FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%

[nonombre]

freakedout,

Are you aware that HALF (that would be 50%) of the first class at the Academy subjected to polygraphs failed? They were given waivers, yet the agency pushed ahead with the policy, anyway. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something was wrong with the so-called testing procedure then and there's still a heck of a whole lot wrong with it now. Otherwise, there would be very little reason for this site to exist.  

I wonder...

How many of that 50% were in fact false positives?  How many failed because they lied about the relevant questions? Hmmm...

I fail 50-60% of the pre-employment examinees I run.  85% to 95% of those individuals subsequently provide substantial information, which confirms the polygraph results.  In many cases I take that information and run another exam with the new relevant questions worded around their admissions.  Many then pass and if the information was not disqualifying in the first place , they go onto the academy and a police career.

Now please don't take my information and present me with the same old tired argument of "What about the other 5% to 15%?  Gee, if you multiply that times all the police candidates who ever got disqualified because of polygraph, that means polygraph disqualified 157,237 innocent people!"

Have you ever considered that the vast majority of the 5% to 15% of the people who did not provide information, simply chose to not admit their lies?

And please don't answer with some tired old exercise in statistics, because that is not the real world.  The pimply-faced applicant with the bag of Marihuana in the glove compartment of his car parked outside the police station IS the real world.

And yes, that actually happened too.

Regards,

Nonombre

[polyscam]

Nonombre,

Given your last post, I would like to ask your opinion (again) in regard to my pre-employment polygraph experiences.  First test I was deemed deceptive regarding a specific issue.  Second test, different agency, I was deemed truthful regarding the same specific issue.  I did not attempt countermeasures for either test.  Both were and remain police polygraph examiners.  With a complete 180 degree turn from one exam to the other, how can you hold on to the accuracy percentages in your post?  Please induldge me with your opinion.

[nonombre]

Nonombre,

Given your last post, I would like to ask your opinion (again) in regard to my pre-employment polygraph experiences.  First test I was deemed deceptive regarding a specific issue.  Second test, different agency, I was deemed truthful regarding the same specific issue.  I did not attempt countermeasures for either test.  Both were and remain police polygraph examiners.  With a complete 180 degree turn from one exam to the other, how can you hold on to the accuracy percentages in your post?  Please induldge me with your opinion.

Brandon,

That is a very good question.  I truly don't know what happened in your case.  I don't have a copy of your charts, I don't have the test questions were asked, and I don't have an audio or video tape of the exam (Yes, I am a huge supporter of video taping polygraph examinations).

Brandon, I never claim 100% accuracy in polygraph testing, but I give this process a whole lot more credit than the beating it takes on this website...

But then again, this is "Anti-polygraph.org" after all

Regards,

Nonombre

[Drew Richardson]

Nonombre,

You write in part:

...I am a huge supporter of video taping polygraph examinations....

As I recall, you indicated in a previous post that you were a non-federal law enforcement polygrapher in the state of Virginia.  Do you videotape all of your exams?  If so, you, your municipality and/or the state of Virginia are to be congratulated for that practice.  Although such taping will not stop the quackery that stems from using a diagnostically invalid procedure for diagnosis, it will likely stop cold any unethical behavior and any misrepresentations about what takes place/has taken place during the examination on the part of either examiner or examinee.

[freaked-out]

George:  The people who have speculated that the failure rate is 50% are way off.

But good try.  

[freaked-out]

Polyfool:

You hit the nail on the head with that one.  But I would argue that this site should continue to exist for entertainment purposes.

[George W. Maschke]

George:  The people who have speculated that the failure rate is 50% are way off.

But good try.  

Those who reported the FBI pre-employment polygraph failure rate to be about 50% were senior FBI employees seemingly in a position to know.

What do you believe the correct rate to be? And how do you know this?

[freaked-out]

"Seemingly" is right.  (Don't get me started!)

I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

I genuinely hope you can find out the truth one day.  It will make you feel much better about the use of polygraph for screening purposes.

And I know what you're going to say...  but, there was obviously some animosity (not saying it was you're fault) and it showed.  

[George W. Maschke]

...

I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

...

Why not?

[freaked-out]

Shouldn't you be asking "How can I get some official numbers?"

[George W. Maschke]

Shouldn't you be asking "How can I get some official numbers?"

If you could answer that question, I'd be very interested in the answer. Please check your private messages on this board.

[nonombre]

Nonombre,

You write in part:

As I recall, you indicated in a previous post that you were a non-federal law enforcement polygrapher in the state of Virginia.  Do you videotape all of your exams?  If so, you, your municipality and/or the state of Virginia are to be congratulated for that practice.  Although such taping will not stop the quackery that stems from using a diagnostically invalid procedure for diagnosis, it will likely stop cold any unethical behavior and any misrepresentations about what takes place/has taken place during the examination on the part of either examiner or examinee.

Dr. Richardson,

My department videotapes every specific issue exam and audiotapes every screening test (less expensive that way)

I have absolutely no problem with this practice.  In fact, you have no idea how many subjects walk out of a polygraph examination conveniently forgetting what they said just minutes before.

For the hiring authority and in some cases the judge, the tape removes all doubt.

Regards,

Nonombre

[Onesimus]

 85% to 95% of those individuals subsequently provide substantial information, which confirms the polygraph results.

How do you know that the information they subsequently provided is what caused the failure?  

Some of my cleared coworkers have bragged about making up stuff to appease their polygraphers.  Given that polygraphers cut off examinees during the pre-test questions, the potentially dire consequences of failing a polygraph test, and the vagueness of the questions asked, it is not surprising that most people can provide additional information when asked about the questions again.  

Have you ever considered that the vast majority of the 5% to 15% of the people who did not provide information, simply chose to not admit their lies?

I guess you're a number 4 on my When polygraphers go home at night thread.

The pimply-faced applicant with the bag of Marihuana in the glove compartment of his car parked outside the police station IS the real world.

I live in the real world.  I have failed and passed polygraph exams, but never with a bag of marijuana in my car.  I'm glad that I have a more positive view of mankind that nonombre does.  I know many good people who have failed polygraph exams.  Nonombre probably does too, but lacks the mental strength to face this fact.



Keep in mind that nonombre has chosen to lie to and harass people for his career.  Nothing he or any other polygrapher says should be taken at face value.  Polygraphers will tell you whatever they think you need to hear in order to get a confession out of you.  Polygraph tests are utterly useless unless the polygrapher can succeed in his psychological games.

[Fair Chance]

The original Philadelphia Inquirer article is still available but for a fee.  Like most major newspapers, web based research is a possible cash cow with a fee for usage.  The 50% failure rate was quoted from an FBI official who provided the number and rational.

Consider the pool of agent candidates that the FBI must filter even before the use of polygraph:  1. Must be under the age of 37 years (automatically removes half of the population).  2. Must have an approved four year degree (for arguments sake, let place this number at 50% elimination).  3. Must be at least 18 years of age (and in most cases 22 years in order to finish a four year degree).

Only the population between 22 years of age and 37 years of age can be considered resulting in an applicant pool that consist of about 20% of the total population.  The degree cuts that down to 10% of the population.

Of the 10% general population, they must not have used drugs (I know that the policy "allows" past drug usage but for effective purposes, these people will be eliminated whenever feasible).  They must have had no significant problems with the law.  They must desire govenment employment.  They must be willing to go through background checks and physicals.

The remaining pool is the type of applicant that all government agencies need and contractors desire.

Previous to the use of polygraph screening, the FBI had very little problems with employees being compromised.  The whole use of polygraph is a knee-jerk reaction by Congress and Agency leaders "to do something they can point to" when pressed about employees who were comprimised.  Easier to do something stupid like instituting the polygraph as a quick fix instead of correcting inadequate physical security and security policy flaws.  Oh my goodness, they just might have to admit they are fallible and fix something.

I have been properly corrected by polygraph proponents that the polygraph exam cannot in any way shape or form predict future behaviour when I have provide examples of employees who have been given polygraphs in the past and gone wrong.

Why are we eliminating one out of two people who make it to the final stages of the FBI application process with this instrument when it cannot predict future behavior and a background investigation is not performed to confirm polygraph information which is used to rescind a job offer?

We in government are shooting ourselves in the foot because we are slowly eliminating a huge amount of people from Federal employment based on unsubstantiated accusations by a device that the NAS has huge reservations about.

About a year ago I stated that the FBI was going to be in a crisis due to hiring procedures and their inability to keep talent in five years.  The timer is down to four years.  They cannot keep continuity in the technology ranks which has destroyed any hopes of getting a state of the art computer system accomplished.  Not only was the Trilogy project a 171 million dollar flop but they need over 400 million more dollars to come up with a proper solution.   Recent newspaper articles have stated that GAO found over $500,000 was wasted by CSC in inventory that was not even delivered but billed.  CSC has so far denied comment but might still be involved in the next FBI computer boondoogle.

The polygraph is destroying the FBI application process and as time goes by, my point will be validated.  No high quality scientific mind is going to accept polygraph results as the ultimate test of their integrity.

Regards.

[nonombre]

Keep in mind that nonombre has chosen to lie to and harass people for his career.  Nothing he or any other polygrapher says should be taken at face value.  Polygraphers will tell you whatever they think you need to hear in order to get a confession out of you.  Polygraph tests are utterly useless unless the polygrapher can succeed in his psychological games.

So bitter, yet so sure of all the answers.  Mind clouded by a painfully egocentric view formed by negative life experiences..

Onesimus,  I am so sorry your life has not turned out as you had hoped...