|
Author
|
Topic: Statement Tests
|
Buster
Member
|
posted 10-05-2009 07:36 PM
  
What is your opinion on these? I did a couple of these as a second test after a subject failed to try and give them a fair shot to pass. Is it too much an advantage to the examinee because we are not making them face that direct relevant. IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 10-05-2009 09:46 PM
Most of the time when you see statement tests you see an inability to reduce a topic to a single specific issue. In most cases I think running a multi facet or multi issue screening exam followed by a single issue test, if indicated, is a better way to proceed. That being said, If you have run a good first exam and obtained interpretable data that falls on failure side of the inconclusive range, I see no reason to run a second test just to "give them a fair shot to pass". Just because an examinee is disappointed with the results doesn't mean the are entiled to a "do-over". What would you do if the case officer wanted you to run a second test because he thought the subject was guilty after an NDI result? ------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-06-2009 12:10 PM
b,I agree with "ebvan" as long as you have the time and cooperation of the examinee. Multi-issue screening exam, with break out testing, then repeat multi issue testing takes a lot of work, time and cooperation on both parts and I don't know many bad guys/girls who would willingly sit through all that. I know statements tests are not preferred by many, but I have used them very successfully in highly emotionally charged issues, like sexual assault and child abuse allegations, etc. I do not think it gives the examinee any benefit or advantages, as long as it is done properly. In my experience, the biggest problem with them is the statement itself. Keeping it simple, addressing the (very) specific issues of the allegation and not allowing hyperbole and embellishment is difficult at best. Then, to make the statement itself significant to the examinee is the challenge, but achievable.
Jim
[This message has been edited by sackett (edited 10-06-2009).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-06-2009 02:23 PM
quote:
What is your opinion on these? I did a couple of these as a second test after a subject failed to try and give them a fair shot to pass.
Is it too much an advantage to the examinee because we are not making them face that direct relevant.
PRETEST EXAMINER: Did you do it? EXAMINEE: Nope. EXAMINER: Are you sure? EXAMINEE: Yep. IN-TEST EXAMINER: (R5) Did you do it? EXAMINEE: No. EXAMINER: (R8) Did you do it, huh? EXAMINEE: No. EXAMINER: (R11) Did you do it, huh, huh? EXAMINEE: No. (Lather. Rinse. Repeat.) POSTTEST EXAMINER: You lied. Now tell me the truth. EXAMINEE: No I didn't. Your machine is broke. Let's you and me do the test again. EXAMINER: ...
.02
r [This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 10-06-2009).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 10-06-2009 05:13 PM
Ray, What type of CQs would you use in that series.Since some folks are moving away from time bars, I thought of
CQ Are you not the kinda guy that would do sumthin like that?
CQ Are you not sure?
CQ Are you sure you're not sure?
CQ Are you really sure you're sure?
between charts you can stim the CQs by asking Did you mean "No" your not sure or "Yes" you're not sure? ------------------
Ex scientia veritas [This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 10-06-2009).] IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-06-2009 08:22 PM
See Ray? You CAN make polygraph easy to understand... Keep up the good work... LOL
Jim
IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 08:12 AM
I am not aware of any research that has been done on statement tests. Is anyone on here aware of any?------------------
Ben blalockben@hotmail.com IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 10:59 AM
quote:
I do not think it gives the examinee any benefit or advantages, as long as it is done properly.
Would we be comfortable with a "properly" done statement test on a clear allegation of sexual assault against a child? How about a forcible violent sexual assault allegation? How about a physical assault allegation? Shooting incident? Theft allegation? Statement test anyone, anytime, as long as it's properly done? .02 r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-08-2009 11:33 AM
Ray,simplistically put, polygraph is about incurring conflict by answers through dichotomy of knowledge. Why then, are you seemingly against the use of statement tests; if, the use of one will ease certain specified tensions, anxiety, an overwhelming emotional issue, etc? Just curious...
Jim
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 12:48 PM
Don't like those stinking statement tests.
opps! sorry...wrong thread.
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-08-2009 04:27 PM
Ted! Ted! Ted Todd!!! SLOWLY PLACE THE ADULT BEVERAGE DOWN ON THE TABLE AND STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER KEYBOARD! ----------------- DO IT NOW!!! IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 04:58 PM
I didn't say I was completely opposed to statements tests.I'm not comfortable with the notion of retesting someone when they didn't pass, and trying to give them a test that they are more comfortable with. Sure there are false-positive results at time, but this is a dicey issue that deserves adminstrative discussion and some policy-based wisdom. I also note that we would sound like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth/s, if we say, on one side that there is nothing wrong with these tests, and then object to their use under certain circumstances. If there is nothing wrong with them, they should be fine to use anytime. If there is something wrong with them, it earns us no credibility to neglect that. In it's most simplistic formulation, polygraph is about stimulus and response. Things like "conflict" and "knowledge" are higher level constructs. Even "emotion," is a higher level construct than stimulus-and-response, because it attempts to define (and reduce) our mechanistic understanding of the basis of stimulus-and-response. If we are not sure about the exact basis, it makes us potentially dumber to assume we do know, and to reduce the breadth of our possible understanding. It would be wisest to assume that emotion (which exact one we may or may not know), cognition (including memory, attention, and judgement/problem-solving, and languistic formulation), and behavioral conditioning (independent of emotion and cognition) are all potentially at play during a polygraph test. The test question is form of stimulus proxy - representing the stimulus event, though the question itself is not the stimulus event. In behavioral psychology we'd say it is a conditioned stimulus. In a statement test, the examinee's emotion, attention, and behavioral conditioning are drawn AWAY from the stimulus event, instead of directly describing the stimlus and the examinee's possible involvement. Clearly this method (did lie you lie on the paper) offers the potential for creating a different signal value than the direct method of questioning (did you do it). If it wer'nt potentially different, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We cannot, at once, imply that it is different and also somehow not different. .02 r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Buster
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 06:19 PM
____________________________________________
In a statement test, the examinee's emotion, attention, and behavioral conditioning are drawn AWAY from the stimulus event, instead of directly describing the stimlus and the examinee's possible involvement. Clearly this method (did lie you lie on the paper) offers the potential for creating a different signal value than the direct method of questioning (did you do it).
____________________________________________No doubt Ray. But to make this clear I would never just try to get someone through a test for the sake of doing it. I think (no matter how much pros we are of really working hard and being talented at making Comparisons work) it is tougher to get an innocent person through a test. I learned this on day one of the academy. We all also know how to give the comparisons strengh. Sometimes I think repeating the C's and questioning the subject on them in between tests may give them too much power. Anyway back on topic, I would think it would be even more difficult to get a person through a second test (of course on a much later date) after failing the first test. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 07:12 PM
We run second tests in screening all the time. It's possible."Power" another metaphor that means what? IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 10-08-2009 08:06 PM
Buster,You make some good points about the possible effects of CQs. I started another thread on CQs, if you want to talk more about that. ------------------
Ben blalockben@hotmail.com IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
