I've just completed some fascinating reading regarding the current state of CIT research. As most have probably gathered, I'm not entrenched on either side; I find the debate intellectually stimulating in many dimensions. My impression of the polygraph's history reveals a chasm between the scientists and the practitioners over the years; the latter being more from a law enforcement / legal genre of professionals. The major beef with the polygraph is the inadequacies of the CQT. While practitioners point to criterion validity, scholars note the lack of construct validity as well as the biased feedback from the field. This is the root of the "pseudoscience" tag.
In walks the CIT (or GKT out of respect to Lykken). Current research lends support to both criterion and construct validity (Sokolov's Orienting Reflex), as well as being unbiased towards the innocent in contrast the to CQT.
So, my question is thus:
Does the CIT potentially steal the fire from the antipolygraph camp? Or are they split; some accepting the CIT as a viable approach to PDD (or more appropriately Memory Detection) and others who are totally against any kind of external intrusion into the private domain of the mind.
Comments?
Ark, a concern I have with the CIT/GKT is that a test subject could harbor sensitivity to the key item that is entirely unrelated to either concealed information or guilty knowledge.
Let's say a homicide was committed with a gun that fired a .357 magnum round, and, in the ensuing investigation, a CIT/GKT exam was given to suspects to establish a link to the caliber of firearm used.
In such a test, ".357 magnum" or "357" would be the key item, obviously.
Now, if a polygraph test subject had a memorable association with that type of firearm -- for example, the person once fired a short-barreled .357 revolver at night with no hearing protection, leaving him temporarily blinded form the muzzle flash and his ears ringing for hours after that -- then the mere mention of that caliber could evoke that memory and thus produce tracings that suggest an arousal to that item.
It's easy to think of other such examples. My point is that there can be alternative explanations to responses to the key item in a CIT/GKT "test" that are neither concealed information nor guilty knowledge.
As for the CQT, in my opinion, it's essentially "tooth fairy science."
Learn more here: http://ethicalnag.org/2009/10/26/tooth-fairy-science/
Dan, Lykken did address this by having each test contain only one crime relevant key item, and running several tests with other crime relevant items. For example if 10 tests were run, each with a unique crime relevant item along with 4 controls, the chances of a person lacking guilty knowledge responding to all (or most) crime relevant items would statistically be less than 1%. Interestingly, way back in 1960, Lykken did a countermeasure study on the GKT and found that diagnostic information regarding guilty knowledge was none-the-less discernible.
In contrast to the POT where phasic responses take a back seat to tonic during analysis, the CIT is numerically scored with no Inconclusive available. Also, the POT uses only one key, whereas the CIT suggests many (accuracy increases proportionally).
Putting this all together creates a scenario whereby the examiner is woven into an investigative team to implement strategies to identify salient crime related keys and prevent them from leaking. I am not sure if the average examiner has the prowess (or gumption) and critical thinking skills to make the CIT effective.
Ark,
You ask:
Quote...Does the CIT potentially steal the fire from the anti polygraph camp?...
Because CIT examinations will never be used/cannot be used for general polygraph screening examinations (by definition these are fishing expeditions without the developed information necessary to conduct a CIT exam), there will always exist the opportunity for the foolish to apply commonly utilized lie detection formats in that arena--so, if you mean by "stealing the fire," eliminating the possibility of meaningful critique and criticism, the answer is no.
And by the way, as I am sure you are aware, because CIT exams are not employed to detect deception, as a matter of simple nomenclature, they would never by categorized as a type of PDD.
Dan,
A proper review of CIT items with an examinee, in advance of the examination, will afford that examinee an opportunity to advise of the kind of non-relevant item salience that you asked about with your example of a .357. The alleged salience can be investigated, and if found to be plausible, the item can be eliminated, the exam thereby modified, and then subsequently conducted.
I hope that you will continue to think about and explore the CIT, and whether you are successful or not with your desire for leadership within the APA, I hope that you will continually promote CIT utilization as a worthy seminar topic.
Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Nov 28, 2015, 01:09 PMBecause CIT examinations will never be used/cannot be used for general polygraph screening examinations (by definition these are fishing expeditions without the developed information necessary to conduct a CIT exam), there will always exist the opportunity for the foolish to apply commonly utilized lie detection formats in that arena--so, if you mean by "stealing the fire," eliminating the possibility of meaningful critique and criticism, the answer is no.
Doc,
While pondering the idea if an OR could somehow be utilized in screening, I came up empty every time. Then, while reading a book from a noted Lithuanian polygraph examiner Vitas Saldžiūnas, I was surprised to see where he affirms he and his colleague developed what they call an Event Knowledge Test (EKT). They even called it an "improvement" over the CIT. I gather that it has its roots in the KGB counterpart of the old DODpi. It strikes me as having elements of both a CIT and an RI.
I noted that he and his colleague authored the attached article in the 2012 APA journal. Are you familiar with this proffered EKT? Intuitively I want to ask to see the studies as well as an explanation of its construct validity. But, I am humbled by his credentials.
His book is written with his own ESL skills and reads as such. But, if only I could do so well in Lithuanian. Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3659741922?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00
Ark,
Have been paragliding in Colombia the last couple of weeks, but once things settle down (no pun intended), I will look forward to exploring the EKT...
https://youtu.be/eb2IqTKubyA
Ark,
How do I get to the attachment you refer to? Amazon's book offering will not be practical in the short term...
So, obviously I have not yet read the work you refer to and am not familiar with the event knowledge test, so I can't comment upon the specifics of the notion or the details of the article. That having been said...
An RI lie detection test is the lowest of the low in the world of lie detection and combining it with a CIT would likely not improve the RI but altogether ruin a CIT exam.
Going back to my previous statement about CIT exams not being applicable to screening, I need to offer a differentiation and an explanation.
A CIT is most definitely not useful in a typical screening test, e.g., applicant testing/employee reinvestigation/sex offender testing types of screening exams because all of the preceding are merely fishing expeditions with no developed information available from which to probe examinee memories.
There does exist a different and a general screening exam in which one screens a pool of individuals/potential examinees (or even one individual) to see who in that pool has association with some specific group of interest (Mafia, Al Qaeda, etc) or who possesses some specialized knowledge or skill set (e.g., bomb maker, medical training, etc).
This latter type of testing is clearly a viable use of a CIT for a generalized (group association) type of screening, but, as always, depends upon the development of relevant privileged information. This might well involve the use of confidential sources, informants, etc. with terrorist or organized crime related exams. Examples of useful information that might be obtained are training methods, locations, occupants (specific names and demographics of) in the hierarchy of some group, etc.
My colleague, Dr. Larry Farwell, and I have demonstrated the viability of this latter type of testing several times over the last couple of decades, e.g.,
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2014.00410/abstract
Doc,
The attachment is there at the bottom of my previous post. Click on the Icon just below the book link.
Alternatively, you can get the article from the APA website here:
http://www.polygraph.org/assets/docs/APA-Journal.Articles/2012/polygraph_in_lithuania_and_russia.pdf
Ark,
Thank you for getting me to the article you referenced.
I'm sorry, but without spending additional and considerably more time than I am prepared to devote to tracking down and reading additional foundational articles (i.e., Saldžiūnas & Kovalaenka, 2008a,b,c, 2009a,b,c,d, 2010, 2011) referenced in that paper, I will not have any fully developed opinions about the EKT.
But again, anything that commingles lie detection and CIT exams would be of no interest to me and likely of no value to anyone.
Alright Doc, I know that expert opinions cannot be made spontaneously. These articles he refers to are in the European Polygraph Journals which are harder to find documents.
I do find these methods counterintuitive and seem to conflict with the techniques elaborated in this country. I was not aware that parallel polygraph efforts had been occurring in the former East Block countries.
In reading his book, he and his colleagues have a lot of sway with the Lithuanian courts who have accepted his EKT as evidence in criminal cases.
If Raymond or anyone else has some comments on this method, I'd like to hear it. My thoughts are focused on some alternative to the CQT, an alternative which may have construct validity. But, that may be grandiose and sophomoric of me as I do not have formal training in Psychology.
Ark, where did you go to polygraph school?
Dan, I never attended a polygraph school. I am an engineer by trade.
I doubt that an engineer of virtually any stripe would have much faith in the "test."
I am indeed still on the fence.
What would it take to make you a believer? Evidently more than the APA's own research...
From what I've reviewed in the last 5 or so years, It appears that the CQT is capable of detecting deception (assuming single issue) at slightly higher than chance level. Beyond that, it is still fuzzy. I have more faith in the CIT, but meaningful field studies are sorely lacking.
Ark, what, exactly, do you find to be deficient in the APA's meta-analytic survey?
Regarding the CIT, what is probably most lacking is that they do not call attention to the fact that of the 22 studies they refer to, only 2 were field studies, both of which were accomplished in Israel, Elaad (1990) and Elaad et al. (1992). And, even these were hobbled by using only two or three questions. A later review noted that accuracy is directly proportional to the number of questions asked, Ben-Shakhar & Elaad (2003).
Ark, in your opinion...
Given the fragility of the CQT polygraph "test" -- and the tremendous variance in examiner ability, as well as that of examinee suitability -- should Monte Carlo statistical modeling be part of the equation that predicts polygraph accuracy?
If not, why not?
Dan, who are you John Daly? I feel like the Mystery Guest on "What's My Line?"
You take a turn now and answer Raymond's question about the reported 100% accuracy of your study.
John Daly? You're really dating yourself Ark. But I did the same when likening APA de facto chief researcher Ray Nelson to Professor Irwin (The world's foremost authority!) Corey.
The APA has a storied history of steadfastly supporting studies claiming perfect accuracy. In fact, the report that the APA stood by for 15 years -- and sold for 25 bucks a whack -- contained multiple studies showing polygraph to be 100% accurate. Remember, in that compendium, it was reported that average field accuracy for polygraph was a whopping 98.6 percent.
There are several factors that contribute to the "perfect storm" that sets the stage a study showing perfect accuracy. Such factors include clear-cut cases that more than merely satisfy Backster's cardinal requirements for success -- adequate background information, case intensity (i.e., what's at stake), and distinctness of issue; flawless execution of a proven technique, test-taker suitability, and, of course, examiner expertise (to include innate talent, skill and intuition -- none of which are "scientific").
The bottom line is that polygraph is far more of an art than it is a science.
Add to all of that the inherent benefits of conducting a polygraph "test" in a police setting, such as being fed information based on the hunches of the case investigators, as Dr. Richardson has pointed out. Also, people who submit to a police polygraph are probably not all that bright, which helps immensely.
Let me be clear: Studies suggesting 100% accuracy are not to be generalized to the polygraph-operator population at large. Far from it, in fact. Look at it this way...you can't teach someone to throw a 95-mph fastball. That's primarily a God-given skill.
In the case of the MQTZCT, it is my opinion that only (exceptional) examiners who were taught personally by Backster in his seminal ZCT method, and subsequently taught the Quadri-Track technique by its creator Matte himself, should conduct such exams.
Nelson is correct when he characterizes the MQTZCT as both an outlier and a boutique technique. To be sure, the MQTZCT does not fit the APA's current cool-kid narrative that espouses simplified, dumbed down, cookie-cutter polygraph methodological shortcuts such as ESS, inclusive CQs, and directed lies.
In a previous post, I indicated that only two CIT field studies have been conducted thus far and both in Israel. However, I did come across the attached presentation to the I.O.P. in 2010. Since Japanese investigators use the CIT in 95% of their testing, I suspect that will be the main source of any meaningful CIT empirical data from the field.
Dan, let me bone up on the MQTZCT so we can have a discussion about it. It seems very interesting. It's been a while since I've cracked open the Matte boat anchor.
Indeed, Ark, I strongly suggest you become familiar with the MQTZCT before our discussion goes any further.
Meanwhile, know this: the Matte "boat anchor," as you call it it, is The Bible of polygraph.
When it comes to polygraph expertise, Matte is nonpareil.
In my most humble opinion, polygraph re$earcher$ Ray Nelson (who I consider to be the Professor Irwin Corey of polygraph), Barry (pastor) Cushman, Mark (APA editor in chief) Handler, Don (polygraph is belief system oriented) Krapohl, et al, could never match -- even collectively -- the expertise of James Allan Matte.
Soon, George will trot out Matte's "bogus" doctoral degree.
Given A-P's agenda, I get it. No sweat.
But, for you, Ark, I suggest doing your homework thoroughly before you engage me further on the MQTZCT.
Your move, engineer.
Hmmm, I wonder if your irreverence may be related to the attached?
Ark, I'll put it this way:
Honey badger don't give a sh*t about the APA obstructionist agenda.
My gig is all about the prime principle that the APA abandoned.
That is, serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons.
Any more questions?
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 15, 2016, 08:51 PMAny more questions?
Yes, would you happen to have a copy of this document?:
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E., & Merckelbach, H. (2008). The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique: it's just not science. A critique to Mangan, Armitage, and Adams (2008). Physiology and Behavior, 95(1-2), 27-28.
It would be interesting to read as Bruno Verscheure is one of the top polygraph researchers and I'd like to compare his analysis with that of your paragon of polygraphy.
No, I don't have a copy handy, but I agree -- "It's just not science."
I agree -- (no CQT "test" is, as you already know) -- and have sad so, many times.
So what?
By the way, "boat anchor" referred to the size, not the quality.
It seems that your angst may be related to APA's feud with Matte. Advice from the fence: loyalty is noble but, don't take things so seriously, they are just spirited discussions.
Ark, you claim to be an "engineer by trade."
I ask you, what type of engineering?
My curiosity has deep roots. In my former career -- in what was called "high tech" industry at the time -- I worked with many an engineer. I sincerely doubt that a single one of them would put any credence in the polygraph "test".
Why your fascination -- and what's your connection, if any -- with polygraph?
Electrical Engineering, involved in instrumentation, which sparked an interest in the subject. I find it an interesting mix of science and ethics--similar to whether or not an engineer should be involved in the design of weaponry. I am very prolific and varied in my interests, studies and experimentation encompassing many disciplines, mostly involving science. And, I do find Matte's Hope/Fear concept very interesting....
Doc,
If you are ever so inclined, on page 12 of the attached issue of the European Police Science and Research Bulletin is a very interesting article by Kovalenka & Saldžiūnas which delineates a forensic example of the EKT. I believe these gentlemen are worthy of your time and scrutiny as they have over a decade of empirical data from high stakes field examinations. It's also curious to note that the criminal courts accept their polygraph testimony into evidence. Also interesting is the fact that they tried and eventually abandoned the CQT totally in 2004.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 14, 2016, 02:22 PMDan, I never attended a polygraph school. I am an engineer by trade.
"Polygraph school"? Wouldn't that be a bit like an astrology school? lol ;)