- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 04, 2005, 03:53 PMDarkCobra2005,
Links to, and excerpts from, the relevant articles are provided in the first two posts of the message thread, FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%.
Links to, and excerpts from, the relevant articles are provided in the first two posts of the message thread, FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 04, 2005, 02:13 PMGeorge,
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 04, 2005, 04:20 AMPolyfool,
The 20% FBI pre-employment polygraph failure rate dates back to 1997, and is documented in a letter by then Laboratory Division director Donald M. Kerr. This letter may be reviewed in HTML and PDF formats, respectively, here:
http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/kerr-letter.shtml
http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/kerr-letter.pdf
Post 9-11, it seems clear that the failure rate increased dramatically. As I mentioned earlier, the 50% figure is taken from on-the-record remarks by senior FBI officials. DarkCobra2005 chooses to disbelieve these officials because the FBI hasn't published any "research" on its polygraph failure rate. But I don't see any compelling reason to discount their word, as they were in positions to know and had little conceivable motive to lie. Moreover, "research" is not required to calculate an agency's polygraph failure rate: it's an elementary school-level math problem.
The 20% FBI pre-employment polygraph failure rate dates back to 1997, and is documented in a letter by then Laboratory Division director Donald M. Kerr. This letter may be reviewed in HTML and PDF formats, respectively, here:
http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/kerr-letter.shtml
http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/kerr-letter.pdf
Post 9-11, it seems clear that the failure rate increased dramatically. As I mentioned earlier, the 50% figure is taken from on-the-record remarks by senior FBI officials. DarkCobra2005 chooses to disbelieve these officials because the FBI hasn't published any "research" on its polygraph failure rate. But I don't see any compelling reason to discount their word, as they were in positions to know and had little conceivable motive to lie. Moreover, "research" is not required to calculate an agency's polygraph failure rate: it's an elementary school-level math problem.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 03, 2005, 10:50 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Sep 03, 2005, 10:35 PMMy only comment would be, there is no "research" that indicates 50% are disqualifed by polygraph. There may be a Computer Criminal History check or a Computer Credit Check and some may be disqualifed prior to a polygraph. I don't know, so I may really be in error here, it just does not sound correct to me that 50% fail polygraph examinations. I may just be ignorant and if so please forgive.
I would agree there is no research that indicates the percentage of FBI applicants who fail the poly, but there should be, it's obviously a problem. I don't know what kind of checks the FBI conducts on applicants before the poly or if all of that is done afterwards, assuming of course, the applicant passes? I would think it would at least look at the background forms the applicant fills out for any possible problems before the applicant is extended a conditonal job offer--at least that was the case for me.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 03, 2005, 10:17 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Sep 03, 2005, 05:21 PM50% of applicants for the FBI are disqualified by polygraph? I believe that about 50% of applicants are disqualifed because of indescresions in their backgrounds, not on the basis of polygraph only. These figures are being pulled out of thin air, not being researched totally. Yes people are diqualifed from law enforcement jobs based on polygraph findings, however the polygraph findings are not the only reason for the disqualification in all cases.
Dark Cobra:
The FBI doesn't conduct background investigations until the applicant passes a polygraph. Half of FBI applicants who receive conditional job offers don't receive official hire dates, that's why the FBI extends offers to two applicants for every job opening--primary and alternate-- AND THE JOB MAY STILL GO UNFILLED.
If the agency doesn't give the go ahead for the background until the applicant passes the poly, then it would seem quite feasible based on the FBI's on hiring practices, that indeed, 50 percent are being disqualified based on the poly alone. The FBI admits to a 20 percent failure rate. The agency should be ashamed to screen applicants using a procedure with a 20 percent failure rate--that's atrocious. It's obvious there's a problem with poly screening, as you wouldn't expect 20 percent of the "best and the brightest" to be drug addicts and dope peddlers. It's complete nonsense. Whether it's 20 or 50 percent, either one is unacceptable.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 03, 2005, 06:38 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Sep 03, 2005, 05:21 PM50% of applicants for the FBI are disqualified by polygraph? I believe that about 50% of applicants are disqualifed because of indescresions in their backgrounds, not on the basis of polygraph only. These figures are being pulled out of thin air, not being researched totally....
The 50% FBI polygraph failure rate is pulled not from thin air, but from the mouths of senior FBI officials who are in a position to know. See FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%.
Posted by Mercible
- Aug 02, 2005, 12:44 PMThanks for the clarification. 
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 01, 2005, 09:37 PMDear Mercible,
I have often mentioned the pre-screening use of polygraph without any specific incident knowledge or testing as a 50/50 coin toss. The NAS did specify that specific incident polygraph testing was far better than chance but far from perfect.
The NAS was very critical in the current usage of polygraph in pre-screening employment with no specific incident known or researched. They did say that such usage was far from perfect and not much above a 50/50 coin toss.
I am probably one of the most realistic posters here who has consistantly admitted that the government has only tried to increase polygraph usage in pre-employment since the NAS study.
The FBI pre-screening polygraph was given in my case, prior to any background information being gathered. There was no specific incident information available to even be questioned. Roughly 50% of all FBI applicants who make it to the polygraph phase are disqualified on the polygraph alone with no background check. If you see me quote the 50/50 coin toss, I am relating it to the polygraph pre-prescreening exam as the FBI uses it.
Regards.
I have often mentioned the pre-screening use of polygraph without any specific incident knowledge or testing as a 50/50 coin toss. The NAS did specify that specific incident polygraph testing was far better than chance but far from perfect.
The NAS was very critical in the current usage of polygraph in pre-screening employment with no specific incident known or researched. They did say that such usage was far from perfect and not much above a 50/50 coin toss.
I am probably one of the most realistic posters here who has consistantly admitted that the government has only tried to increase polygraph usage in pre-employment since the NAS study.
The FBI pre-screening polygraph was given in my case, prior to any background information being gathered. There was no specific incident information available to even be questioned. Roughly 50% of all FBI applicants who make it to the polygraph phase are disqualified on the polygraph alone with no background check. If you see me quote the 50/50 coin toss, I am relating it to the polygraph pre-prescreening exam as the FBI uses it.
Regards.
Posted by Mercible
- Aug 01, 2005, 07:37 PMI keep seeing the term "Coin Toss" mentioned on the postings time and time again. I think this is an exaggeration you might want to consider not using in the future as it is not supported by the known facts. Saying polygraph isn't scientifically valid is strong enough and not an exaggeration of the known facts.
The National Academy of Sciences Committee to Review Scientific Evidence of Polygraph report titled, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" states the following:
The "well above chance" statement tells me that it is better than a "coin toss."
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this validates polygraph for use in determining the hiring/termination of employees in the private sector or government. But, if you wish to be as accurate as possible when discussing these issues with the public, then you cannot be found inconsistent on your statements in this forum. Even a small over exaggeration can give your enemies a footing with which to rightly criticize you.
Personally, I think the work of George Maschke and others are a valiant and noble effort to make the hiring practices of our government agencies fair and to prevent people from facing the same situation he did when applying at the FBI. I would hate to see that work and effort undermined by a few who are a bit too eager to criticize the use of polygraph with exaggeration, no matter how well-intentioned you are.
(jmho)
The National Academy of Sciences Committee to Review Scientific Evidence of Polygraph report titled, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" states the following:
Quote...can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.This specific quote is taken right from "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" page 27.
The "well above chance" statement tells me that it is better than a "coin toss."
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this validates polygraph for use in determining the hiring/termination of employees in the private sector or government. But, if you wish to be as accurate as possible when discussing these issues with the public, then you cannot be found inconsistent on your statements in this forum. Even a small over exaggeration can give your enemies a footing with which to rightly criticize you.
Personally, I think the work of George Maschke and others are a valiant and noble effort to make the hiring practices of our government agencies fair and to prevent people from facing the same situation he did when applying at the FBI. I would hate to see that work and effort undermined by a few who are a bit too eager to criticize the use of polygraph with exaggeration, no matter how well-intentioned you are.
(jmho)
Posted by Bill Crider
- Aug 01, 2005, 02:53 PManother point on the oft-mentioned issue of comparing personality test inaccuracy to polygraph test inaccuracy. If someone is disqualified for the results of a personality test, that is a subjective opinion that cannot be objectively debated. If an agency decides that someone has a score on a personality test that says they are too trusting or passive or whatever and the agency decides that trait is not a good fit for their organization, one can arugue the merits of such a decision but that is a judgement call. No one disputes the right of an employer to make a judgement call on personality points.
On the other hand, when one fails a polygraph, employment is denied on a point of fact that is either true or false. For example, either a person meets the drug usage guidleines or they dont, and frequently the polygraph is getting it wrong. It's not subjective. You wont find an internet site full of people who are upset about being denied employment because they just didnt click with the employer during the interview. But people get very upset about being called drug dealers or spies and having their careers ruined because of it. That is the chief difference in my opinion.
On the other hand, when one fails a polygraph, employment is denied on a point of fact that is either true or false. For example, either a person meets the drug usage guidleines or they dont, and frequently the polygraph is getting it wrong. It's not subjective. You wont find an internet site full of people who are upset about being denied employment because they just didnt click with the employer during the interview. But people get very upset about being called drug dealers or spies and having their careers ruined because of it. That is the chief difference in my opinion.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 01, 2005, 03:35 AMNonombre,
Although I may disagree with you on certain levels, I must say that you do make a bit of sense. One portion in particular has to do with Mr. Maschke. Although, I do not know him personally and have not been afforded the opportunity to meet him face to face, from private converstations I believe him to be genuine. Our country would, in my opinion be better off, with his services given his Arabiac language skills. However, we shall never know given the polygraph judgement.
A point system would be an advance with regard to false positive results. I agree that polygraph, unfortunately in my view, is proliferating rather than declining in law enforcement screening. I believe it to be a true detriment to our nationwide law enforcement community.
Although I may disagree with you on certain levels, I must say that you do make a bit of sense. One portion in particular has to do with Mr. Maschke. Although, I do not know him personally and have not been afforded the opportunity to meet him face to face, from private converstations I believe him to be genuine. Our country would, in my opinion be better off, with his services given his Arabiac language skills. However, we shall never know given the polygraph judgement.
A point system would be an advance with regard to false positive results. I agree that polygraph, unfortunately in my view, is proliferating rather than declining in law enforcement screening. I believe it to be a true detriment to our nationwide law enforcement community.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 01, 2005, 01:12 AMQuote from: polyfool on Aug 01, 2005, 12:04 AM
Nonombre:
l agree that your points system idea has a certain degree of merit. Under your system, I would have scored a job because I would have aced all other portions of my application process, except for the polygraph. However, how would your proposal handle failed polygraphs in regards to the results being made a part of the applicant's permanent file, subject to disclosure to other agencies?
That is one of the beauties of the system. After all, if each stage of the employment process were evaluated based on the weight of that particular portion, then the "failed" polygraph would have the same affect on a different agency as let's say a failed written exam, or a failed physical agility test. The weight given any failed polygraph exam would be given the pre-decided weighted "credit" normally given by that agency.
I realize that I am bringing up issues of standardization in hiring practices better handled by federal/state law makers than anyone (including me) on this site. However, I think it could be a start.
The bottom line is in spite of any efforts made by the people on this site, polygraph testing in screening in getting bigger and bigger in federal, stae, and local government. We all know that. The reasons are many (utility is one significant reason). However, that does not mean that false positives are not an issue. I know they are.
My proposed system is a way that negative polygraph results can be mitigated in an otherwise outstanding applicant package. If a system like the one I have mentioned on this site was in place when people like George Mashke had applied to the FBI, chances are he would be a senior special agent today and web sites like this one would probably not exist.
Your thoughts?
Nonombre
Posted by polyfool
- Aug 01, 2005, 12:04 AMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 31, 2005, 05:46 PM
Bill,
Regarding point #1. You are exactly correct! If I were on a jury, I would never accept the result of ANY one test as definitely proof of guilt. That is why our legal justice system has always demanded cooberative evidence.
Regarding point #2. You are again correct. That is why if I were in charge, I would put in place a weighted point system in which a candidate could blow any one part of the multifaceted hiring process (including the pre-employment polygraph) and still be hired to serve.
Nonombre
Nonombre:
I think you meant that our legal justice system demands corroborative evidence. Having served on a jury, I agree is it important to consider all the evidence. However, surely you must concede that all evidence is not equal and should not be equally weighted. Take DNA or ballistics testing, both highly reliable as opposed to a witness account, which can be inaccurate or flawed. I hope you are not implying that the polygraph should be admitted as evidence in a court of law.
l agree that your points system idea has a certain degree of merit. Under your system, I would have scored a job because I would have aced all other portions of my application process, except for the polygraph. However, how would your proposal handle failed polygraphs in regards to the results being made a part of the applicant's permanent file, subject to disclosure to other agencies?
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 31, 2005, 05:46 PMQuote from: Bill Crider on Jul 20, 2005, 12:00 PM1: ...accepting your stats are accurate about the reliability of other forms of evidence such as handwriting analysis, isn't this why our criminal justice systems relies on a standard of proof beyond 1 single test of dubious accuracy?
2: Yet our federal hiring in marlge part for 1811 positions will take the result of 1 test as gospel.
Bill,
Regarding point #1. You are exactly correct! If I were on a jury, I would never accept the result of ANY one test as definitely proof of guilt. That is why our legal justice system has always demanded cooberative evidence.
Regarding point #2. You are again correct. That is why if I were in charge, I would put in place a weighted point system in which a candidate could blow any one part of the multifaceted hiring process (including the pre-employment polygraph) and still be hired to serve.
Nonombre
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jul 20, 2005, 12:00 PM#1- Which studies are you referring to that assign 85%+ accuracy to the polygraph? Some of the studies have serious flaws for extrapolating accuracy about real investigations or employee screening from a test given to college kids committting mock crimes.
#2-accepting your stats are accurate about the reliability of other forms of evidence such as handwriting analysis, isn't this why our criminal justice systems relies on a standard of proof beyond 1 single test of dubious accuracy? Yet our federal hiring in marlge part for 1811 positions will take the result of 1 test as gospel.
#2-accepting your stats are accurate about the reliability of other forms of evidence such as handwriting analysis, isn't this why our criminal justice systems relies on a standard of proof beyond 1 single test of dubious accuracy? Yet our federal hiring in marlge part for 1811 positions will take the result of 1 test as gospel.