Are they even this objective?

[lane99]

Thanks for the interesting comments, guys.

I might wonder if, in the certification process, the testees know, in advance, that 1/2 the charts are from deceptive subjects, and 1/2 are from truthful subjects?  And, further, know that they won't be confronted with any charts that are considered inconclusive.

If so, the certification process doesn't seem legitimately "blind". Rather it's bit rigged, it seems to me.

[Bill_Brown]

Examiners were not aware that 50% were deceptive and 50% were truthful.  They did score Blind. 

[lane99]

...The Center certifies qualified examiners...

Examiners applying for certification must blind-score 100 sets of charts generated in real-world examinations...fifty of which are from examinations where the subject was deceptive and the rest from examinations where the subject was non-deceptive...

As I understand it, there is some "Center" which is granting some "certification" to some "examiners".

And the examiners applying for certification have access to the information that is quoted above.

If so, then surely the examiners know, in advance of the certification test, that, of the 100 charts they're shown, 50 need to be judged deceptive, and 50 non-deceptive.

[Bill_Brown]

lane99

You may assume what you will.  I did not know how many were deceptive or truthful when I became certified under the Marin Protocol.  I scored in the "blind" totally. 

Even with the that information available to an examiner how would the examiner be able to obtain a minimum of 86% to qualify. The "Center" is not a center it is ASTM.  It has nothing to do specifically with polygraph other than establishing scientific standards for all industries. 

However, you may believe as you desire.  I will not argue the point further. 

[figs]

Anyone know if organizations certifying examiners under the Marin Protocol these days are using Evidentiary or Investigative Decision Rules? 

ASTM Standard E2324-04 doesn't say, so either the organizations themselves decide this little detail - or the examiners are using whatever decision rules they wish.

[lane99]

I did not know how many were deceptive or truthful when I became certified

Fair enough.  But it might have been better if you had confined your comments to that in the first place. Rather than making a very misleading sweeping generalization about what other examiners did or didn't know. 

Even with...that information available to an examiner how would the examiner be able to obtain a minimum of 86% to qualify.

Perhaps you misunderstand the significance of this. It's not that that information alone would ensure testees of an 86% score.

The point is that that information alone does ensure that the test is not truly blind.  But, rather, rigged in favour of producing a higher score than a legitimately blind test would.

[Drew Richardson]

Lane99,

You say in part:

"...Perhaps you misunderstand the significance of this. It's not that that information alone would ensure testees of an 86% score.

The point is that that information alone does ensure that the test is not truly blind.  But, rather, rigged in favour of producing a higher score than a legitimately blind test would...."

Precisely.

Another (of many) issue of concern would be the selection process for the 100 charts presented.  Are they randomly selected from a sufficiently large pool?  Or are they cherry picked to be "clear," i.e., what one former examiner use to call "Stevie Wonder" charts (even a blind man could read).  If the latter were the case, obviously these would not represent "real world" charts and the accuracy involved in scoring same.

Who selects these charts and what professional relationship does that person or persons have to those evaluating the charts.  Is there a conflict of interest, e.g., having someone from the polygraph community (that tends to benefit from higher/inflated accuracy rates) select these charts, etc?

Because ASTM (as far as I know) does not conduct polygraph exams, it might be rather easy to have such considerations glossed over.