Do you receive results?

[quickfix]

Excellent question quickfix. I am at a loss for an answer.

So you see our dilemma;  we are unable to distinguish between the two motives (without an admission);  the school solution tells us to suspect the worst-case scenario.  This is the dark side of engaging in countermeasures.  The one with the intent to avoid the false positive will be lumped together with the one hiding relevant information.

[Ex Member]

Dan, I caution you to pause before jumping onto the eye detect band wagon. It is my opinion that these folks dove prematurely into the commercialization of this technology simply to get a foothold in the market before anyone else did.

The reality is that the use of ocular metrics for PDD is nascent and immature. I am only aware of 2 attempts at field studies. The first was conducted on Federal Government employees, N=94. The results were a modest 77% accuracy. The second involved job applicants in Colombia, N=94. The results were nil--no demonstrated ability to distinguish between the two groups. The two laboratory experiments that I'm aware of, reported approximately 85% accuracy.

This "successive hurdles" approach shows that their technology cannot yet be decoupled from the polygraph and may be a marketing ploy to salvage their investment.

[getrealalready]

Quickfix,

So you can neither reliably detect countermeasures nor accurately assign a motive for such if you could.  I suggest you avoid what your sign-in name suggests and simply be resolute in not guessing or bluffing with either.

[quickfix]

Ability to detect and motive are two different topics.  Countermeasures can be detected and are detected every day.  The number of people coming to this site to complain they were accused of engaging in countermeasures is the proof.  The motive for engaging in countermeasures cannot be detected as we are not mind readers.

[getrealalready]

The number of people coming to this site to complain they were accused of engaging in countermeasures is the proof.

An accusation (or report thereof) is not evidence of anything.  I would have thought you would have known better...

[quickfix]

It's evidence enough for us.  The one who doesn't know better is you.

[getrealalready]

It's evidence enough for us.

I guess I should claim a confession or at least an admission...LOL

[Ex Member]

Dan,
What's your take on PCDVT? Were you able to scrutinize the APA model?

[Dan Mangan]

Ark, in my opinion, this latest iteration of an APA "model policy" appears to be little more than a clever cut-and-paste bastardization of the popular PCSOT moneymaker.

Clearly, the PCDVT phenomenon heralds an opportune new line for the polygraph gravy train. [ALL ABOARD!]

Indeed, it seems the polygraph "test" model-policy domino theory knows no bounds...  What's next? A "model policy" for miscreants convicted of texting while driving?

BTW, before getting into the polygraph field, I was a victim-witness advocate attached to a DV court.

I'll tell you what we'll never see: An APA "model policy" for infidelity exams, which happens to be the bread and butter for many a polygraph operator in the private sector.

[Ex Member]

Indeed, it seems the polygraph "test" model-policy domino theory knows no bounds...  What's next? A "model policy" for miscreants convicted of texting while driving?

It does make one pause to consider the extent the polygraph may be utilized for "monitoring." It seems to be driven by emotion: "we have to protect our children and women!"; hence PSCOT & PCDVT. Bank robbers and corrupt officials don't appeal to the emotions.

[Dan Mangan]

Ark, in my opinion, PCDVT is another lucrative commercial opportunity wrapped in a cloak of righteousness.

[Dan Mangan]

Similarly, doesn't it make sense for the honest LE or gummint job seeker to be as well prepared as possible for their official pre-employment polygraph "test"?

Given that the CQT lacks construct validity, and that the applicant has no recourse, and that the examiner would not allow the data to be provided for an objective second opinion, and assuming that the examinee is not withholding any disqualifying information, then yes, I would not be adverse to using countermeasures to prevent a false positive.

Ark, from what I've observed in my 11+ years as a certified forensic psychophysiologist, many of my colleagues would agree with you.

Such reasoning is easy to understand.

Why?

Even under the best of circumstances, a polygraph "test" is a crap shoot, and self-preservation is an instinct.

Thus, the decision to use CMs is not irrational.

For some, it's likely the right play.

[Ex Member]

A conundrum has developed however; much to my astonishment, the government has assailed the issue of countermeasures with intense ferocity.

I have read many posts here over the years wherein examinees have reported executing undetectable CM's with ease. I say it's not that easy. I'm sure some would be able to refine them with practice, but going in haphazardly could result in detectable errors which, at the least, would arouse the examiners' suspicions--resulting in a pseudo-false-positive.

So, how does one reach that point of refinement, when they could endeavor to execute CM's above the skill of a novice? Asking someone to coach is effectively asking someone to be the next target. I wouldn't even entertain the thought.

[Dan Mangan]

I have read many posts here over the years wherein examinees have reported executing undetectable CM's with ease. I say it's not that easy.

Ark, allow me to respectfully disagree. I say it's not all that difficult.

Coaching -- while ostensibly a more expedient how-to CM solution -- is not necessary, IMHO.

What is necessary, however, is possessing the right mindset to prevail in a cat-and-mouse game that hinges largely on theatrics.

Between the comprehensive CM resources that already exist in written form, and the abundance of internet videos that capture actual polygraph exams, a motivated examinee seeking to pass the "test" has ready access to effective study materials.

There's a good reason why many APA bigs (and other pro-polygraph cheerleaders) have vehemently condemned my call for a countermeasure challenge series: The "test" would be shown for what it is -- a deeply flawed process disturbingly vulnerable to countermeasures.

[Ex Member]

Dan, In the course of your career, have you ever caught anyone attempting CM's?