Just took my first poly...

[polyfool]

Nonombre:

A solid investigator is able to pick up on subtleties and wade through all the bullshit while getting people to talk.

A thorough background investigation virtually covers a person's entire life and involves multiple investigators and corroborating evidence. If the applicant has something to hide, it'll most likley be found or at the very least, there will be clues indicating something should be looked into a little further. Investigators talk with people who haven't seen the applicant in years and may never see them again. Are you saying you don't believe in investigative leg work? Why bother with backgrounds at all then? Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?  I don't think any cop would place more weight on a polygraph than solid detective work. The two don't even come close to being on the same level. You're comparing a couple of hours in a room with a stranger and a faulty SUBJECTIVE test to several independent investigators checking record after record and  conducting interviews spanning an applicant's life. There's really no comparison.

Applicants sign releases absolving any possibility of litigation, so interviewees and former employers have nothing to be afraid of. A former employer will at the very least be able to say if the person is eligible for rehire--which says a lot without coming out and saying it.  

Nonombre, if you had to weigh a thorough background investigation and a polygraph --how much weight would you give each?      

[nonombre]

Nonombre:

A solid investigator is able to pick up on subtleties and wade through all the bullshit while getting people to talk.

A thorough background investigation virtually covers a person's entire life and involves multiple investigators and corroborating evidence. If the applicant has something to hide, it'll most likley be found or at the very least, there will be clues indicating something should be looked into a little further. Investigators talk with people who haven't seen the applicant in years and may never see them again. Are you saying you don't believe in investigative leg work? Why bother with backgrounds at all then? Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?  I don't think any cop would place more weight on a polygraph than solid detective work. The two don't even come close to being on the same level. You're comparing a couple of hours in a room with a stranger and a faulty SUBJECTIVE test to several independent investigators checking record after record and  conducting interviews spanning an applicant's life. There's really no comparison.

Applicants sign releases absolving any possibility of litigation, so interviewees and former employers have nothing to be afraid of. A former employer will at the very least be able to say if the person is eligible for rehire--which says a lot without coming out and saying it.  

Nonombre, if you had to weigh a thorough background investigation and a polygraph --how much weight would you give each?      

Polyfool,

Thank you for posting.  I am afraid that however that I must disagree with you.  Not because your vision of a classicially run investigation is not commendable, but because it unfortunately does not jive with the realities of life.  I have done background investigations, and I have conducted criminal investigations and in the real world, your description much more closely fits a "textbook" criminal case.

You see, as a criminal investigator, I have managed between a dozen and two dozen felony criminal cases at a time, a managable case load when their are prosecutors and victims relying on you for a solved case and closure to what is usually a horrendus situation.

Conversly, as a background investigator, I have sometimes had 200 to 300 files, stacked on the floor, in piles from three to five feet high, with hirings pending, academy slots needing to be filled, and the other two guys out sick.

And it is not just the overwork.  It is the whole dynamic of a criminal case vs. a background investigation.  In a criminal case, there is physical evidence, witness interviews, confessions of co-conspirators, a criminal act,  a victim, changing stories, and all the tings you have alluded to in your post.  Good stuff, the stuff that solves cases.

In a background investigation, all you start with is the word of the applicant and a carefully chosen list of references HE has provided.  Sure you do the usual asking of the references what other people know this guy and MAYBE you get lucky.  But I hold to my earlier statement that unless you manage to find an arrest record or  someone who has a beef with this person, all you are going to get is the usual "He's a really good guy."  In most cases, the neighbors who are giving him such a glowing reference have no idea he had been molesting their 12 year old.

Polyfool, at one point you asked me, "Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?"

I am not sure what answer you were looking for, but I can tell you this.  From what I know, I would figure that VERY, VERY, few people are  denied clearances based purely on a background investigation.

Ahhh, but add a full scope polygraph into the mix...  

Nonombre.

[polyscam]

Nonombre,

Respectfully...assuming polygraph works just as it is touted to work, based on study after study after study (including the National Academy of Sciences review) we can conclude that studies provide specific incident polygraphing is 98% accurate (readers please note that this is not my belief).  Studies regarding background screening polygraphing are few and far between and do not claim such a high level of accuracy.  So going by these conclusions and yours, I can only arrive at the following:  Criminal investigations recieve more attention and leg-work as there is more evidentiary proof with a known result (the crime) as well as victim and prosecutorial involvement.  Poygraphy has a higher accuracy rate in such cases.  Conversely, applicant background investigations receive less attention and concrete facts are hard to come by due to references providing only positive information and no known facts.  A full scope polygraph examination then has no concrete facts to back up it's results whether positive or negative because ground truth is not known by the investigator or polygraph examiner.  By this logic both the background investigation and polygraph examination should be eliminated from the hiring process.

By admission of polygraph examiners, a specific incident examination and a screening examination are two different animals.  Screening examinations are given based on studies regarding specific incident testing.  However screening exams cover multiple areas.  To use another analogy:  It is deer season and I harvest an elk.  Both are game animals.  I use the same weapon for each.  However there are major differences between each animal.  Just because it is open season on one does not make it alright to take the other.

My conclusion remains the same.  Polygraph testing has utility when examining individuals that believe in it's ability and the examiner's ability to discern truth from lie, thereby inducing confessions by guilty examinees.  However that utility is far too often mistaken for accuracy and validity.  Again different animals.    

[Drew Richardson]

Brandon,

As you correctly assess, a full scope polygraph exam (or any polygraph screening exam for that matter), as a diagnostic tool, would be accurately, fully and simply described as one of the most useless activities of mankind if it were not for the fact that it is additionally and routinely counterproductive and harmful as well.

[tasercop]

I won't try and argue the validity of polygraph here on this site, it would be like trying to convince people who believe in UFO's that they don't exist.  Pointless.  You all have your opinion and we have ours.  However Drew, let me ask you this:  I was sent a subject to polygraph  regarding multiple sex offenses.  He was accused of molesting his 4 children.  He had been in prison for 18 months without benefit of trial.  His DEFENSE ATTORNEY sent him to me, a police deparment polygrapher.  I found him NDI.  His attorney was trying to convince him to plead guilty.  All evidence was stacked against him.  After passing the polygraph, I polygraphed the "victims" who failed and subsequently confessed to lying at the request of their mother, who was mad because he would not up the child support payments.  He was freed.  Without the polygraph, he would have likely been convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison.  

Worthless science?  I bet he would differ!

[Jeffery]

Tasercop-

Welcome aboard.  The distinction here is between validity and utility.  I don't think anybody would argue that polygraphics had a high degree of utility in this case.  Fortunately for the "suspect" both he and his accusers believed in polygraphics.  This combined with the skills of a good interagotor (you) was able to extract a confession from the false accuser.

However, this particualar story in my mind provides no proof of polygraph validity; esp. in cases of screening exams.

[Drew Richardson]

Tasercop,

If you will note, my post that you replied to was in reference to polygraph screening.  Your question and related anecdote refers to a criminal investigation and specific incident polygraph exams.  Although still clearly problematic, this form of testing for reasons beyond the scope of this answer tends to be less problematic (although far from valid and highly accurate) than as is the case with screening exams.  You make reference to (CQT, yes?) polygraphy (tongue in cheek) as "worthless science."  Even I would take exception to that characterization.  It may or may not be worthless but is most certainly not science.

[tasercop]

Jeffery,

The polygraph has been used for scientific research for years for things other than the detection of deception.  As an instrument it is both valid and accurate.  Validity is determined by whether or not it accurately records what it is purported to record, which it does.  Reliability, another requirement, is whether or not it consistently records what it is supposed to record.  Here too, the polygraph is proven.  The debate, I believe, is more about the accuracy and reliability of a polygraph examiner to detect deception using the polygraph instrument.

The polygraph for the detection of deception, in the hands of a well trained, educated and experienced examiner, is very accurate and reliable.  I will agree that there are a lot of examiners out there who should not be doing polygraph examinations and my profession has done a poor job or regulating itself.  I, as most legitimate examiners, openly embraced the EPPA as it was needed and forced a lot of bad examiners out of business.  

The detection of deception using the polygraph is rooted not only in physiology, but equally in psychology.  Because of this it is nearly impossible to consistently replicate field conditions in a laboratory environment.  This has been a problem that has plagued us for years.  Testing someone on a mock crime does not elicit the same sympathetic arousal as testing someone accused of murder. The negative consequence with getting caught in the lie is not the same.

As far as pre-employment screening, I agree, there are problems.  Nobody should ever be rejected for failing a pre-employment polygraph examination.  In fact, agencies should not even call it a failure, but "significant response".  These are screening exams and the polygraph is used to spot possible areas of concern.  Once SR is detected for a particular question(s), follow-up, specific issue examination(s) should follow. It is not uncommon for me to give 6 or 7 specific issue exams to a person whose initial PE screening showed SR.  My experience is that at least 50% are cleared by the subsequent testing and move forward in the process. The others end up DI and usually admit they had withheld something or the tests results coincide with negative information obtained during the background.  The agency should look at everything as a whole, not just the polygraph.  

The courts have ruled that an applicant does not have a property right to a job and cannot sue due to being denied a position because he/she failed a polygraph.  Unfortunately, many large agencies, especially in the federal government, use it as a tool to thin out and narrow the candidate pool.  They do not have the time or desire for subsequent testing and because of this they lose some good people.  However, they weed out more bad than they lose good, so they consider the loss acceptable.  The same happens with applicants who do poorly on psychological tests, such as the MMPI, which if my memory serves me correct, is only about 70% accurate.  

In years of doing pre-employment screenings, I have never had a complaint filed or even had an applicant use the appeals process.  As far as doing just a thorough background and getting the same information, it doesn't work.  The federal government did a study and found out they miss 70% of the negative information that exists about an applicant without the polygraph.  Many offenses, such as child molesting, peeping Tom, frottage and undetected thefts, are committed in secrecy and must be self reported.  When hiring a cop, I want to know this information if it exists.

Some of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations.  For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use.  Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets.  I believe they are living proof that the system works. Pre-employment polygraph screening isn't going away; in fact it is increasing exponentially.  Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works better.

[Drew Richardson]

Tasercop,

You write in part:

...Validity is determined by whether or not it accurately records what it is purported to record, which it does.  Reliability, another requirement, is whether or not it consistently records what it is supposed to record....

.

Wrong.  Validity and reliability have nothing to do with whether your polygraph records accurately.  We know that electrons flow, etc.  Validity has to do with whether the application and its entire component parts measures what it purports to measure, e.g., whether polygraph screening detects deception.  It most certainly does not and the serious theoretical flaws involved in such would lead one to hypothesize such to be the case.

You further write:

...However, they weed out more bad than they lose good....

very interesting....and how did you divine that?  As far as I can tell they can't tell that those who passed the polygraph are good and those who fail are bad, so what is the basis for such a statement?

You further write:

...The negative consequence with getting caught in the lie is not the same....

Close, but no cigars.  The negative consequence of being found deceptive (independent of whether one is lying) is not the same.  This is why simulated crimes followed by polygraph tests would be expected to underestimate false positives.

You further write:

...Nobody should ever be rejected for failing a pre-employment polygraph examination.  In fact, agencies should not even call it a failure, but "significant response"....

 

I don't care whether they call it DI, significant response indicated, or pigs don't fly.  Nobody and I mean nobody should ever be denied a job based solely on a polygraph result.  Your first sentence of the last quoted material would indicate that we are in apparent agreement on this point.  I would add to that that you and others who share this point of view should speak out publicly and do everything in your power to bring this to pass.

[polyscam]

Tasercop wrote in part:

Some of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations.  For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use.  Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets.  I believe they are living proof that the system works. Pre-employment polygraph screening isn't going away; in fact it is increasing exponentially.  Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works better.

Actually by admission of many posters on this forum, many applicants were unjustly denied further processing.  You write of the lack of honesty, integrity and fortitude of many site users.  Please expound on the information posted by these multiple users that caused you to form this opinion.  Your last statement would more properly read as:  Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works.

I also agree with you, Dr. Richardson.  Validity and accuracy are dependent upon the use of the instrument.  I agree the polygraph is spot-on reliable to record one's physiology as designed.  However, its use in detecting deception is lacking in validity and accuracy.  A polygraph's accuracy in detecing deception is lacking due to the sheer existence of false-postives and negatives.  The accuracy is lacking due to the need for human opinion regarding the meaning of the chart.  Without validity how can one claim accuracy?  Without accuracy how can one claim validity?

Although polygraph examiners will generally admit that human physiological responses fluctuate for a number of conditions and reasons, they seem unwilling to accept this fact as they continue to administer examinations with this information in hand.  This to me would pose a question of integrity to those who blindly continue to administer these examinations.

[tasercop]

Drew,

Sorry, by the tone of your post I touched a nerve.  You are taking bits and pieces of a lengthy post instead of looking at what I said as a whole.  I criticize departments for doing the same thing with applicants; taking the polygraph as a pass/fail, not looking at the applicant as a whole.  And yes, I do speak publicly about this!

The validity/reliability I was speaking of was the instruments ability to accurately and reliably record the channels of physiological activity.  It does it quite well, so the polygraph, as a recording instrument, is very accurate and reliable.  I was interpreting the debate as being the examiners ability to detect deception using the polygraph.  I tell everyone who takes an examination from me that the polygraph is not a lie detector.  It cannot detect a lie, which is very true.  It is in many ways similar to an EKG in the hospital.  It doesn't tell a doctor you are having a heart attack, it merely records what the heart is doing.  Good doctors can tell, usually, if you are having a heart attack.  Bad doctors make errors.  However, even the best doctors at times make mistakes.  This is why other tests are run before a conclusive prognosis is made. The polygraph is no different.  Departments should not make a decision solely on the polygraph, anymore than a doctor should operate solely on an EKG.  Neither makes any sense!

You are also confusing the issue of passing over an applicant because he failed the polygraph with information obtained because of the polygraph.  Without the polygraph, negative information would not be disclosed.  The polygraph weeds out a lot more bad apples, mostly from information obtained in the pre-test/post-test, than those who are unjustly denied. I can't speak for the federal agencies, but I can for myself.  I have given thousands of exams, so I am speaking from personal experience.  It is not passing or failing the exam I am talking about, it is the self-disclosure of information that would not have occured if it was not for the polygraph.  Here are some examples of applicants I personally tested:

1.  The examinee was just getting out of the military.  He was one of the elite- special forces.  Served honorably in the Persian Gulf.  His background glowed and there was not a single negative mark in his background.  During the polygraph he admitted to sexually molesting his 4 year old daughter, two years earlier.  

2.  The examinee glowed and had nothing negative in his background.  During the pre-test he admitted to an undetected armed robbery.  

3.  Another examinee had nothing negative in his background.  His employer references were top notch.  After being SR on a theft question, he admitted to thousands of dollars worth of thefts from a previous employer.

I could go on for pages.  These applicants would have easily been hired by an agency in a state that does not allow pre-employment testing.  Is there anyone out there who would want them patrolling their community?  I don't think so.

You are an researcher who once served with the FBI.  I am a street cop/detective who years ago was also a federal agent.  I personally have a problem with scientist, on both sides, who try to make polygraph fit squarely in the scientific realm.  It doesn't.   My degree is in psychology and I am currently working on my Ph.D. (yes, from a reputable, major university), so this is how I approach polygraphy.  The accuracy of the polygraph lies solely with the examiner, just like most other things we do in police work.

[polyfool]

Polyfool,

Thank you for posting.  I am afraid that however that I must disagree with you.  Not because your vision of a classicially run investigation is not commendable, but because it unfortunately does not jive with the realities of life.  I have done background investigations, and I have conducted criminal investigations and in the real world, your description much more closely fits a "textbook" criminal case.

You see, as a criminal investigator, I have managed between a dozen and two dozen felony criminal cases at a time, a managable case load when their are prosecutors and victims relying on you for a solved case and closure to what is usually a horrendus situation.

Conversly, as a background investigator, I have sometimes had 200 to 300 files, stacked on the floor, in piles from three to five feet high, with hirings pending, academy slots needing to be filled, and the other two guys out sick.

And it is not just the overwork.  It is the whole dynamic of a criminal case vs. a background investigation.  In a criminal case, there is physical evidence, witness interviews, confessions of co-conspirators, a criminal act,  a victim, changing stories, and all the tings you have alluded to in your post.  Good stuff, the stuff that solves cases.

In a background investigation, all you start with is the word of the applicant and a carefully chosen list of references HE has provided.  Sure you do the usual asking of the references what other people know this guy and MAYBE you get lucky.  But I hold to my earlier statement that unless you manage to find an arrest record or  someone who has a beef with this person, all you are going to get is the usual "He's a really good guy."  In most cases, the neighbors who are giving him such a glowing reference have no idea he had been molesting their 12 year old.

Polyfool, at one point you asked me, "Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?"

I am not sure what answer you were looking for, but I can tell you this.  From what I know, I would figure that VERY, VERY, few people are  denied clearances based purely on a background investigation.

Ahhh, but add a full scope polygraph into the mix...  

Nonombre.

Nonombre:
There are so many FBI applicants who don't make it through the hiring process to obtain a security clearance that the agency hires double for each position and even then the job may go unfilled. Some managers may even extend offers to four candidates HOPING that just one will make it to the finish line. The FBI purports that 50 to 70 percent of its applicants who are extended conditional job offers will not make it through the background.

[Sergeant1107]

Here are some examples of applicants I personally tested:

1.  The examinee was just getting out of the military.  He was one of the elite- special forces.  Served honorably in the Persian Gulf.  His background glowed and there was not a single negative mark in his background.  During the polygraph he admitted to sexually molesting his 4 year old daughter, two years earlier.  

2.  The examinee glowed and had nothing negative in his background.  During the pre-test he admitted to an undetected armed robbery.  

3.  Another examinee had nothing negative in his background.  His employer references were top notch.  After being SR on a theft question, he admitted to thousands of dollars worth of thefts from a previous employer.

I could go on for pages.

I'm a bit curious about the examples you provided as proof the polygraph is a useful tool.  None of those examples were polygraph-specific in the sense that detection of changes in respiration, heart rate, or galvanic skin responses proved or disproved a fact or set of facts.  What those examples do a great job of proving is that if you have someone hooked up to the machine who believes it will "detect lies" then you may get a damaging admission out of them.  To me, that doesn't prove the validity of the polygraph or the polygraph operator to even the smallest degree.  If you put a shiny rock on your desk and told them it would glow if they told a lie, they would have made the same damaging admissions if they believed you.  That wouldn't make the shiny rock useful in anything other than an interrogation setting.

As an interrogation tool, the polygraph belongs in the same category as the blank videotape you claim has relevant images on it, or the cell phone camera you claim has relevant images on it, or the thick folder stuffed with blank papers with the suspect's name written on it.  Any one of those things might make the suspect admit to something, or it might not.  But none of them are reliable detectors of deception.  And none of them have any place in pre-employment screening.

[Poly-Killer]

Hello all,

Been away for awhile, but I had a few free minutes and was bored so I thought I would check in on things here. Good to see the site still alive and kicking.

Those darn Polygraphers are still around I see, they're nothing if not tenacious. I guess I was hoping they would just kind of "go away", and go onto more fulfilling careers, maybe as tarot card readers or "Psychic Hotline" operators, but that's just wishful thinking of course.

Funny thing to me is that they KNOW what they are doing amounts to garbage that they want to pass off as a "science". They do this knowing full well that the "test" is flawed and not anywhere close to being accurate or truly reliable.

I do realize that they see the usefulness in their "art" as being a good intimidator and interrogating tool for those who do not know better and believe that the "test" is capable of distinguishing truth from deception. To the polyguys (especially the screeners)out there, how many people's lives are you willing to screw up and how many careers are you willing to wrongfully deny, based on this garbage? I'm not really looking for a response, they're just rhetorical questions.

I also hear many polygraphers say "this is the best we've got for now and until we find something better..." yada yada yada. They also try and justify themselves with reasons such as those given by Tasercop. These examples do absolutely nothing to disprove that Polygraphy is nothing but a scam, easily squashed by anyone who is lucky or insightful enough to come across accurate info. These people kill me with their attempts to justify the unjustifiable.  

Fortunately for me, I was one of the lucky ones, and I have enjoyed a very satisfying career to this point. I just hit my 10 year mark and I have accomplished more than I would have ever thought possible before I began my career. I am thankful everyday for the opportunities that I have been given.  

Best regards and good luck,

PK

[nonombre]

...I have enjoyed a very satisfying career to this point. I just hit my 10 year mark and I have accomplished more than I would have ever thought possible

PK

Congratulations.  I run across so few people with lives as fulfilled as yours.  You are truly lucky.  Best of luck in all your future endeavours.

Nonombre