posted 06-26-2009 09:07 AM            

My question is; is it appropriate to put our opinions in the body of the report concerning what we perceive as the examinee's feelings, apparent emotions, etc? Is there anything which prohibits this commentary? I'll give a couple of examples of what I mean:

"The examinee reported to my office with intense emotions in his eyes..."

"The examinee tried to be as honest as he could be..."

"The examinee appeared to be carrying a heavy weight on his mind..."

"The examinee gave great effort in recalling information which was personally embarrassing..."

etc, etc, etc

Opinions?

Jim

posted 06-26-2009 11:23 AM            

I personally would refrain from putting statements in a report that, among other things, state how someone else was feeling, unless they made the statement.

I sometimes use the observations you wrote to ask the person questions. If they respond to it or provide their own explanation, I document it, when relevant.

posted 06-26-2009 03:54 PM            

However I see no problem in articulating observable behaviors if it is apparent they are possibly affecting our results and letting the reader determine what those observations mean.

In other words instead of "The examinee reported to my office with intense emotions in his eyes" I would prefer "When I met with the examinee I noticed that his eyes were waterey. It appeared that he had either been crying or was upon the verge of doing so. His teeth were tightly clenched and his face and neck red in contrast to the color of his ears which appeared pale. Concerned that these characteristics were possibly indicative of some unidentified emotional disturbance that might interfere with his polygraph examination, I asked the examiee if something was bothering him. He assured me that nothing was wrong but indicated that he had just finished a burrito before entering my office and whoever had constructed said burrito had placed all of the habanero sauce in the very last bite. The examinee was given time for the pain to subside and the test was completed.

As J.B. pointed out those statements can better be used to elicit information from a subject. I have successfully used the line" You seem to be carrying the weight of the world on your shoulders" as an opening line in an interrogation more than once.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 06-27-2009 12:58 PM            

While impressions are perhaps unrelated or mere coincidence of/to the issue for testing, I don't believe we should ignore our impressions through ommision as there always seems to be a valid and objective way (easy Ray--I used the "v" word")of describing those impressions.

edit add-on
I see nothing wrong with adding in a report something sterile to the effect of " the examinee gave this examiner the impression that he was intensly emotionalized during his recollection of the incident." But that may be a creative (subjective)liberty I wouldn't take unless there were physical tears or wailing and weap-hiccups. The latter being more tangible behaviors than the former.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 06-27-2009).]

posted 06-27-2009 08:03 PM            

Clinical inferences about causes and conditions are obviously out of line.

Descriptions of emotional state are not a diagnosis per se. They are just clinical inferences (I.e., mind reading). A diagnosis would included the use of words with stipulative diagnostic meaning - words like 'depression' or 'anxiety' or other words that have describable symptom clusters attached to them. Even so, polygraph examiners and therapists should both stay out of the mind reading bidness. BTW we polygraph examiners do more mind reading (attempting to articulate what someone else is thinking or feeling) than many therapist. Just listen to our fancy-schmancy rationale and descriptions of our PLCs - which will sound to some psychotherapists like projection and projective identification.

Adjectives like ' intense' or 'severe' are just added drama for theatric impact. In actual clinical work, 'intense' means nothing. It has no operational or stipulated defintion. On the other hand, 'severe means: interfers with effective functioning in multiple domains or arenas such as social, occupational, educational, or interpersonal. So a problem should not be called severe unless there is evidence of disruptive impact in multiple areas (unless it's one of stat's gassers).

It would be better to describe our observations. For example: examinee expressed anger and distrust toward his probation officer (has actually happened.) Better still - quote the examinee verbatim. For example:"she's a cold hearted bitch who doesn't give a damn about me." (Actual statement.) Maybe he meant it in a nice freindly way. I dunno. It is always the resulting impact that matters more than the intent. The words themselves are now inescapable.

Sackett knows all this already...before taking this little survey.

So, we've taken the bait.

Where's the punchline Jim?

R

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

posted 06-27-2009 11:13 PM            

What?! I? Bait? A punchline? Surely you jest...? :-)

Of course I agree with the opinions, and due to my "unique nature", appreciate "stats" jocularity relative to my question (i.e. intense erection; versus, what BTW???)

Anyway, I have heard of an examiner doing just that; writing in a novel-esque manner and repeatedly projecting that examiner's personal feelings rather than observations in reports. Would be too humorous, if not so sad...

All, thanks for the input. Hopefully, your opinions will have an impact.