posted 09-29-2009 04:28 PM            

While perusing the websites of numerous local police departments, I noticed that one touted their use of the CVSA in their criminal investigations.

In researching the professed "Father" of this gimmick prop, I see that this person named CHARLES W. HUMBLE is behind this fraudulent scam.

I'm sure others of you are familiar with him and others that push this junk.

I went to SKIP WEB's site where there is a veritable cornucopia of documented studies that clearly expose this "lie detector" for what it is.

Now the wisdom I seek is whether or not it is in the best interests of justice to actually confront this fraud by "Throwing down the Gauntlet".

A controlled practice exercise comparing the accuracy of the polygraph verses the CVSA???

I suppose what bothers me most, is that sparce tax money has been spent for this expensive "quick fix" trying to replace solid detective work.

If such a challenge is accepted, what protocols should be in place??

Who should be invited to such an event?

Is it a bad idea, in that it would embarrass the Chief of that department, and the detectives that have been using the CVSA?

I hope BOB will weigh in on this because he has been in the area for many years.

Has this been done before with the CVSA in the public domain? I know it was done with the MRI.

All comments are welcome!!

posted 09-29-2009 04:46 PM         

It is already being done every day. I have had numerous cases where I polygraphed a suspect that failed one or more CVSAs. I cleared them with the polygraph which was later backed up by a confession from the true suspect. I have also had cases where a subject passed a CVSA and later failed a polygraph and confessed.

I see it more and more in LE Pre-Employment testing where an applicant had been hired based on a CVSA. I have obtained admissions that you would not beleive which shows they never should have been hired in the first place.

And yes, it does piss off the detectives that use and beleive in the CVSA when they find out how wrong they were!

Ted

posted 09-30-2009 12:31 AM         

Someday we gotta do the 'the lunch thing'- that is when I got more than $10 bucks in the account after paying overhead bills.

Your inquiry is not unlike the Anti-Poly site when they "threw down the gauntlet" on our ability to reliably detect countermeasures- yet you notice there has been no takers from our polygraph"experts"

You suggest "a controlled practice exercise comparing the accuracy of the polygraph verses the CVSA?" I would suggest this is best left to the Researchers in laboratory studies (that is, when they can figure out how to design one that can withstand the scientific community peer review) as opposed to a local level 'bakeoff'.

I do not forsee a local level bakekoff as having any purpose other than an effort to embarrass 'in a public arena' if the press is invited -[and the embarrassment is going to be at the expense of either the CVSA operator should he be the one who has the false negative/positive (as the CVSA operator can't have an inconclusive- which is a selling point for NITV[Humble])and is what 'we believe' will happen, OR the polygrapher suffers the embarrassement in the event of a 'false negative/positive' or 'inconclusive'(and these outcomes occur just as well for us- particularly in a multi-issue pre-employment test)] Sometimes polygraph examiners don't even agree in test data analysis themselves.

I would rather provide the interested party (Police Chief) with the Research available so they can decide for their department'the accuracy level they want for detecting deception' to be able to identify the 'liars'.

The bottom line unfortunately is, I don't believe the vast majority of Administrators care about the research- they don't want to read what is being said about CVSA and digest it for themselves. Because of this, they are stuck in a dilemma as to who to believe[the proverbial "He said-She said"(the frontline polygrapher vs frontline CVSA'er)]. Ultimately, They don't care if its a 'Mood Ring', 'CVSA', or 'Polygraph' that detected stress- The interest is "What's the cost to the Department to buy it- Can they effectively present and argue the cost/benefits to obtain funding from the community's Council?" and with, whatever Wigit they choose, "If a test failure occurred (via mood ring, cvsa, or polygraph), Did a confession follow?" to enable the agency to close the case and improve departmental stats- thereby continuing the funding for the Wigit.

Ted, you wrote: "I have also had cases where a subject passed a CVSA and later failed a polygraph and confessed"- I wonder how many CVSA guys have said the same thing but in reverse? (Might be an interesting kind of research study in itself)

You also commented Ted, "And yes, it does piss off the detectives that use and beleive in the CVSA when they find out how wrong they were!"; Hhm? And so goes the Detectives when they find out the polygraphist made an error.

Interestingly, all the examiners I have ever met professed 'how good they were' and not one has ever told me they were inept at detecting deception (known as ego). - Yet, after I attended seminar, after seminar, after seminar,- I frequently hear in the hallways others chatting about the 'total ineptness' of some examiners (and in the past were sometimes referred to as 'chart rollers')

Bottom line- Your only 'as good' as your lasttest; Haven't we heard that one before.

Tom, I've got a couple of documents relating to CVSA that I'll email you sometime tomorrow, you might be interested in reading.

Bob

posted 09-30-2009 10:51 AM            

I'll gladly pay for the lunch, and that is why I sought your wisdom, and others in the trenches.

I guess it doesn't matter how old I'm getting, I still get fired up about public policies that are wasteful.

posted 09-30-2009 05:54 PM            

quote:

---

Interestingly, all the examiners I have ever met professed 'how good they were' and not one has ever told me they were inept at detecting deception (known as ego). - Yet, after I attended seminar, after seminar, after seminar,- I frequently hear in the hallways others chatting about the 'total ineptness' of some examiners (and in the past were sometimes referred to as 'chart rollers')

---

I've said it before and I'll... you know...

Giving an examiner some other examiner's charts or questions to nit pick is like giving a dog a new chew toy.

We forget that reliability (inter-scorer agreement) defines the upper limit of potential validity (criterion accuracy) of any test.

If we want the polygraph to be accurate we've got to emphasize knowledge that is supported by good studies, and pare away the fancy and unsupported things that reduce its reliability.

There will always be fakes, scams, and charlatans, and other expertizing confidence salesmen. It accomplishes nothing to get mad at any particular one.

The long game will be won by asking tough questions of themselves and ourselves. Questions like what exactly are the measurement features and their relationship to the criterion? And, what exactly is the decision model, and what are the normative parameters and levels of statistical significance that can be achieved by the test. Document that and we'll win.

As far as I know so far, voice stress depends on a single physiological signal, for which our decision models are limited to correlation estimates. Without a representative or dimensionless measurement paradigm, and without empirically derived cutpoints, we are left with some version of "I don't like the way it (data) looks?"

Answer these questions for ourselves and we're talking the same language as any other field of testing.

So, two things: 1) use measurements to improve reliability, and 2) measure things that matter to improve criterion validity. We've got to do both. Neglect a measurement (even if only visual) approach reliability suffers. Base features only on some expertized self-important opinion, instead of a statistical analysis of data, and criterion validity will suffer. Do these well, and we'll have the normative parameters that tell us the level of significance that can be achieved. When voice stress researchers do these things, they may have something legitimate (depending, of course, on whether the physiological signal are real).

.02

r

posted 10-01-2009 08:45 AM         

quote:

---

Giving an examiner some other examiner's charts or questions to nit pick is like giving a dog a new chew toy.

---

posted 10-02-2009 09:19 PM         

We do have the "bad apples" that represent themselves as competent examiners. At the seminars you generally see them in the hallways, not the class rooms, if you see them at all.

We need to network and have competent examiners quality control our charts, questions, and methods of presentation during pre-test in test and post test. Tell me what I'm doing wrong and I can correct my errors.

posted 10-03-2009 10:32 PM            

You are absolutely right.

I absolutely believe in QC, peer review, and courtesy consultation.

It can actually be informative and kinda fun under the right circumstances.

Was just poking fun at the enthusiasm with which we sometimes express our expert opinions about test data and questions.

r

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