Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How many sides does a stop sign have? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Dbird
 - Oct 23, 2001, 02:54 AM
You are a true light.  Lutheran Social Services is providing counseling for other members of our family.  The singular harm caused to our family members by this separation is the separation itself.  I can inquire via the counselors who are already providing ths service to the other family members.  

If any know of such persons in Washington state who do such work (risk assessments related to "potential" sex offenses), let me know.  Thanks to beech_trees for this informative response.  Any names people?
Posted by beech trees
 - Oct 22, 2001, 10:20 PM
Quote from: Dbird on Oct 22, 2001, 08:57 PM
Okay, I have been convinced that the polygraph is unreliable, being at best as effective as using a coin toss to determine the truth.  Now, I wonder if anyone knows of professionals who evaluate individuals for sex offense risk (no act alleged in my case--all other aspects of the investigation/assessment have shown there to be no problem) who do not use or require the use of a polygraph.  That is the sticky point I face now.  Are there such professionals who do not include the polygraph in their assessment tools?  I live in Washington state.

Yes, of course. You need a board certified clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who adheres to the acceptable standards of the APA in rejecting the polygraph as a diagnostic tool.

One of the most common and usually the most widely-accepted state of the art psychopathological diagnostic tool is the The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). It is an empirically-based assessment of adult psychopathology and consists of about 600 questions. The items cover a wide range of topics, including attitudes on religion and sexual practices, perceptions of health, political ideas, information on family, education, and occupation, and displays of symptoms known to be exhibited by certain groups of mentally disturbed people.

This test, in conjunction with in-depth interviews conducted by your psychologist should be more than sufficient in assessing you.

My advice would be to go to your local parish and tell either the Father or someone in the church your problem. They should have a professional either on their staff or to whom they refer people in such situations. Having someone who has appeared as an expert witness in court or has authored opinions to the court would help.

QuoteIt amazes me that such a non-scientific tool is used by people have have master's and doctorates, when most of the APA (American Psychologists Ass'n) and other venerable men and women have severely critiqued its use and its serious fallibility.

Very few PhD's subscribe to the notion that polygraphs are a suitable diagnostic tool.
Posted by Dbird
 - Oct 22, 2001, 08:57 PM
Okay, I have been convinced that the polygraph is unreliable, being at best as effective as using a coin toss to determine the truth.  Now, I wonder if anyone knows of professionals who evaluate individuals for sex offense risk (no act alleged in my case--all other aspects of the investigation/assessment have shown there to be no problem) who do not use or require the use of a polygraph.  That is the sticky point I face now.  Are there such professionals who do not include the polygraph in their assessment tools?  I live in Washington state.  

It amazes me that such a non-scientific tool is used by people have have master's and doctorates, when most of the APA (American Psychologists Ass'n) and other venerable men and women have severely critiqued its use and its serious fallibility.