that request, they understand and we schedule the test for the following day, or later.

---

You ask: "is that unethical?" (and explain that you think not)

Since you ask the question, we might as well tryt toi understand the alternative perspective...

That way we can anticipate any potential liability or vulnerability.

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

1) The examinee has been subject to a confrontational or intensive interrogation

2) The examinnee made no admissions

3) The examinee was offered the opportunity to try to resolve the matter through polygraph testing

4) The examiner doubts the validity or reliability of the test results in advance of the test - due to the confrontational or intensive interrogation

5) The examiner decides to do the test anyway, after deciding in advance that the test result will not matter

6) The test is no longer a test - it is another interrogation, disguised as a test.

--------

That is the ethical issue. Police investigators in the US are allowed to deceive the people they are investigating. It is therefore ethical police-work in a declarative sense - it has been decided that it is acceptable or ethical for police investigators to deceive people.

However, the real question for us is whether we think it is ethical polygraph testing. I will have to answer 'no,' because, having decided that the test result will not matter, it is not a polygraph test. It is another interrogation disguised as a polygraph test.

If we are comfortable forgoing any future claim that the polygraph is good science then it is probably just fine to use the polygraph as a simple interrogation prop.

But we might want to think carefully about this, if we want the polygraph to be taken seriously and accepted as a scientific test by the courts and other scientists.

Perhaps this would be a perfect use of voice-stress: interrogation prop after a confrontation or intensive interview.

Keep in mind that the word "utility" while we examiners are sometimes fond of it, is a word that the NAS used rather perjoratively to describe polygraph practices that are not defensible as science but assumed in an inarticulate way to be useful.

"Utility" to scientists is a polygraph weasel-word. It means nothing. It's what polygraph examiners say when they want to back-pedal away from having to account for ourselves by answering questions about science. It is unimpressive to scientists, because it attempts to sound smart and offer an answer while saying nothing that can be attacked or argued because it actually says nothing.

Scientists are familiar with the concept of "incremental validity" which is the simple idea that professionals make better decisions when we use more information – referring to information from some form of testing or systematic evaluation. This is what we are attempting to say when we say “utility” - we believe that us professionals will make better decisions in the end if we do it this way, even if we know the test method itself is imperfect.

So, our concern is whether an interrogation disguised as a polygraph test, immediately following a confrontational or intensive interrogation, will help us make better decisions in the end. In this case the decision will be to arrest or file charge or continue to investigate the individual or release the individual from further suspicion. This last option is unlikely innit? At this point we're more likely to keep the examinee in the suspect pool regardless of the test result or admission/absence-of-admission. If there were probable-cause or sufficient evidence we'd arrest already and file charges now. The only useful thing to us is the examinee's confession. Meaning we have decided, in advance, what result we want (admission), and we're gonna try and get it. We have also decided by now that the polygraph exam is not a scientific test, but an interrogation prop no different than voice stress. Our plan will be to confront the examinee with a “failed” test result that serves as evidence of his guilt and will only hurt him and make things worse for him if he doesn't work with us. In other words we threaten the examinee with additional consequences for the failed result – that's what we say about why the polygraph works: fear of consequences for being caught lying.

Another concern is whether the examinee's confession during a utility-polygraph-interrogation, immediately after a confrontational or intensive non-polygraph interrogation, at which he made no admissions, is potentially vulnerable to attack or criticism in court – as possibly a false or coerced confession. Keep in mind that false-confessions seem to occur more often in the context of lengthy and threatening interrogation, and perhaps torture.

But the real concern for us right now is whether we want the ASTM – which is interested in science – to endorse or restrict the practice of using the polygraph as an unscientific interrogation prop.

There is another concern for us – whether we want the APA to endorse the use of the polygraph as an unscientific interrogation prop.

The incremental validity concern (utility) is whether we think we can convince a court that a confession obtained under these circumstances will help us or the courts make better decision about a person's guilt or innocence. “Better” in science means more accurate – remember that because we sit on one side of the adversarial justice system, our version of “better” as field practitioners will tend to mean “conviction.” At the same time, we have to anticipate whether there is any hazard created by this and potential criticism of our investigative methods or polygraph testing science and ethics.

And the ultimate concern, in this example, is whether we'd ever want to have to account this confession ourselves in court – and indicate that we don't use the polygraph as a scientific test but as a simple interrogation prop – which is just what it seems the NSA would have liked to accuse us of, and makes us no different than voice-stress.

.02

r

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

posted 11-20-2009 10:13 AM            

In a situation in which it is done, it is indeed an interrogation disguised as a polygraph test and the “science of polygraph” is put on a backburner. I don’t know that it is even “disguised” as a polygraph test – it’s an interrogation using polygraph equipment. And I really don’t like to waste my time when I know in advance that my results are useless.

If you are doing work for an agency head that is more concerned about finding a missing child than they are about the field of science, all you can do is explain to them the problems associated with testing immediately after the interview. Hopefully, they will listen. But, politics being what they are…..(thankfully, I don’t have that problem and my agency is receptive to what I tell them). But I know of other agencies that are not so lucky. That is why without specific laws or rules that prohibit such practices, it will on occasion occur.

The only way an interrogation of this nature is of any value is if it resolves, or helps to resolve the issue by the information you gather from the examinee. The charts are meaningless and tell us nothing. You can not, in my view, make any decision based on the charts. If you make a decision based only on the charts, then that is the ethical issue, in my view.

Please keep in mind that my comments are with respect to the CQT. I don’t know how the CIT will weather the storm.