- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Twoblock
- Nov 26, 2008, 09:45 AMlawlizard and Judi
You ever stop to think that most patents expire after 17 years. Why hasen't MMPI? Could be why it is now #2 and #3 is probably in the works. If someone took this to court, they might just spank Pearson's butt. However, psych1 would still be here vigorously and errantly defending it like polygraphers try to defend their profession.
You ever stop to think that most patents expire after 17 years. Why hasen't MMPI? Could be why it is now #2 and #3 is probably in the works. If someone took this to court, they might just spank Pearson's butt. However, psych1 would still be here vigorously and errantly defending it like polygraphers try to defend their profession.
Posted by Frusstreadd
- Nov 25, 2008, 08:05 PMQuote from: slc2000 on Oct 30, 2008, 11:42 PM
Its all about the buck in some cases, not about the well being or someones future. I could put these articles up all day.
Very true, except I would say it's all about the buck MOST of the time, and ALL of the time in any court case.
Posted by psych1
- Oct 31, 2008, 12:41 AMWell it wasn't an opinion editorial. It was explaining to psychologists why they (Pearson) included the specific subscale as part of the score report software based on indepedent peer reviewed studies of the scale. Pearson doesnt have to sell anything to us (psychologists)! They have a copyright and monopoly on the test. Its the only way to buy the thing for us. I included it because it presents good synopsis of the reseasrch literature on the scale. The pros and cons. It not a sales pitch, because as I said before, the FBS is confined to a very particular setting and population.
Posted by lawlizard
- Oct 30, 2008, 11:42 PMI appreciate the reply, but I dont want to see anything from a website that is trying to promote the test to make money lol. I would rather take an outside source/case. Thats like GM trying to explain why a truck blew up after it happened to someone on their site. Even though they knew exactly why because they were there, yet they will do their best to try and explain to cover themselves. Furthermore it is mainly about the malpractice of the "used car salesman" examiners. Its all about the buck in some cases, not about the well being or someones future. I could put these articles up all day.
Posted by psych1
- Oct 30, 2008, 07:38 PMI would argue that the FBS scale developed by Lees-Haley was not developed for, nor intended for use in psychiatric populations and certainly not for employment screening settings. It was soley developed for compensation seeking TBI litigants with known external incentives for malingering neurocognitive symptoms, not psychiatric symptomatology. So, yes, this is correct, and Butcher was correct, in psych samples it is NOT useful. But, again, it was not meant for use in this population. The research of its senstitivity and specificity for indentifying symptom exagerration in compsentation seeking litigants is high, but only for that population and in that context. Moreover, overreporing is rare in employment screening settings, obvioulsy, people are often motivated to do the oppposite of that in this setting. As is the case with all other MMPI-2 validity scales, scores on the FBS should be considered in the context of scores on the other validity scales, the circumstances of the assessment, and any conditions such as significant physical injury or disease that could artificially elevate scores on the FBS.
Here is a link for Pearsons rationale for including the scale in the comprehensibe score report.
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/resources/fbs.htm
While the MMPI is a great instrument and over half a century of resesrch supports its use and psychometric properties, this does not mean that its the best instrument in all settings for a screening. First, its long as hell (that half hour eval in the story above was obviouly not an MMPI eval) and scale elevations take on different meaning depending on the population in question (ie., psychatric, forensic, normal). While its never interpreted blindly without interview, I still cringe at the fact that some departments may use this instrument and an interview as the sole means of screening. I also really wish the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were used more in this setting. Its more fitting for an emplyment screening setting and the psychometric properties great.
Here is a link for Pearsons rationale for including the scale in the comprehensibe score report.
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/resources/fbs.htm
While the MMPI is a great instrument and over half a century of resesrch supports its use and psychometric properties, this does not mean that its the best instrument in all settings for a screening. First, its long as hell (that half hour eval in the story above was obviouly not an MMPI eval) and scale elevations take on different meaning depending on the population in question (ie., psychatric, forensic, normal). While its never interpreted blindly without interview, I still cringe at the fact that some departments may use this instrument and an interview as the sole means of screening. I also really wish the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were used more in this setting. Its more fitting for an emplyment screening setting and the psychometric properties great.
Posted by lawlizard
- Oct 18, 2008, 08:50 AMFound this in the Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0602050255feb05,1,4364375.story
Police exam allegations probed
Failed hopeful says meetings were brief
By Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 5, 2006
Aldermen concerned about the screening process for police candidates heard Friday from a former U.S. Marine who said he failed the Chicago Police Department's psychological test three times after very short exams.
Elmore Dikes, 29, told the City Council's Police and Fire Committee that he passed other parts of the department's testing "with flying colors," only to be disqualified after brief meetings in 2001, 2003 and 2004 with contract psychologists hired by the Center for Applied Psychological Services. He said none of the meetings lasted more than seven minutes.
"I think I have something to offer," said Dikes, who was honorably discharged from the Marines after six years, being promoted to sergeant in just three. "I don't understand what exactly they are looking for and how I continuously fail the exam."
Earlier, Dr. Michael Roberts, president of the California-based Law Enforcement Psychological Service, told the committee that exams are scheduled to last 40 minutes and are virtually impossible to administer in less than 30.
Roberts' firm and the Chicago-based Center for Applied Psychological Services are joint venture partners that conduct Police Department testing.
Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), the committee's chairman, said aldermen for years have received complaints about cursory exams from constituents interested in becoming officers.
If qualified candidates are being lost to a department hungry for talent because of poor testing, that "is a serious issue," Carothers said.
Roberts and Dr. Marva Dawkins, head of the Chicago testing company, said they would investigate Dikes' case.
Members of the committee also questioned why Dawkins' company has no African-American male or Latino psychologists to prevent cultural biases from seeping into the evaluation system.
At a committee meeting six years ago, the contractors took heat for the growing wash-out gap between African-Americans and whites. On Friday, Roberts reported the passing rate for blacks has remained level since then at 71 percent, but that rates have dropped sharply for whites (to 75 percent from 84 percent), Latinos (to 71 from 81) and Asians (to 64 from 73).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0602050255feb05,1,4364375.story
Police exam allegations probed
Failed hopeful says meetings were brief
By Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 5, 2006
Aldermen concerned about the screening process for police candidates heard Friday from a former U.S. Marine who said he failed the Chicago Police Department's psychological test three times after very short exams.
Elmore Dikes, 29, told the City Council's Police and Fire Committee that he passed other parts of the department's testing "with flying colors," only to be disqualified after brief meetings in 2001, 2003 and 2004 with contract psychologists hired by the Center for Applied Psychological Services. He said none of the meetings lasted more than seven minutes.
"I think I have something to offer," said Dikes, who was honorably discharged from the Marines after six years, being promoted to sergeant in just three. "I don't understand what exactly they are looking for and how I continuously fail the exam."
Earlier, Dr. Michael Roberts, president of the California-based Law Enforcement Psychological Service, told the committee that exams are scheduled to last 40 minutes and are virtually impossible to administer in less than 30.
Roberts' firm and the Chicago-based Center for Applied Psychological Services are joint venture partners that conduct Police Department testing.
Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), the committee's chairman, said aldermen for years have received complaints about cursory exams from constituents interested in becoming officers.
If qualified candidates are being lost to a department hungry for talent because of poor testing, that "is a serious issue," Carothers said.
Roberts and Dr. Marva Dawkins, head of the Chicago testing company, said they would investigate Dikes' case.
Members of the committee also questioned why Dawkins' company has no African-American male or Latino psychologists to prevent cultural biases from seeping into the evaluation system.
At a committee meeting six years ago, the contractors took heat for the growing wash-out gap between African-Americans and whites. On Friday, Roberts reported the passing rate for blacks has remained level since then at 71 percent, but that rates have dropped sharply for whites (to 75 percent from 84 percent), Latinos (to 71 from 81) and Asians (to 64 from 73).
Posted by lawlizard
- Oct 18, 2008, 08:38 AMThis is a big gift for you psych1 =)
In March 2008 a front page article in the Wall Street Journal[39] exposed what it claimed to the lack of scientific validity of the "fake bad" scale, which is used in courts as argument for malingering in injury litigation. According to the article two Florida judges barred use of the scale after special hearings on its scientific validity.
The article reports that the scale was developed by psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who works mainly for defendants (insurance companies etc.) in personal injury cases. The article reports that in 1991 Lees-Haley paid to have an article supportive of his scale published in Psychological Reports, which the Wall Street Journal described as "a small Montana-based medical journal." The scale was introduced in MMPI after a review of the literature. This review was considered flawed by its critics because at least 10 of 19 studies reviewed were done by Lees-Haley or other insurance defense psychologists, while 21 other studies critical of the test were excluded from the review.
One of the critics of the "fake bad" scale is retired psychologist James Butcher, who found that more than 45 percent of psychiatric patients he studied had Fake Bad Scale scores of 20 or more, which according to the "fake bad" scale meant they were malingering. Butcher contends that it is unlikely that so many psychiatric patients misled doctors. The article qoutes Butcher concluding:
" This is great for insurance companies, but not great for people.
"
The article claimed that disagreeing with statements like "My sex life is satisfactory" or "I seldom or never have dizzy spells" earned malingering points for the test takers.
i am going to add more on this list, the one below is very good
In March 2008 a front page article in the Wall Street Journal[39] exposed what it claimed to the lack of scientific validity of the "fake bad" scale, which is used in courts as argument for malingering in injury litigation. According to the article two Florida judges barred use of the scale after special hearings on its scientific validity.
The article reports that the scale was developed by psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who works mainly for defendants (insurance companies etc.) in personal injury cases. The article reports that in 1991 Lees-Haley paid to have an article supportive of his scale published in Psychological Reports, which the Wall Street Journal described as "a small Montana-based medical journal." The scale was introduced in MMPI after a review of the literature. This review was considered flawed by its critics because at least 10 of 19 studies reviewed were done by Lees-Haley or other insurance defense psychologists, while 21 other studies critical of the test were excluded from the review.
One of the critics of the "fake bad" scale is retired psychologist James Butcher, who found that more than 45 percent of psychiatric patients he studied had Fake Bad Scale scores of 20 or more, which according to the "fake bad" scale meant they were malingering. Butcher contends that it is unlikely that so many psychiatric patients misled doctors. The article qoutes Butcher concluding:
" This is great for insurance companies, but not great for people.
"
The article claimed that disagreeing with statements like "My sex life is satisfactory" or "I seldom or never have dizzy spells" earned malingering points for the test takers.
i am going to add more on this list, the one below is very good