- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by smajor82
- Apr 12, 2012, 05:14 PMHow about this then: if polygraph tests are truly reliable, then what information do we need to identify which of the two tests in question are valid? Provide a complete list and how would measure everything on that list. You seem to be good at dismissing people's questions in a way that prevents you from ever having to provide actual information.
If you can't measure everything you need to know in order to effectively evaluate a test, then it's not a very good test, is it? It sounds like the only way to explain the results we have here is with vague, un-quantifiable things like "bias".
If you can't measure everything you need to know in order to effectively evaluate a test, then it's not a very good test, is it? It sounds like the only way to explain the results we have here is with vague, un-quantifiable things like "bias".
Posted by jcamiller
- Feb 14, 2011, 10:57 PM1. singer lose their vioce
2. you just lost your vioce
conclusion: your a singer
p.s. i'm 11 years old and i'm just learning this so it might be wrong :-/
2. you just lost your vioce
conclusion: your a singer
p.s. i'm 11 years old and i'm just learning this so it might be wrong :-/
Posted by pailryder
- May 27, 2008, 03:47 PMnopc
physiological
physiological
Posted by nopolycop
- May 27, 2008, 03:42 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 27, 2008, 02:29 PMnopoly
If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.
What do you mean by an unresolved response? Verbal or physiological?
Posted by pailryder
- May 27, 2008, 02:53 PMMr Cullen
Ask the APA.
Ask the APA.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 27, 2008, 02:39 PMQuoteIf APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.
A single issue follow-up polygraph? You can put a tuxedo on a pig, but it will still be a pig. You are still trying to validate the polygraph with another polygraph.
Why not a follow-up INVESTIGATION.
What do the APA guildelines say about telling the test subject that the test is 95-98% accurate, which they do all the time?
TC
Posted by pailryder
- May 27, 2008, 02:29 PMnopoly
If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.
If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.
Posted by nopolycop
- May 27, 2008, 01:45 PMI take it from your response then, that you do not view the accuracy of pre-employment screening tests as being particularily accurate.
Posted by pailryder
- May 27, 2008, 12:09 PMnopolycop
In preemp screening, utility can, probably does, exceed accuracy. Every agency has finite resources and limited time for background investigations. Even a small city police department may have 300 passes on the initial written test with only 20 openings at the academy. To do 300 full background checks, depending on how many applicants were out of state, could tie up every criminal investigator for months.
One thing that can be fairly said of polyexs is they usually have good interview skills and extract a fair amount of additional information from people who have already "fully disclosed" on their application.
As to accuracy, the best analogy is to target shooting, where with proper training most shooters can hit a single target or know that they missed. But to simultainously shoot at seven different targets, how many hit seven out of seven? That has to be much more difficult.
Police departments reason this process is not unfair as long as everyone gets the same test, has the same chance, takes the same risk.
In preemp screening, utility can, probably does, exceed accuracy. Every agency has finite resources and limited time for background investigations. Even a small city police department may have 300 passes on the initial written test with only 20 openings at the academy. To do 300 full background checks, depending on how many applicants were out of state, could tie up every criminal investigator for months.
One thing that can be fairly said of polyexs is they usually have good interview skills and extract a fair amount of additional information from people who have already "fully disclosed" on their application.
As to accuracy, the best analogy is to target shooting, where with proper training most shooters can hit a single target or know that they missed. But to simultainously shoot at seven different targets, how many hit seven out of seven? That has to be much more difficult.
Police departments reason this process is not unfair as long as everyone gets the same test, has the same chance, takes the same risk.
Posted by nopolycop
- May 27, 2008, 10:25 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 26, 2008, 01:37 PMng1
Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications. A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection.
Pailryder:
The above is an interesting statement. I would be interested in hearing your comments regarding what you believe a fair assessment of the accuracy of "screening" tests would be.
Posted by pailryder
- May 26, 2008, 01:37 PMng1
Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications. A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection.
Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications. A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection.
Posted by notguilty1
- May 26, 2008, 12:26 PMQuote from: pailryder on May 26, 2008, 08:42 AMnotguilty 1
I guess I don't understand your beef. You were a suspect in a theft, you consented to a police polygraph, the police examiner got your result wrong and subjected you to a harsh interrogation. Is that what happened? As Mr Maschke explains in The Lie Behind the Lie the only sure way of protecting against examiner error is to refuse the test. So are you angry because your examiner understated the risk, or because he made an error, or because you didn't exercise your right to refuse?
Hi Pail,
Yes I was accused of a theft. I was asked to take a Poligraph by the detective I agreed because I knew I had nothing to hide and I as many were under the false impression that Polygraph is very accurate.
I was informed that I failed and I was showing "some" deception.
My beef is that this test is being used to judge people and is inaccurate. I know this first hand. I know I had the right to refuse but felt I did not need to exercise that right.
Today, unfortunatly the gun I was accused to stealing has not been recovered and there are still 3 people that, based on Polygraph beleve me to be a thief. Yes I am getting over it but I value my reputation. The test was designed to clear me since I was being truthfull in ALL and ANY information about the gun.
My goal here is to inform people that come here for information not to fall for the BS about Polygraph being 95-98% accurate and that it can infact detect lies two beliefs that the general public has about Polygraph. ( I was told these lies by the Polygrapher ) IF I had it to do over I would have told the detective what to do with his Polygraph machine.
Pail, You seem like a reasonable person and you even suggested in your posts that you do not defend Polygraph in all applications ( I am paraphrasing) so I assume you too understand Polygraphs serious limitations.
Posted by pailryder
- May 26, 2008, 08:42 AMnotguilty 1
I guess I don't understand your beef. You were a suspect in a theft, you consented to a police polygraph, the police examiner got your result wrong and subjected you to a harsh interrogation. Is that what happened? As Mr Maschke explains in The Lie Behind the Lie the only sure way of protecting against examiner error is to refuse the test. So are you angry because your examiner understated the risk, or because he made an error, or because you didn't exercise your right to refuse?
I guess I don't understand your beef. You were a suspect in a theft, you consented to a police polygraph, the police examiner got your result wrong and subjected you to a harsh interrogation. Is that what happened? As Mr Maschke explains in The Lie Behind the Lie the only sure way of protecting against examiner error is to refuse the test. So are you angry because your examiner understated the risk, or because he made an error, or because you didn't exercise your right to refuse?
Posted by notguilty1
- May 25, 2008, 08:50 PMQuote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 03:34 PMng1
I am not here to defend all use of polygraph, especially preemp screening. I am here to learn. I learn more by discussion with those opposed to what I do than with people who support what I do, and frankly, it is a more stimulating conversation. Help me learn, you tell me, give me a number, how accurate would CQT have to be for you to consider it useful?
And about DNA, did you follow the OJ matter?
Pail,
I really appreciate your apperant willingness to have an intelligent discussion.
As for how accurate I would want it to be, doesn't matter because it's current legally accepted accuracy makes the test inadmissable in court as well as illegal for most employment screenings.
That to me makes it unacceptable no matter what the numbers are.
The Polygraph industry keeps claiming 95-98% ( I know this because that was told to me by the police examiner) which is non verifiable offically anywhere in any scientific study.
As for the OJ case if I recall the blood found at the scene was verified to be OJ's through DNA however he got off because of a very expensive defense team and sloppy police work not the failure of DNA analisis.
Posted by pailryder
- May 25, 2008, 03:34 PMng1
I am not here to defend all use of polygraph, especially preemp screening. I am here to learn. I learn more by discussion with those opposed to what I do than with people who support what I do, and frankly, it is a more stimulating conversation. Help me learn, you tell me, give me a number, how accurate would CQT have to be for you to consider it useful?
And about DNA, did you follow the OJ matter?
I am not here to defend all use of polygraph, especially preemp screening. I am here to learn. I learn more by discussion with those opposed to what I do than with people who support what I do, and frankly, it is a more stimulating conversation. Help me learn, you tell me, give me a number, how accurate would CQT have to be for you to consider it useful?
And about DNA, did you follow the OJ matter?