The Shropshire Lad's Posts
Note 1
Cal,
I'd consider the FBI Agent, whose testimony you read, a reliable source as well.
He has a Ph.D. in physiology and pharmacology, was trained at the DoDPI, is an honorary member of the North Carolina Polygraph Association, and he actually conducted polygraph research for the FBI. He's well known in the scientific & government communities that deal with polygraph.
His position on pre-employment screening is a direct result of his polygraph research experiences; as a trained scientist in chemistry and toxicology (real scientific fields), he could see that the polygraph's scientific validity was not what proponents had claimed.
I believe he is a credible source for two reasons:
1. He has extensive experience with the polygraph as stated above, and
2. He doesn't have anything to gain by discussing the short-comings of polygraph screening; he doesn't rely on the polygraph to make a living. In fact, you could argue that he put his career on the line by acting as a whistle blower and testifying before Senator Grassley and the Judiciary Committee.
I'd urge you to research this issue thoroughly before buying into the majority/party line as Dr. Rovner suggests - a thousand flies on a pile of dung can't be wrong can they?
Regarding the lack of scientific studies on security screening that Dr. Rovner mentioned, I'd direct you to Dr. Charles Honts' studies at the following link:
http://truth.boisestate.edu/raredocuments/bhb.html
Dr. Honts is an extremely well known polygraph researcher. In case you don't get a chance to visit the link, I'll summarize with Dr. Honts' own words concerning the validity of screening:
Barland, G. H., Honts, C. R., & Barger, S. D. (1989). Studies of the Accuracy of Security Screening Polygraph Examinations. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort McClellan, Alabama. The largest study of polygraph tests used for national security screening ever conducted. The results show near chance performance for all of the national security screening formats in use at that time. The report presented here was never classified, but it was never published in the open literature. When these results were first made known to the respective agencies involved there was tremendous pressure to classify this entire report. However, thanks to the late Dr. William Yankee, then Director of DoDPI and to several officials in the Department of Defense efforts to bury this report were thwarted. However, as a concession to the agencies involved, the association of the agency names with their performance data was, and remains, classified. The first author was forbidden by his parent agency from publishing or presenting these results. Here it is the unclassified report for everyone to see. I urge interested parties to try to obtain the association of the data with the agency names through the Freedom of Information Act.
Shropshire Lad
Note 2
Cal,
I find it necessary to respond to lielabs' (response 11) comments. I believe, if he is not, at least his terminology and that which stems from it is quite confused. You quite clearly in your series of comments have referred to accuracy and validity of polygraph screening as it refers to the screening of applicants and/or the periodic and aperiodic screening of employees. This is different than multiple issue testing (and combining the phrase multiple issue with the word screening does not make them the same). The MGQT (a type of control question test) is an example of a multiple issue test, but one which is most frequently used with criminal specific issues, not screening issues. The difference between criminal specific tests and screening tests is not the number of issues covered (both may have only one or several), but that in a criminal specific test, one (investigator, polygraph examiner, and even examinee) is dealing with a known crime/infraction/administrative violation. The issue is whether the examinee is somehow associated (perpetrator, witness, etc) with the crime. In a screening scenario, what occurs is that a small to a large number of individuals are asked (screened) about some issue NOT known to have occurred. The issue you raise regarding base rates may also come into play but the fundamental difference between criminal and screening tests is not number of issues to be addressed or even base rates (differ depending on the subject matter), but whether apriori knowledge exists of the commission of matter(s) to be addressed during the exam. It is particularly important that this type of confusion not be allowed to exist, for if it does then one also allows for confusion about the research which supports (or would lead to the rejection of) these distinct applications. Again, there is no published research which supports polygraph screening and research which either supports or rejects multiple issue criminal specific testing is NO SUBSTITUTE.
Shropshire Lad
Note 3
Cal,
Thank you for your compliment. The confusion I referred to and hoped to clear up can not be allowed to be a vehicle for continuing to victimize individuals with polygraph screening. With regard to polygraph countermeasures to control question tests, an examinee need simply distinguish between relevant and controls and produce responses to control (comparison) questions. This is easily done through physical manipulation or mental countermeasures. Because of the nature of movement bars (actually misnamed, really weight shift change) bars, those physical manipulations which are done along the vertical midline would be expected to be least susceptible to counter countermeasures, e.g., contraction of the anal sphincter. Many of the things suggested by Doug Williams and David Lykken are perfectly satisfactory (there are other legitimate ways to accomplish the same thing) for stated purposes, i.e., unless an examiner is told in advance of the exam that an examinee will employ a countermeasure (done to demonstrate countermeasures to polygraph students) or is told after the fact (or polygraph exam) by an examinee (as is often cited in one example of a foolish examinee taught by Doug Williams), an examiner will most likely not be aware of properly applied countermeasures. Those (examiners) who believe themselves to be immune to countermeasures are fools and fools should not long be suffered....
Shropshire Lad
Note 4
Cal,
I appreciate you're having served as the moderator (I realize that mantle officially belongs to Dr. Rovner) for these series of comments and will end my contribution to your series with this note. As Lielabs has correctly pointed out, I am a critic of many of the present uses of polygraph and am indebted to him for suggesting one more final area for your consideration. Towards the end of his last piece he states "...You have to be lying and be called truthful to beat the test..." This may be true, but this is quite different than applying countermeasures and successfully manipulating the test and allows commentary about why it is morally and ethically acceptable and even necessary for experts to teach the use of countermeasures.
Because polygraph represents free floating error in methodology (in part because the methodology can never be precisely described, i.e., by its very nature every control question test is different and without scientific control), and because with different test formats and applications there will occur both false positive and false negative results, innocent (non-deceptive) examinees have as much to be concerned about as do guilty (deceptive) individuals trying to "beat the test." Because of this situation it is incumbent that innocent/non-deceptive examinees be both knowledgeable and capable of manipulating (successfully applying countermeasures) polygraphic examinations. Our legal/judicial system has often been admired for many things. Not only does the intense adversarial nature involving "well-matched" combatants lead to the identification of truth, but our system is often touted for the fact that it was designed (e.g., unanimous jury decisions to convict) to protect the innocent, i.e., we would rather have ten guilty defendants go free than one innocent defendant be convicted. Because no such protection(s) exist for the innocent and truthful polygraph examinee, the playing field can only be leveled for those who can not protect themselves by having concerned experts provide this protection through countermeasure(s) instruction. Of course, but beyond the realm of the polygraph process, it would be critical to have (in screening scenarios) polygraphic deceptive results confirmed through investigation. Because the latter course is frequently not followed by those who control the bureaucratic process (polygraph screening of job applicants), the only remaining protective remedy for the innocent is a READY KNOWLEDGE OF COUNTERMEASURES. I fully expect, as he has done throughout this series, that Dr. Rovner will advise you to trust the thousands of boys and girls who play in the polygraph sand box, but I suggest that you use your own intellect and logic, tools independently available to you.
Best, Shropshire Lad
Note 5
Cal,
Aside from the question you raise, it should give all great pause to think that some of the most serious scientists of this country (those eligible for Nobel Prize recognition) uniformly have so little respect for polygraphy (polygraph screening in particular). These scientists are intrusted with the nuclear arsenals and security of the United States. Daily rigorous application of scientific principles and the scientific method are their lives. Is there a message here? I know, Dr. Rovner.....pride, professionalism and the legions of polygraphers.......
Yours, Shropshire Lad
Note 6
Cal,
I can not answer your question directly, because I do not believe polygraph screening is viable under any circumstances, stimulation provided leading to confidence, or otherwise. I do however, believe you deserve an answer from polygraph proponents. You present them with an interesting delimma. Either they tell you (1) the stim test and resulting derived confidence is unimportant and then are faced with explaining countless thousands of hours wasted with parlor tricks or (2) they tell you that examinee confidence is essential and are faced with explaining to you how their elementary understanding and presentation of the autonomic nervous system and accompanying card tricks to M.D., Ph.D.s at Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, etc will provide said confidence.
Best, Shropshire Lad
Note 7
Cal,
I had hoped to have retired as a contributor to this site, but my fellow contributors have made necessary at least one more salvo. I should congratulate Dr. Rovner on abandoning the immaterial and the irrelevant--the thousands of good men and women of polygraphy and referring us (you) to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and researchers who have published there. Unfortunately his perspective is myopic at best and, even worse, in error, through omission. Although this forum is about polygraph screening, Dr. Rovner focuses on the CQT, one of several vehicles for its practice. I would like to point out what I believe to be the error of his logic regarding both subjects:
(1) Dr. Rovner has referred to Psychophysiology, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society for Psychophysiological Research. He has also referred to a group of researchers who largely represent one senior scientist (Raskin) and his various graduate students from one department of one university. It is true that they, are largely supportive of the use of the CQT for criminal specific testing. The serious error that Dr. Rovner commits with this group is in not pointing out that they are largely skeptical, critical, show disdain for, and/or all together repudiate the use of polygraph screening (to include its practice with the CQT). This is particularly true for Honts (on a basis of validity) and Podlesny (as it relates to utility considerations). This does not apply to Barland who, of course, represents the views of his employer, DoDPI.
(2) With regard to the scientific literature and polygraph researchers, Dr. Rovner might have mentioned another academic lineage, that of Dr.s David Lykken, William Iaconno, and Christopher Patrick. These along with Dr. John Furedy and Dr. Stephen Porges adn others have been severe critics of polygraph methodology, the use of the CQT, and polygraph screening. Three of these gentlemen are former past presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research. Recent surveys of SPR and the fellows of the American Polygraph Society have shown these bodies to be overwhelmingly disenchanted with the CQT in many regards. In recent years, as reflected in Daubert hearings in various Federal District Courts, the opposing views of the Raskin and Lykken academic lineages have been presented numerous times (Raskin et al for admitting polygraph evidence, Lykken et al for its exclusion). Almost uniformly jurists from around the country have seen the merits of excluding polygraph (CQT) evidence. Skepticism regarding and opposition to polygraph within the scientific literature and elsewhere is truly quite amazing in view of the fact that a large proportion of polygraph research has either been funded by or involved the participation of those who practice polygraph for a living. Again, Cal, I leave you to do your own research and exercise your own intellect.....
Best, Shropshire Lad
Note 8
Cal,
Although I have precious little time to respond to the continual foolishness of my fellow contributors on this site, I am motivated by your interest, curiosity, and well-honed skepticism. First, with regard to polygraph screening, it should be noted that even the proponents of polygraphy who contribute (and are the mainstay) to this site, realize that there is no research support for the practice (repeated numerous times in this series). Also factually not in dispute is the phenomenon that we have numerous individuals claiming to be victimized by this practice. You, of course, realize that and began your question series by referring to http://www.nopolygraph.com/, a site which catalogs the claims and anguish of many such self-described victims. For the sake of conversation, assuming research never supports the use of polygraph screening, how will these profiteers address the morality and ethics of their support and involvement in this practice to these victims. A day of accountability will come..... A statement that the practice was expanding during this time period is irrelevant at best and more likely will serve only to further condemn them and serve as evidence of their irresponsible representations to law enforcement.
Much of the error represented on this site offends me, not because I personally know (I don't) any of those responsible, but because I truly believe people are being victimized as a result of their efforts. On a less serious note, I am more than quite amused by those who would compare this methodology (polygraphy) in any way to that of molecular biology. In terms of the level of acceptance, the respective goals of the two methodologies, the sophistication of the technical solution to respective problems/questions, and the degree to which the solution to respective problems is any way satisfactory, there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. Polygraphy relies upon relatively ancient technology to determine which of two conditions of a binomial variable is present during a given exam (deception/no deception). Even with regard to specific issue criminal polygraph testing, validity estimates ranging from 50 to 90 per cent are found in the scientific literature. DNA fingerprinting utilizes well understood and scientifically controlled (i.e., base pair size ladder controls) technology and seeks to identify (or exclude) a biological sample (based on DNA content) as to having come from a given individual to the exclusion of the rest of the population of the world. The analytical methodology and population statistics involved are readily understood and viewed as quite sound by the leading biologists in the world. In fact, a Nobel Prize was awarded for the PCR technology which is the analytical mainstay for this discipline. The fact that attorneys (adversaries) in a courtroom setting can argue about admissibility issues in no way places polygraphy in a comparable plane. Such a comparison is utterly ridiculous. The fact that polygraphers have decided to call themselves forensic psychophysiologists in no way gives them insight into matters of forensic science that they were and continue to be ignorant of. With regard to the concept of forensic psychophysiology, when did this group (polygraphers) become accepted as generalists (psychophysiologists) let alone as specialists (forensic psychophysiologists)? I would love to see a survey of members of SPR to see whether they consider the 5-15 week trained polygraphers of the world as their peers. This would not apply to the very small minority of truly qualified academicians (on both sides of controversial issues) who happen to be involved in some aspect of polygraph research.
Lielabs representations about judicial review/polygraph admissibility issues are quite distorted-not in the sense that he misquotes, but that he fails to put these quotations in any perspective. The two or three cases that he cites from represent perhaps 1-2 per cent of similar admissibility hearings/considerations which have OVERWHELMINGLY LED TO THE EXCLUSION OF POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE in federal district court proceedings in recent years. With regard to Bill Iacono and the aforementioned survey I refer you to the Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No 3, pp 426-433, where you can read for yourself of the sampling methodology, statistical analysis, etc. as contained in the publication entitled "The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion."
It's appalling that individuals would make assertions about Iacono and Lykken's work that cannot be substantiated, and that with these false assertions in hand, others recklessly condemn them. Take what has been alleged about their survey as just one example. It is clearly explained in the Iacono and Lykken Journal of Applied Psychology article (p. 429, footnote 3) on the surveys that the following individuals were omitted from what otherwise were random samples:
1) Iacono and Lykken eliminated themselves and Raskin, Honts, and Kircher from the Society for Psychophysiogical Research (SPR) survey. The reason for doing this was that these five were working on a chapter in a legal reference manual that was to include the results of the surveys. Sampling the opinions of the co-authors of the chapter, which were printed in the chapter, would be silly.
2) Iacono and Lykken eliminated all members of their department from both the SPR and American Psychological Association (APA) surveys. In this way, their surveys could not be criticized as likely to be unduly influenced by those they work with and those likely to agree with them.
Hence, if the survey was biased, it was biased in a direction that led to the disproportionate elimination of those critical of polygraphy. Note that the division of APA Fellows they surveyed contains no polygrpah examiners, but they eliminated three individuals from their department. Note as well that the SPR and APA surveys obtained virtually identical results, clearly supporting the conclusion that psychological scientists are skeptical of polygraphy, and negating any support for the criticism that the SPR survey was biased.
No court has ever been deliberately misled regarding the results of these surveys, and their results have been admitted into evidence as recently as a few months ago.
Finally, it is simply false that Iacono and Lykken refused to provide the data the survey were based on to Charles Honts. They agreed to provide the data, but Honts refused the terms of the offer. This is a simple fact that if Honts were asked about under oath, he would have to affirm.
I would be happy to put you in touch with Dr. Iacono if you would care to contact me directly. Again, when the truth be known, I think that you will find these surveys to be a rather conservative assessment of the disdain the parent scientific discipline (there are many within the body who are offended by having to accept this notion of parentage to polygraphy) has for organized polygraphy and its practices. Beyond the surveys in dispute, it should be pointed out that both the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, groups which largely represent the physical and mental health professional structure in the country, have formally adopted positions opposing the use of polygraph screening.
Although there is much more that should be addressed in what I hope to be a final note, I will close on one more little bit of polygraph community-provided amusement. As with other nomenclature changes referred to in this series, e.g., polygrapher to forensic psychophysiologist and control questions to comparison questions (which although a more accurate description, in no way absolves polygraphers from the responsibility of having scientific control in their practices), we are now given one more nomenclature change--stim tests to ability tests. Only a polygrapher could think that his silly meanderings in any way accesses the viability of the autonomic nervous system and its effector organs. A true lack of function in these physiological components would amount to a health crisis (not properly screened for by polygraphers but by medical personnel) and likely evidenced by an examinee's inability to perform more critical and basic life functions than polygraph examination participation. In addition, if this ability to respond in a polygraph setting was truly what was sought, every polygraph examiner knows that such responses will be evident in the orienting responses to the asking of the first one or two questions in a polygraph chart series. For this reason these responses are routinely not considered in polygraph chart scoring. There is no need for an "ability test." What clearly is happening here is that polygraph examiners continue to try to bluff examinees about the viability of this test, but because the examiner would be frequently unsuccessful in detecting the number/card chosen in a test in which the examiner was blind to the chosen number, they have resorted to this open or "ability" test, so as not to embarrass themselves and to continue to attempt to foist their bluff. Not only is it a ridiculous notion for polygraphers to access the autonomic viability of biomedical scientists in the National Laboratory system, but it would be much more useful and appropriate for these scientists to access the cognitive function of polygraphers with such half-baked ideas. As always best and thank you for this format to share truth in an environment often void of same.
Shropshire Lad