What does it mean to "Pass" or "Fail" a polygraph exam?

[nopolycop]

If a person "Passes" or "Fails" a polygraph exam, what does that actually mean?  Is the final conclusion that a person passed or failed rely upon anything verifiable, or is it simply the opinion of the examiner?  If the former, what verifiable aspects of the process are there?  If the latter, then what leads up to that opinion of the examiner, and can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?

[1904]

"...... can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?

The examiner can manipulate the data at the input stage, to influence results the way he (examiner)
desires.
With an analog polygraph ( the ink pen polygraph ) that is Very Easy. Too many ways.
With the computerised polygraph, the examiner can influence the input data by asking his question several seconds before he depresses the question key or vice versa.
Once the data is recorded on the computerised polygraph, any tampering or creation of a backdated chart will be detectable in the security thread. (ie if the examiner puts back the pc clock in order to
reproduce a new-different exam, examination of the security thread will revea all.

Ask an examiner to produce his computer if ever you dispute a result - have an IT dude present to check the security thread. Problem is, the next examiner that allows an inspection of his computer will be the first examiner to do so.

And if you were tested on an analogue instrument by a dishonest examiner, you're really screwed.

[nopolycop]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

[EJohnson]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

Is this a real conversation here?!

"so, when the gas pump says sale $28.00, than is that the amount I pay the cashier, and who exactly is the cashier...and can I use 2 twenties to pay?"

"sure Billy, and yes, $28 means that that is what you owe the cashier...who will be the person standing behing the lexan shield near the dirty magazines...and yes, you can use 2 twenties, or even a twenty and a ten Billy."

"Gee, thanks"

My sarcasm aside, this exchange appears to be a flame baiting question with a punchline.

[1904]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.

[nopolycop]

Mr. Johnson:

All I am doing is to get some honest answers to some sincere questions.  If  you don't want to join in with some constructive comment, then feel free to ignore.

[nopolycop]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.

Thanks.  With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary?  I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.

[EJohnson]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.

FYI, everything on a computer is saved on the hard drive/disk, date and time stamped, and permenant.
And yes, we "read" the charts and an opinion is rendered. Since when does a poster who just yesterday spouted off a rant about the error rates of polygraph regarding FP's and FN's regress to ask the same questions my 6 year old asked me when he was 5? If you are leading up to an antipolygraph rant, than come on with it, I am breathless with anticipation. We really need to work on pacing here.

[Donna.Taylor]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.

Thanks.  With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary?  I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.

This is ridiculous. nopoly4me just stated 'polygrams' only a term a polygraph examiner or someone with extensive research would use.   I agree with Johnson, nopoly4me just get to the point man.

[nopolycop]

So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct?  Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct?  Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?

Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.

Thanks.  With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary?  I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.

This is ridiculous. nopoly4me just stated 'polygrams' only a term a polygraph examiner or someone with extensive research would use.   I agree with Johnson, nopoly4me just get to the point man.

No, not a polygraph examiner, nor someone who has done extensive research, although I am doing a bunch of reading on the whole topic.  No, I learned the word in the following thread:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3725.msg26807#msg26807

Will you answer my question, Ms. Taylor?  No one else seems to want to answer the question for me.

[Sergeant1107]

This is ridiculous. nopoly4me just stated 'polygrams' only a term a polygraph examiner or someone with extensive research would use.   I agree with Johnson, nopoly4me just get to the point man.

With all due respect, I would have thought your experience in calling me a liar about being a police officer and then being proven wrong would have cautioned you about continuing to post personal attacks rather than simply joining in the debate.

By the way, I have to wonder if any of the polygraph examiners who were so sure I was lying about being a cop ever took the time to ponder if perhaps their ability to detect truth or deception wasn't quite as good as they thought it was...

[nopolycop]

Sarge:

Yesterday I was being accused of being a sex offender, today it's a polygrapher!    :-?

[Barry_C]

If a person "Passes" or "Fails" a polygraph exam, what does that actually mean?  Is the final conclusion that a person passed or failed rely upon anything verifiable, or is it simply the opinion of the examiner?  If the former, what verifiable aspects of the process are there?  If the latter, then what leads up to that opinion of the examiner, and can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?

Those were your original questions.  If you read TLBTLD, you'll find the answer you're looking for.  (Note those last few words.)

Donna didn't accuse you of being a polygraph examiner.  She accused you of researching more than you've stated.  The problem is, it appears, is that you're not paying close attention to what you've read.

With all due respect, I would have thought your experience in calling me a liar about being a police officer and then being proven wrong would have cautioned you about continuing to post personal attacks rather than simply joining in the debate.

For the record, few believe Drew, so they don't believe they've been proven wrong.

By the way, I have to wonder if any of the polygraph examiners who were so sure I was lying about being a cop ever took the time to ponder if perhaps their ability to detect truth or deception wasn't quite as good as they thought it was...

I seem to recall they used statement analysis (et al), something touted here by some as superior to polygraph.  Perhaps if they had used polygraph, then they would have the correct answer.  Do you want to volunteer for that one?

Before you answer, I'm kidding with you.

Take care.

[nopolycop]

Mr. Barry C:

Sir, please understand that while TLBTLD has a ring of truth to it, I am not going to take that particular opinion piece as gospel, especially when I have an audience of actual polygraphers to bounce things off of.

I was kidding about being accused of being a polygrapher, thus the Smiley.  

Will you answer my question?  (See below).

Thanks.  With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary?  I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.

[1904]

Is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary?  I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.

It happens frequently, no matter which neck of the woods one is in. Manual scoring has cutoffs (minimum score required) to determine whether a subject is NDI or DI.

For example, In a 3 pair Zone Exam; Ex 1 may score a total of -3 over 3 charts; and Ex 2 may score the same charts at -6. Whereas -3 is Incon & -6 is DI. They would probably call the subject DI.

When you read 'research' that says for example that 8/10 examiners were consistent in correctly identifying the DI subject, what they dont usually tell you is that the individual examiner scores might
have varied by 50% or more.

Scientific ? Yeah. Very.