APA MAGAZINE - Polygraph · 2019-10-30 · REGISTER P S aagerapapolygraphorg eitorpolygraphorg...
99
in memory of george baranowski APA MAGAZINE THE MAGAZINE FOR THE POLYGRAPH PROFESSIONAL SEP • OCT Vol. 52.5
Transcript of APA MAGAZINE - Polygraph · 2019-10-30 · REGISTER P S aagerapapolygraphorg eitorpolygraphorg...
in memory of george baranowski
APA MAGAZINETHE MAGAZINE FOR THE POLYGRAPH PROFESSIONAL
SEP • OCT Vol. 52.5
REGISTER
APA MEMBERS
Make sure to keep your emailcurrent. It will ensure that youcontinue receiving importantmessages and publications from the APA.
For pricing and payment information, contact Lisa Jacocks at the APA National Office, P.O. Box 8037,Chattanooga, TN 37414, (800) APA-8037, or [email protected], all you need to do is send your electronic ad in .jpeg or .pdf file format, to the editor at [email protected]’t worry, short line items in the Buy and Sell and Upcoming Seminar sections are still free. We also publish (at no charge) in each Magazine a listing of upcoming polygraph training sessions for APA accredited schools.Submissions and/or technical questions regarding your ad should be sent to [email protected] note that submission deadlines are posted on the first page of Membership News section on each issue.
Advertising in the APA Magazine
If you have a baccalaureate degree or higher, you have served as an Associate of the APA for 24 months, you have completed a minimum of 200 polygraph examinations, you have attended at least one APA Annual Seminar, and have completed 60 hours of CEH in polygraph, request that your membership classification be upgraded from ASSOCIATE to MEMBER. In order for the Board of Directors to act upon your request, it will be necessary for you to:Provide a copy of your transcripts, a notarized statement from your supervisor or knowledgeable colleague, who must be a Member of the American Polygraph Association (APA), attesting that you have completed a minimum of 200 polygraph examinations, and proof of your 60 hours of continuing education in the field of polygraph within the last 36 months.Please forward the certification directly to:APA National Office, P.O. Box 8037Chattanooga, TN 37414If you have any problems or questions regarding your membership, please call the National Office Manager at 800/272-8037 or 423/892-3992.
Upgrading Membership Classificationsfrom Associate to Full Member
REGISTER
APA MEMBERS
Make sure to keep your emailcurrent. It will ensure that youcontinue receiving importantmessages and publications from the APA.
For pricing and payment information, contact Lisa Jacocks at the APA National Office, P.O. Box 8037,Chattanooga, TN 37414, (800) APA-8037, or [email protected], all you need to do is send your electronic ad in .jpeg or .pdf file format, to the editor at [email protected]’t worry, short line items in the Buy and Sell and Upcoming Seminar sections are still free. We also publish (at no charge) in each Magazine a listing of upcoming polygraph training sessions for APA accredited schools.Submissions and/or technical questions regarding your ad should be sent to [email protected] note that submission deadlines are posted on the first page of Membership News section on each issue.
Advertising in the APA Magazine
If you have a baccalaureate degree or higher, you have served as an Associate of the APA for 24 months, you have completed a minimum of 200 polygraph examinations, you have attended at least one APA Annual Seminar, and have completed 60 hours of CEH in polygraph, request that your membership classification be upgraded from ASSOCIATE to MEMBER. In order for the Board of Directors to act upon your request, it will be necessary for you to:Provide a copy of your transcripts, a notarized statement from your supervisor or knowledgeable colleague, who must be a Member of the American Polygraph Association (APA), attesting that you have completed a minimum of 200 polygraph examinations, and proof of your 60 hours of continuing education in the field of polygraph within the last 36 months.Please forward the certification directly to:APA National Office, P.O. Box 8037Chattanooga, TN 37414If you have any problems or questions regarding your membership, please call the National Office Manager at 800/272-8037 or 423/892-3992.
Upgrading Membership Classificationsfrom Associate to Full Member
Contact us today for a competitive quote!TF: 866.765.9770 | T: 613.507.4660 | F: 613.634.4098 | W: LimestoneTech.com
Polygraph Pro Suite
Software Tutorials & Product Information | youtube.com/limestonetechinc
CONTENTS
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
FROM THE BOARD
MEMBERSHIP NEWSIN MEMORIAM
APA AWARDS
APA AWARD NOMINATION PROCESS
POLYGRAPH EXAMINER BEST FRIENDS
54TH ANNUAL APA SEMINAR MEMORIES
President´s messageDarryl Starks, President
Board of Directors’ Reports
Minutes American Polygraph AssociationAugust 23-24, 2019 BOD Meeting
1
6
8
10
11
21
25
39
14
15
16
ANNOUNCING THE 55TH APA ANNUAL SEMINAR AND WORKSHOPMike Gougler, Seminar Chair
2019 Connecticut Polygraph Seminar Agenda
AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATIONCurrently Accredited Programs as of 09-30-2019
SPECIAL FEATURES
Devil’s advocate tactic to generate rapportEduardo Pérez-Campos Mayoral and Arre Anne Langer
69
74
85
88
APA STANDARDS OF PRACTICE(Adopted August 23, 2019)
45
New Contact Email The APA National Office
If you need to contact the APA National Office,please use [email protected] email addresses will not forwardbeginning in May
REGULAR FEATURES
POLYGRAPH ARTGur Segev Ronen
Five Minute Science Lesson: Posterior Conditional Probabilities Raymond Nelson and Mark Handler
67
54
How Does a Polygraph Examiner Develop a Trauma– Informed Approach?Erika Thiel
Practical Polygraph: How to Annotate the Acquaintance Chart as a Functionality CheckBen Blalock and Raymond Nelson
EXAMINER BIAS: THE ENEMY WITHINGerald Carter
[email protected] www.peakcatc.com
Visit our website for more information and to register for our many courses.
The highest quality basic and advanced polygraph training
Accredited by APA and recognized by AAPP, what makes the PEAK Credibility Assessment Training Center truly unique is
the passion and extensive knowledge by which each course is prepared. Our basic and continuing education courses, led by
Director Ben Blalock, are well known for presenting and simplifying challenging real world topics in order to best prepare
every student for a career in credibility assessment. PEAK C.A.T.C. is a subsidiary of Lafayette Instrument Company.
Basic Course (400 Hour)2020January 6 - March 13April 27 - July 3September 8 - November 13
PCSOT Course (40 Hour)2020March 16 - 20July 6 - 10
Advanced Course (40 Hour)2019December 2 - 6 (in Lafayette, IN)
December 2 - 6 (in Sofi a, Bulgaria)
2020March 23 - 27July 13 - 17December 7 - 11 (in Lafayette, IN)
The APA Magazine is published by the Ameri-can Polygraph Association. All views, opin-ions and conclusions expressed in this mag-azine are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion and/or policy of the APA or its leadership. References in this magazine to any specific commercial pro-ducts, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply endorse-ment, recommendation, or favoring by the APA or its leadership.Appearance of advertisements in this maga-zine does not constitute or imply endorse-ment, recommendation or favoring by the APA and the APA makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, complete-ness, or usefulness of any information, prod-uct, process or service made a subject of such advertisement.Advertising and Editorial address is [email protected] address is: APA, P.O. Box 8037, Chattanooga, TN 37414- 0037. The APA Magazine is published six times per year and is available in electronic format only. Address and e-mail changes/updates should be sent to: APA, P.O. Box 8037, Chattanooga, TN 37414-0037,or [email protected] notification is sent to subscribers when the latest publication is available.The APA webmaster is not responsiblefor issues not received because of improper address information. Submission ofpolygraph related articles should be sent to:Mark Handler, [email protected]
CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE
DEADLINES
Ben Blalock
Gerald Carter
Steve Duncan
Donnie Dutton
Walt Goodson
Mike Gougler
Mark Handler
Lisa Jacocks
Arre Anne Langer
Sabino Martinez
Jamie McCloughan
Raymond Nelson
Roy Ortiz
Eduardo Pérez-Campos
Mayoral
Lisa Ribacoff
Gur Segev Ronen
Pam Shaw
Darryl Starks
Erika Thiel
Deadline for November/December issue: November 30, 2019
APA BOARD OF DIRECTORS2019-2020
PresidentDarryl [email protected]
President - ElectSabino [email protected]
Chairman of the BoardSteve [email protected]
Director 1Pamela [email protected]
Director 2Raymond [email protected]
Director 3James [email protected]
Director 4Roy [email protected]
Director 5Erika [email protected]
Director 6Donnie [email protected]
Director 7Lisa [email protected]
Director 8Walt [email protected]
Ex Officio Members
National Office ManagerLisa JacocksPhone: 800-APA-8037 (423) 892-3992P.O. Box 8037 Chattanooga, TN [email protected]
TreasurerChad [email protected]
General CounselGordon L. Vaughan111 S. Tejon St., Suite 545Colorado Springs, CO [email protected]
Seminar ChairMichael [email protected]
Education Accreditation Committee (EAC) ManagerBarry [email protected]
Editor-in-ChiefMark [email protected]
Managing EditorNayeli [email protected]
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 1
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
In MemoriamGeorge H Baranowski, 82, passed away Wednesday, October 2,2019 in Michi-gan City, Indiana.
He was born February 5, 1937 in Michigan City, IN to the late Harry J. and Lillian M. (Szycholda) Ba-ranowski. On May 17, 1992 in Michigan City, Indiana he married Paula (Shaver) Ba-ranowski who survives in Michigan City, Indiana.
Also surviving are son, Bri-an (Terry) Baranowski of Hinsdale, IL; three daugh-ters, Roxanne (David) Ly-ness of Michigan City, IN, Kim (Jeff) Johnson of Rolling Prairie, IN, Karen (Carl) Lawson of Westville, IN; eight grandchildren, Kaitlin Baranowski, Kelsee Baranowski, Grahm (Joy) Adams-Johnson, Matthew (Staci) Johnson, Hannah (Tyler) Crowl, Garrett Payne, George (Jodi) Payne, Keri (Pat) Payne; two great-grandchildren, Logan Adams-Johnson, Elaina Payne; being a blended family also produced numerous grandchildren, great-grandchildren and
George H. Baranowski
(1937 – 2019)
a great-great grandchild; four step-sons, Steve Summerlin, Wayne (Shelly) Summerlin, Jeff (Kathy) Summerlin, Greg (Becky) Summerlin; nephew, Da-niel (Shelly) Baranowski. He was preceded in death by his father, Harry J. Ba-ranowski; mother, Lillian M. Baranowski; brother, Frank Baranowski.
George attended St. Stan-islaus Elementary School and graduated from Elston High School in 1954. He later enlisted in the United Army Reserve in 1958 and was honorably discharged
in 1964. George enjoyed music and trav-eling. He played trumpet in his broth-er Frank Baranowski’s Band, and then moved to California and played drums in nightclubs and casinos throughout Cali-fornia, Las Vegas, Reno, and Lake Tahoe. Upon returning to Michigan City he be-came an officer with the Michigan CityPolice Department advanced to the de-tective Bureau and retired following a
2 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 3
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
heart attack in 1979. He then accepted a position with the prosecutor’s office as chief investigator, which he held for 12 years. On December 1, 1990, he and his fiancé Paula opened a private practice, Mindsight Consultants that continues to offer polygraph services, including police and public safety applicant testing and testing of convicted persons in court su-
pervision and treatment programs in Indi-ana.George was an elected member of the Board of Directors for the American Poly-graph Association for many years and continued to provide experience and lead-ership as co-chair person of the APA PC-SOT Committee until his retirement from that role in September 2019.
The Polygraph Institute 19179 Blanco Ste 105-812, San Antonio TX
(210) 377-0200 [email protected]
Credibility assessment is one of the oldest and perhaps most important of the forensic sciences. Credibility assessment is included by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences as a forensic discipline. Proficiency evaluations are urged for all forensic service providers by NIST, ASTM and AAFS. * Can you demonstrate in court you have up to date training and skill proficiency?
Proficiency Testing & Advanced Forensic Interview Training Advanced Interview Training Narrative Interview Personality Assessment Tools Learn Valid Diagnostic Cues Behavioral Intervention Technique 3 day-$375 4day-$500
4 Day Proficiency Course Classroom Training, Written Exam, Practical Assessment
and QA of field exams required for issuing
Proficiency Certificate. $500
* Accreditation standards have not been currently published for curriculum providers in this field. Proficiency means that an examiner has demonstrated knowledge, skills and ability to apply standards of practice and not that all work produced meets those requirements.
6 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
APA Awards
1. Al & Dorothea Clinchard Award: Honor-ing extended, distinguished, devoted and unselfish service on behalf of the APA membership.
2. Cleve Backster Award: Honoring an in-dividual or group that advances the poly-graph profession through tireless dedi-cation to standardization of polygraph principles and practices.
3. William L. and Robbie S. Bennett Me-morial Award: Honoring unrelenting ef-forts and display of ability in the interest of the American Polygraph Association
4. David L. Motsinger Horizon Award: In recognition of a new shining star in the profession or association who early in their career demonstrates loyalty, profes-sionalism and dedication to the polygraph profession (less than 10 years)
5. John E. Reid Award: For distinguished achievements in polygraph research, teaching or writing.
6. Leonarde Keeler Award: For long and distinguished service to the Polygraph Profession.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 7
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
Mark Smith CLEVE BACKSTER
AWARD
Sgt. Doreen Velasquez and Det. Coffey, Chicago PD, receiving
the John E. Reid AWARD ON THE BEHALF
OF STEVE THEODORE
Erika Thiel DAVID L. MOTSINGER HORIZON
AWARD
Eran Gazit receiving the Leonarde Keeler
AWARD ON THE BEHALF OF HIS FATHER, MORDI GAZIT
PHOTOS BY RAYMOND NELSON
Congratulations from the Awards Committee to 2019 Award Recipients
8 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
APASocialMediaAccountsUpdatedOctober15,2019
Facebook:
AmericanPolygraphAssociationfacebook.com/www.polygraph.org(pleaseclicklike&followforthemostupdatedInformation!)CurrentFollowers:1,198
Instagram:
@American_Polygraph_AssociationCurrentFollowers:205
Twitter:
@APA_PolygraphCurrentFollowers:142
PleaseTagUs!
#APAPolygraph
#APANewOrleans2020
#AmericanPolygraphAssociation
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
APA Award Nomination
To nominate a deserving member, please download the form here.
1) Please download the form.2) Fill out all required field on the form and save the form.Due Date: The due date for award nomina-tions this year is June 1, 2019.
Please complete and submit the nomi-nation form to the National Office at this email address: [email protected].
*Please note that forms submitted to any other email will not be considered.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 9
What is the difference between these two charts?
Only the software they are displayed in...The charts you see were recorded with a competitor’s instrument and software,
and then imported into the Stoelting CPSpro Fusion Software. • Worry less about running charts and pay closer attention to the examinee Using the CPSpro you can spend less time worrying about the polygraph and more time watching the examinee. When you’re forced to re-center data is lost. CPSpro never re-centers and shows you all of the changes during a chart.
• More efficient chart scoring and faster interrogations CPSpro automatically formats charts for quicker and more efficient scoring. The time between your last chart and the start of the interrogation is crucial. With CPSpro you never have to worry about moving tracings or changing gains.
Simply put, the CPSpro is the most advancedand easy-to-use polygraph system available.
The Advantage...
For questions, e-mail [email protected], find us on Facebook, or call: 630.860.9700 / Toll Free (US & Canada): 800.860.9775
For more information, visit www.StoeltingCo.com.
10 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
Polygraph Examiner
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 11
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
12 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
MEMBERSHIP NEWS
14 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
ANNOUNCING THE 55TH APA ANNUAL SEMINAR AND WORKSHOPMike Gougler, Seminar Chair
Following the very successful and well-at-tended 54th APA Seminar and Workshop in Orlando, Florida, the Seminar Commit-tee is will into planning the 55th APA Sem-inar and Workshop at the New Orleans Hil-ton, Riverside in New Orleans, Louisiana. The New Orleans conference is scheduled to run from Sunday, August 30, 2020, un-til Friday, September 4, 2020. This is the week before the Labor Day weekend. (La-bor Day falls on September 7, 2020.)
The Hilton New Orleans Riverside is a 4-star hotel in the heart of New Orleans, situated along the Mississippi River and a short walking distance from the French Quarter, Jackson Square (and my favor-ite Café Du Monde), Harrah’s Casino, the Warehouse and Arts District, Audubon Aquarium of the Americas and The Outlet Collection at Riverwalk. The Hotel is with-in close proximity of The Shops at Canal Place and Louisiana Children’s Museum. There are great downtown or Mississippi River views from upper floor rooms. There
are several bars and restaurants including Drago’s Restaurant (by far some of the best oyster’s ever), Riverblends Café, Spir-its Bar and Public Belt. The hotel has two outdoor pools, a health club and fitness facility.
As at recent APA seminars, hotel rates are at the prevailing U.S. Government per diem which is currently set for the time of the conference at $117 per night, plus tax-es, etc. This is well below the advertised rates for this hotel. Attendees and their guests will receive free in-room internet, complimentary fitness center and 50% off self-parking rates. While we have com-mitted to a large block of rooms for peak nights, it is anticipated that these will sell out quickly. Watch for a further announce-ment of when reservations are opened – sometime around the beginning of 2020.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 15
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
2019 Connecticut Polygraph Seminar Agenda
2019 Connecticut Polygraph Seminar Agenda
Sunday, November 3, 2019
5:00 pm to 6:00 pm Early Registration
Monday, November 4, 2019
7:30 am to 8:00 am Registration/Coffee and Tea Service Provided
8:00 am to 8:30 am Opening Remarks – Michael Heimbach, Vice President Global Security and Facility Operations for ESPN. Retired Assistant Director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division
8:30 am to 12:00 pm Detective Tom Coffey – Chicago Police Department Empirical Scoring System - Multinomial (ESS-M): Implementing with Confidence
12:00 pm to 1:00 pm Lunch - Provided
1:00 pm to 4:30 pm Detective Tom Coffey – Chicago Police Department Empirical Scoring System - Multinomial (ESS-M): Implementing with Confidence
4:30 pm to 5:00 pm Instrument Vendor Presentations (Stoelting/Lafayette)
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm Evening Social
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
7:30 am to 8:00 am Coffee and Tea Service Provided
8:00 am to 12:00 pm Detective Sergeant Daniel Trottier – Vermont State Police Polygraph Unit The P.E.A.C.E. model of investigative interviewing
12:00 pm to 1:00 pm Lunch - Provided
1:00 pm to 5:00 pm Erika Thiel, LPC – APA Director Trauma and Dissociation: What happens in the brain and how it impacts your polygraph
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
7:30 am to 8:00 am Continental Breakfast Provided
8:00 am to 10:00 am Chief Christopher Chute – Owner of Innovative Detectives LLC Starting and operating a private practice
10:00 am to 12:00 pm Dr. CA Morgan III – Yale University Fixed Choice Testing to Identify Deception
16 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATIONCurrently Accredited Programs as of 09-30-2019
The following programs are accredited by the APA:
ACADEMY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INVESTIGATIVE TRAININGDirector:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Nathan J. Gordon1704 Locust St - 2nd FlPhiladelphia, PA 19103CountryUSA215-732-3349truthdoctor@polygraph-training.comwww.polygraph-training.com/
BEHAVIORAL MEASURES POLYGRAPH TRAINING CENTRE, UKDirector:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Don KrapohlBehavioural Measures UK c/o Paul Connon Suite 24, ArmsEvertyne House Quay Road BlythNorthumberland England NE24 2ASUnited [email protected] website
CANADIAN POLICE COLLEGE POLYGRAPH SCHOOL*Director:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:
Website:
Shaun Smith1 Sandridge Dr.Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3J2Canada613-990-5025CPCregistrar.CFC_NCR.CFC_HQ@rcmp-grcgc.cawww.cpc-ccp.gc.ca/en/pec
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION FORENSEY CONTROL DE CONFIANZA S.C.Director:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Jaime Raul Duran ValleRodriguez Saro #523, Int. 501-A Col. Del ValleDel. Benito Juarez Mexico, D.F.C.P. 03100Mexico011-52-55-2455-4624informacion@el-poligrafo.comel-poligrafo.com
BACKSTER SCHOOL OF LIE DETECTIONDirector:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Patrick O’Burke2263 Princess StreetKingston, ON, K7M [email protected]
*Admission is limited to government or law enforcement students only.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF POLYGRAPHDirector:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Charles E. Slupski619 Highway 138 W Suite CStockbridge, GA 30281USA770-960-1377aiipolygraph@aiipolygraph.comwww.polygraphschool.com/
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 17
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
ESCUELA NACIONAL DE POLIGRAFIA, NATIONAL POLYGRAPH SCHOOL*Director:Address:
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Luz Del Carmen DiazCalle Cuauhtemoc # 168Colonia Tisapan de San Angel, Mexico City, [email protected] website
KOREAN SUPREME PROSECUTORSOFFICE POLYGRAPH ACADEMY*Director:Address:
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Cheol Bang105 NDFC Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, 157 Banpodaero, SeochoguSeoul, 06590S. [email protected] website
LATINAMERICAN POLYGRAPH INSTITUTEDirector:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Manuel NovoaCarrera 46 # 93-70BogotaColombia57-12369630Dirgeneral@latinpolygraph.comwww.latinamericanpolygraph.com
INTERNATIONAL POLYGRAPH STUDIES CENTERDirector:Address:
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Raymond I. NelsonInsurgentes Sur # 1877, Piso 2, Oficina 204, Col. Guadalupe InnDel. Alvaro ObregónMexico D.F. 06700Mexico(55) 5533 [email protected]
MARSTON POLYGRAPH ACADEMY:Director:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Gary Davis390 Orange Show LaneSan Bernardino, CA 92408USA909-554-3883info@marstonpolygraph.comwww.marstonpolygraph.com
*Admission is limited to government or law enforcement students only.
ESCUELA NACIONAL DE POLIGRAFIADirector:Address :
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Raymond I. NelsonBarrio Guadalupe, Edificio HermitageTegucigalpa, Francisco Morazon 11101Honduras
[email protected] website
18 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
MINDEF CENTRE FOR CREDIBILITYASSESSMENT*:Director:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
V. CholanBlock 13, Mandai Camp 2Mandai [email protected]/
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF POLYGRAPH OF THE NATIONAL POLICE OF COLOMBIA*:Director:Address:
Country:Phone:Email:
Website:
Major Ricardo Palomino RestrepoTC Jorge Zenen Lopez Guerrero Transversal 33 No 47a-35 SurBarrio FatimaBogotaColombia57-3203023049programaacademicopoligrafiapc@gmail.comno website
*Admission is limited to government or law enforcement students only.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CREDIBILITYASSESSMENT*:Director:
Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Zach Vaughn; Ron Kiefer; Stephanie Liles7540 Pickens AvenueFort Jackson, SC [email protected]
NATIONAL POLYGRAPH ACADEMY
Director:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Pam Shaw1890 Star Shoot Parkway,Ste. 170-366Lexington,KY 40509USA859-494-7429shaw.national@gmail.comwww.nationalpolygraphacademy.com
MARYLAND INSTITUTE OF CRIMINALJUSTICE:Director:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Billy H. Thompson8424 Veterans Hwy Ste 3Millersville MD [email protected]
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE POLYGRAPH PROGRAM*:Director:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Andrew Longuski7320 North Canal RoadLansing, MI 48913USA-no emailno website
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 19
TRAINING AND SEMINARS
THE POLYGRAPH INSTITUTEDirector:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
J. Patrick O’Burke19179 Blanco Road, Suite 105 #812San Antonio, TX 78258USA210-377-0200info@thepolygraphinstitute.comthepolygraphinstitute.com
TUDOR ACADEMYDirector:Address:
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Charles SpeagleCra. 66, No. 42-103, Medellin, ColombiaMedellinColombia(57) (4) [email protected]
VOLLMER POLYGRAPHDirector:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Michael Lynch22600 Savi Ranch Parkway A-13Yorba Linda, CA, 92887USA(800) [email protected]
VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF POLYGRAPHDirector:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Darryl DeBow7885 Coppermine Rd. [email protected]://virginiaschoolpolygraph.com
*Admission is limited to government or law enforcement students only.
NEW ENGLAND POLYGRAPH INSTITUTEDirector:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
David J. CrawfordPO Box 825Center Harbor, NH 03226USA603-253-8002kacdc@worldpath.netwww.newenglandpolygraphinstitute.com/
PEAK CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTTRAINING CENTERDirector:Address: Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Benjamin Blalock1490 NE Pine Island Rd. Unit 7BCape Coral, FL [email protected]/
NCTC POLYGRAPH INSTITUTE:Director:Address:
Country:Phone:Email:Website:
Elmer Criswellc/o Dept. of Military & Veteran’s Affairs Building 8-64 FortIndiantown GapAnnville, PA 17003-5002USA717-861-9306register@counterdrug.orgwww.counterdrug.org
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 21
President´s MessageDarryl Starks
FROM THE BOARD
Greeting to all of you and welcome to the cooler temperatures of the fall season (...finally). I hope your summer months were productive and eventful, spent with family and friends. We capped off the summer months with yet another successful Annual Seminar, return-ing to the beautiful Hilton Bonnet Creek and Resort in Orlando, FL. With an attendance of nearly 800 participants, this year’s seminar was one the APA’s most successful to date. A special thank you is in order to the entire seminar team led by Chairman Mike Gougler, for organizing and running this successful 6-day event. It was truly a “team effort” on the part of your Board of Director’s and volunteers.
Hurricane Dorian was ever-present and on the minds of all our seminar attendees to-wards the end of the week. Thankfully, Hurricane Dorian’s arrival to the costal Florida area was delayed, posing no major impact on the Orlando area as initially projected. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were significantly impacted by Hurricane Dorian, particularly our Caribbean neighbors in the Bahamas who suffered devastating damage.
I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome all of the returning board members, our new-est board member, Lisa Ribacoff and returning board member and new President-Elect Sabino Martinez. I look forward to working with all of you as we endeavor to continue the leadership role and significant impact the APA has within the polygraph profession. The Board of Director’s is here to serve the membership. Always feel free to reach out the members of the board with your questions, concerns and ideas.
22 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
Appointments
I am pleased to announce the Standing Committee Chair’s and Ex-Officio appointments for 2019-2020;Communications and Public Relations Committee – Erika Thiel, Chair;Lisa Ribacoff, Co-ChairEthics and Grievance Committee – Sabino MartinezMember Services Committee – Pam ShawResearch and Development Committee – Walt GoodsonEducation Accreditation Committee – Jamie McCloughanStandards and Specialized Testing Committee – Ray NelsonPost-Conviction Sex Offender Testing Committee – Erika Thiel
Editor-in-Chief – Mark HandlerTreasurer – Chad RussellNational Office Manager and Secretary – Lisa JacocksSeminar Program Chairman – Michael GouglerEAC Program Manager – Barry CushmanGeneral Counsel: Gordon Vaughan
What’s New
At the Orlando seminar, the general membership approved changes to the provisions of the Divisional Affiliate’s, moving the affiliate category from membership and creating a new section within our bylaws. The general membership also approved changes to the eligibility requirements for members to run for the office of President-Elect. The Board of Directors have made the following changes; section 1.8.3 of the Standards of Practice was amended regarding the reporting of evidentiary exam findings. Finally, the Model Policy for the Evaluation of Examinee Suitability for Polygraph Testing was updated to reflect current language of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-V).
Acknowledgement
Walter Atwood, one of the distinguished guests at this year’s seminar in Orlando is a Charter Member and Past President (1975-76) of the APA. At the “young” age of 97, Mr. Atwood may be the oldest member of the APA! Mr. Atwood has not missed many seminars and this year was no exception. We owe a debt of gratitude to APA Past-
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 23
FROM THE BOARD
President Skip O. Webb for going out of his way to bring Mr. Atwood to Orlando this year. In the past, Walter regularly drove across country to attend various seminars, but this year was unable to drive to Orlando. Skip was gracious enough to pick up Walter at his home in Jacksonville, Fl and drive him back home when the seminar ended. Ad-ditionally, Walter was hosted at the Orlando Hilton Bonnet Creek hotel by Limestone Technologies. Thanks to Limestone, Jamie Brown and Skip for aiding and supporting
Walter this year.
Walter, we are grateful for your attendance at this year’s seminar and we look forward to your continued participation in APA activities. Your presence is an inspiration to all of us.
VOLUNTEERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY2019/2020
Member Services Committee
Communications & Public Relations
Research & Development
Standards & Specialized Testing
Ethics & Grievance
Education Accreditation
Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing
PR (Private)
GO ( Federal Government )
LE (Law Enforcement Agency)
Seminar Program
Please Print Name
Address
City State Zip-Code
Telephone Number
E-mail address:
( )
Please email your completed form [email protected]
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 25
FROM THE BOARD
Board of Directors’ Reports
Sabino MartinezPresident-Elect
Greetings colleagues, I hope that this letter finds all of you in good spirits. Our Orlando Seminar was a huge success and I personally want to congratulate those of you responsible for putting it together. Lisa Jacocks and Mike Gougler work extremely hard putting it all together and they deserve much of the credit and of course let’s not forget Gordon Vaughan who negotiates the ho-tel rates and amenities. This year’s the seminar speakers consisted of a diverse group of individuals that were from differ-ent countries and culturally rich in knowl-edge and for this I praise Mike for his great work. I would also like to thank all of you who voted in the past election and especially those of you who supported me in my election I cannot thank you enough. As in the past I always want to be that ap-proachable person that no matter who or where you come from, I can always lend an ear and be of service.
In the past month we learned that one of colleagues, Captain Vincent Liberto, Jr. who was employed with the Mandeville Police Department was shot and killed in the line of duty, our hearts and prayers go out to his family and the department.
This year it will be my duty to receive and in-
vestigate grievances brought against our members and while this is not something that I am excited to be involved in, it is a duty that I will not take lightly. As chair of the grievance committee I will do my best to be impartial and allow all complaints to be equally heard and voted on by the com-mittee. That being said, I will remind each of you that if you come into contact with a complainant, remember that complaints received from those affected or personal-ly witnessed will be considered and those that are from a second party will be con-sidered as hearsay and will be returned asking for a statement from the persons or person directly involved.
I would like to thank the members of all committees who have taken the time to volunteer and help, as it is a never-end-ing endeavor. There is one member that volunteers for every committee and as a full-time employee in his private life he is always there when we need him. Bill Gil-lespie you are an example to us all and deserve much of the credit Sir! I ask all of you to volunteer if you can, sometimes all we need is for you to vote or we may as-sign something to you that will take a little time. Until we meet again please feel free contact me anytime and please be safe!
Estimados Colegas, espero que todos se encuentren bien, quiero decirles que tu-vimos un seminario exitoso en Orlando,
26 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
Florida, les doy las gracias por su voto de confianza. Asimismo, este año nuestro colega Mike Gougler, el encargado del seminario, trabajó muy duro para poder ofrecerles sesiones con ponentes de dife-rentes paises que enriquecieran con su experiencia a los participantes al semi-nario. Gracias Mike! Por otra parte, tomo este tiempo para mencionar la despedida de uno de nuestros colegas que murió después de recibir un impacto de bala al seguir a un delincuente; nuestro pésame y oraciones a su familia. Ahora bien, el presidente Darryl Starks, me ha puesto al frente del comité de quejas contra miembros, de esta manera les comento que solo las acusaciones de las perso-nas (miembros) que fueron afectados o testigos de la situación reportada, serán escuchados y considerados; no obstante, todas aquellas cuestiones que procedan de una tercera persona no serán atendi-das. Ademas, hablando de comités, quie-ro darles las gracias a todas las personas que se han apuntado como voluntarios, siempre se necesitan personas que nos puedan ayudar. Ejemplo de ello es nuestro colega Bill Gillespie cuya experiencia y trabajo luce como un ejemplo para todos nosotros, ya que siempre esta dispuesto a darnos una mano en cada comité. Actu-almente Bill tiene un trabajo que lo tiene muy ocupado, pero siempre se toma el tiempo para ayudarnos. ¡Gracias Bill! Para finalizar, les pido que si están dispuestos ayudarnos y dar un poco de su tiempo, se apunten como voluntarios, su ayuda es importante. Hasta la próxima, que tengan éxito en lo presente, y espero nos veamos pronto. ¡Hasta Luego!
Steve DuncanBoard Chairman
Hello, fellow APA Members. I hope ev-eryone is having a great start to fall. We continue to stay busy within the Asso-ciation with our new and returning Board Members working with Committees as as-signed by President Starks.
I am happy to report on a great Annual Seminar in Orlando, Florida. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Seminar Chair Mike Gougler assisted by Board Member Walt Goodson, Office Manager Lisa Jacocks, General Counsel Gordon Vaughan, Trea-surer Chad Russell and all of the others who worked prior to and at the Seminar, it was a monumental success. The turnout was phenomenal, the training was world class and the venue was awesome. Each year the bar seems to get set a little high-er with our Seminars making it enticing to look forward to the next one. For those who didn’t attend, start planning for next year in New Orleans as I’m sure it will be equal to or above this year.
I want to welcome the returning Elected Members to the Board and specifically welcome newly elected Board Member Lisa Ribacoff. I look forward to the com-ing year serving as Chairman and work-ing with President Starks, President-elect Martinez and the rest of the Board.
A special thanks to all those who attended the Business Meeting and supported our recommended changes to the Divisional Affiliate requirements and the change to
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 27
FROM THE BOARD
the requirement to qualify for President-elect. I feel these changes were positive and further strengthen our Organization.I also appreciate your awarding me Life-time Membership to the APA for my Ser-vice. I was humbled by the award and ac-cept it with great pride.
As Chairman of the Board I will contin-ue to assist Members with issues as re-quested and intend to work with Board Members to achieve their goals. I remain committed to the APA Mission to provide training, best practices and professional resources for the continued growth of eth-ical and evidence based detection of de-ception through the use of polygraph. As always, feel free to call me (706-506-0830) or email me ([email protected]) if I can be of assistance to you.
Mike GouglerSeminar Chair
Fellow Members,The Orlando Seminar was a huge suc-cess. We had over 800 people registered. Thanks to everyone who helped make the training a memorable event. Your seminar committee is already working on the 2020 seminar in New Orleans. Information will be posted on the website as soon as it is available. Please make your room reser-vations early, as we predict another well attended seminar. We promise to provide an entertaining, diverse and educational learning experience. New Orleans offers many attractions and robust night life. Please make plans to attend. Sincerely, Mike Gougler
Donnie DuttonDirector
Hello Membership,I want to take just a moment to say if you didn’t attend this years seminar in Orlando you sure missed a great one. The speakers were excellent, the facility was outstand-ing, and of course as always, the weather was great. We did have a bit of a scare of a potential hurricane, but it passed further north causing absolutely no impact on the seminar. I am already excited about out next seminar which is going to be in New Orleans. Mike Gougler has already start-ed lining up speakers for this event. Next years seminar will be from Sunday, 30 Au-gust to Friday, 04 September 2020. Mark your calendars now, and I really hope to see you there.
As of this writing I have been asked to serve on two committees with other board members. The first committee is being chaired by Ms. Pam Shaw and she will be looking into the use of computer algo-rithms. The board has been struggling with this issue now for the past few years and Pam has been charged to investigate this and see if we can put a pin on what a good algorithm really is, reliability and va-lidity wise. One big hurdle we must over-come is do we have enough ground truth examinations that the algorithms haven’t already seen; the answer to that is no. I am extremely happy to be a part of this committee and standby to assist anyway that I can. My second committee that I am serving on is with Ms. Erica Thiel. Ms. Thiel is heading up the Post-Conviction
28 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT) committee. She has developed her committee and has already started asking the committee their ideas on starting a quality control process for PCSOT exams, making substantive changes to the current PCSOT model poli-cy, changing the standards of practice for the conduct of PCSOT exams, and should we be updating the training materials for APA accredited schools. I am absolutely positive you are going to see multiple dis-cussions on these topics throughout the year. I am really looking forward to this committee and to see where it will take us in the future. If any of you have ideas that you think the PCSOT committee should be looking into, please let me know and I will pass them along to the other committee members.
Last but not least, if you have anything that you think I or another board member should be working on please let me know. Our new President, Mr. Darryl Starks is not afraid to take on any challenge that our membership may be facing, and I am grateful to be a part of his team this year.
Walt GoodsonDirector
Greetings fellow professionals:It was great to see 800ish of our associ-ates and members at the Orlando semi-nar. If you had the pleasure of attending, you undoubtedly experienced one of the best, if not the very best of our 54 annual workshops. The hotel and lectures were incredible from start to finish. If you get the chance, please commend Seminar
Chair Mike Gougler and National Office Manager Lisa Jacocks for the job they did putting this program together. For our 2020 seminar in New Orleans, President Starks has tasked me with assisting Mike with the organization of this program as well as creating an After Action Report (AAR) for Orlando to identify opportunities to add more polish to our 2020 seminar. Mike and I feel we are already ahead of the game in making our 55th seminar memo-rable since New Orleans is such an incred-ible waterfront venue, with a casino, shop-ping, restaurants and the historic French Quarter entertainment district (Bourbon Street) all within walking distance. One item identified in our AAR is a need for more scientific training, specifically in the area of algorithms. With the continual evolution of computerized scoring sys-tems, more training is needed to enhance our memberships’ practical understand-ing of these technologies. We are also considering a research track to ensure we are presenting the latest research that will shape our future.
Another area identified in the AAR relates to a long-term plan to create more op-portunities for additional vendors to par-ticipate, to ultimately establish a vendor expo. Moving forward, Mike and I hope to evaluate opportunities to increase the number of vendors that attend our work-shops. As you are aware, polygraph in-strument manufacturers have historically comprised the majority of the vendors that attend our annual seminars. Since many of our members are current or former law enforcement professionals or work in the
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 29
FROM THE BOARD
private investigations industry, and use other credibility assessment tools and technologies, it may make sense to attract vendors that can demonstrate these prod-ucts. Examples may include vendors that offer credibility assessment, surveillance, and other investigative technologies as well as other items such as apparel, train-ing, and business solutions. The first task is to create a more robust vendor policy to ensure fairness as well as attracts ven-dors that are of interest to our members that help further the APA’s mission.
Beyond assisting Mike with the Seminar, President Starks also tasked me with chairing the Research and Development Committee. I look forward to working with a committee that can help facilitate mean-ingful research that advances the profes-sion. Taking on this committee means I’ll be giving up the Ethics and Grievance Committee after five years of service in this role. Before I move on, I want to ex-tend my sincere gratitude to Bill Gillespie for his hard work for several years as the vice-chair of this committee and to Gor-don Vaughan for this expert guidance and legal counsel. The APA is so blessed to have such a talented attorney on its staff that answers the phone day or night to help the board navigate through the deli-cate issues it faces on almost a daily ba-sis.
While we are so glad to have Gordon’s continued support, the Association did suffer two losses of to expert board mem-bers with George Baranowski’s and Brian Morris’ departure from the board. While
the board will miss these two’s expertise, it was blessed to have two substantial ad-ditions with President-elect Sabino Marti-nez and Director Lisa Ribacoff beginning their terms. Lisa will bring a much-needed private examiner perspective and busi-ness acumen to the board while Sabino’s return to the board will most certainly help create training opportunities and member-ship on a global level. I’ve had the plea-sure of serving as a polygraph examiner with Sabino when we worked together for many years at the Texas Department of Public Safety. Sabino’s leadership, work ethic, knowledge of the industry on a glob-al level, and incredible skill as an examiner will most certainly move us forward.
With President Starks and President-elect Martinez now leading the way, I think the Association will see proposed changes that create additional training opportuni-ties and pushes to grow the membership healthily. Please feel free to reach out to me with your ideas or if there is something I can do to help you. As always, thank you for your dedication to making this world a better and safer place.
Jamie McCloughanDirector
As summer turns to fall, I look forward to hunting, but not to the snow that follows. It was so good to see familiar faces and meet some new ones at this year’s semi-nar. I don’t have anything to report of substance at this time, but I would like to take the opportunity to thank the membership
30 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
for coming this year’s seminar.
I would love some input from old and new examiners over the next year, as the Edu-cation Accreditation Committee is look-ing at overhauling the basic education process to make it more in line with other professions.
If you have any questions or suggestions on anything else APA or polygraph relat-ed, please feel free to contact me. As al-ways, may those who are fighting for our freedom against threats, both foreign and domestic, be safe, and have Godspeed in their return to friends and loved ones.
Raymond Nelson Director
It’s been little more than a week since re-turning from the 2019 APA Annual Confer-ence – in Orlando FL – among the largest APA seminars ever. One of the great things about traveling and working away from home is the requirement to sometimes wait, and sit, and fill the time. I normally fill extra time in airports and hotels by an-alyzing data and writing reports. For the APA Conference, I had a chance to re-read Joseph Heller’s classic novel Catch-22 – a fantastic story full of flawed and difficult personas subject to the catch-22, an ines-capable condition of mutually conflicting conditions that each depend on the other.
Anyway, just as soon as the conference was completed, it’s time to move forward. The 2019-20 members of the Board of Di-rectors got immediately to work on the ini-
tial details for the 2020 conference. Time, it seems, at the level of the professional association, is measured, not in terms of seconds, minutes or hours, but in election cycles and conference planning cycles. Fortunately for the APA, the individuals re-sponsible for most of the details are fairly well experienced – all ex-officio members of the BOD, appointed each year by the in-coming elected President, are expected to dedicate such a great amount of time, ef-fort and availability that they also receive a stipend for their work on behalf of the APA. For readers who are not familiar with the notion of an ex-officio board member, these are persons who work on behalf of the APA and participate in Board delib-erations, but do not vote on Board agen-da items. Currently appointed ex-officio Board members include our APA legal counsel, office manager, treasurer, editor, conference planner and EAC manager. The persons do a great amount of work towards, and deserve much of the credit for, the success of the APA Annual Semi-nar. Congratulations to President Darryl Starks and the other elected and return-ing board members and all the ex-officio board members who are returning for an-other year.
President Starks has appointed me to be the chairperson for the Standards and Specialized Testing Committee, and we should have committee appointment let-ters in the mail very soon. I do not antici-pate a great deal of work or changes to the Standards of Practice, but there may be some house-keeping needs that require discussion and attention. I anticipate that
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 31
FROM THE BOARD
most of my work at the Board will again be the un-glamourous and tedious one of working towards the completion of a project on computer scoring algorithms. This project was initiated last year at the request of immediate Past President Dun-can, who asked the question: which scor-ing algorithms have been independently replicated? This is, or course, a very good question to ask. One that can be answered superficially, by simply making a list. For those who may not recall, this effort is in response to section 1.8.3 which was add-ed to the Standards of Practice in 2017. I anticipate an ability to make more com-plete information on this during the next 12 months. What I notice, in discussing this project with others, is that additional questions tend to arise about computer scoring algorithms. Those questions in-clude the degree to which we can expect computerized and manual scores to con-cur, details about how computer algo-rithms may accomplish the scoring task in ways that are similar to, or different from, manual scoring, differences in reli-ability of manual and computerized analy-sis, differences in accuracy with manual and computerized scoring, and differenc-es in vulnerabilities when evaluating diffi-cult test data, and what to do when the re-sults of computerized and manual scores do not concur. All of these are interesting and important questions, and all are part of the larger project to some degree.
Learning from the past is an important thing to do. One thing I observe about the past is this. We’ve had computer scoring algorithms commercially available to field polygraph examiners since the mid to late 1990s (about a quarter of a century now), and scientific publications have described computer scoring algorithms since the early 1980s (which means we’ve had com-puterized polygraph scoring capabilities for over 1/3 of a century).
One of the reasons we still struggle to make use of computerized scoring tools is the problem of information and distrust – the black-box problem – the skynet prob-lem (wherein the robots begin to eliminate the humans). Directly related to this is the fact that, in retrospect, we may not have done enough to correctly educate poly-graph professionals about computerized scoring algorithms – what they do, how they work, basic concepts, etc. The tradi-tion in the polygraph profession seems to have been to limit training and exposure to probabilistic classification. This goes back deeper in the history of polygraph, to a time when it may been hoped that we can one day detect deception itself. So, we learn, and we move forward into the 21st century. In recent years we’ve been working to make practical and applica-ble information and concepts available to polygraph field practitioners and poly-graph training programs – with the goal of avoiding unnecessary criticism around the well-known fact that there is no form of physiological activity that is unique to deception, meaning that the polygraph test does not so much detect deception
32 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
but is instead a process of acquiring and analyzing proxy information that func-tions as probabilistic evidence in support of a conclusion of deception or truth.
In the meantime, President Starks has also appointed a committee to further dis-cussion Standard 1.8.3. Standard 1.8.3 was subject to some discussion at the Board meeting, and some discussion at the APA Conference Panel Discussion, during which one APA member summed up the difficulty nicely from the floor, stat-ing: [paraphrased] “I don’t use algorithms because I don’t know how they work.”
The catch here is that some APA accred-ited polygraph training programs have provided little or no information on algo-rithms (and some computer algorithms are supported by very little descriptive information), because there is no re-quirement to use computer algorithms, and because people don’t know enough about them. Information is available, and people are available to ask questions, to learn how computer algorithms work. The other catch is that effort to learn about computer algorithms is an investment of time and effort, for which no requirement exists to use computer algorithms – and no requirement exists to use computer al-gorithms because not enough is known about them. From a practical perspec-tive, it makes little sense to use a method, technology or tool that is not reasonably well understood, and for which account-able answers cannot be provided as to how a decision was made. From ethical perspective there may be serious prob-
lems with transferring responsibility for human decision-making to a black-box machine process. And from a strictly eco-nomic perspective, it makes little sense to expend resources to solve a problem that does not exist (learning about algorithms, when there is no requirement to use them or understand them).
So, this is where we sit – until we know a bit more about how algorithms work and until we know a bit more about how to use them. But that takes effort and con-centration and time (and time away from other things). So, until it is required to teach and learn more about computer al-gorithms, we can expect that most will not invest the time and effort to learn much about them. And, until is required to use computers algorithms there may be little perceived economic value in investing the time and effort to learning about com-puter algorithms and developing the train-ing curricula to increase our professions competence and comfort with these tech-nologies. What we want to do is to avoid getting into a Catch-22 situation. The real catch is that if we neglect to make use of the best and most powerful available technology, we will increase the risk of dis-ruption from others – legislators, courts, scientists, communities, and agencies – that may want us to make use of the best available technologies. So, in the end, it’s a choice, not a catch.
For now, the APA Board has decided to stand down on any Standard of Practice regarding computer algorithms. Normally we commit resources to solve a problem
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 33
FROM THE BOARD
because of a requirement or problem that needs resolution. In this case, we will be devoting a lot of time and energy to de-velop a solution (information on computer algorithms) for which no problem (no re-quirement) exists – the APA does not, at present require the use of computer algo-rithms and APA accredited training pro-grams have no obligation to teach any-thing about them.
In the meantime, a number of computer scoring algorithms can, and have been, successfully replicated in functional ways – which proves the availability of infor-mation about what the algorithms do and how they work. Anyway, this is an ongo-ing project and there is still a lot of data to analyze and lot of report writing to com-plete. I’ve estimated about 9 months to completion (however, one rule-of-thumb when analyzing data is to double the time estimate and use the next higher unit of time measurement). Regardless, we keep moving forward and we expect to have more information before the next APA An-nual Seminar.
Peace
Roy Ortiz Director 3
E PLURIBUS UNUM
2020 Goals Hopefully, APA award nominations will be submitted from every Divisional Affili-ate, State Association and every country with APA members. Nomination forms are
available on the APA’s website.
Technology JunctionTravel Safety Tips
1. Do your homeworkResearch the destination: what are the safest places to visit and stay? Schedule tours with reputable com-panies.
2. Wait until you get home, to share your itinerary/ photos on social me-dia. Only share your travel plans with family members and close friends.
3. Never use free public Wi Fi, espe-cially when accessing websites that store personal information.
4. Avoid using public charging ports. They may contain hardware that can monitor and copy all your online ac-tivity.
5. Notify your banking institutions, credit card companies and telephone provider. It is a common occurrence that customers are charged hun-dreds of dollars for roaming charges on their cell phone. Double check with your provider, what exact cell phone settings are required to eliminate/ prevent roaming charges.
6. Be aware of your surroundings at all times.
7. Have a copy (printed and digital) of the address of the local emer-
34 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
gency agencies.(Hospital, police de-partment, nearest embassy or con-sulate). Travel medical insurance is strongly recommended. This will pre-vent some expensive surprises and headaches.
International Membership Committee
One picture is worth a thousand words (2019 APA Seminar)
Economic Financial Crimes Commission Nigeria:Buttari Lawman, Ijeoma Anodere, myself and Jimmy Tanko
Myself, Gregorio Cornelis, Belgian Federal Judicial PoliceJohn Galianos, Montreal, CanadaOliver Beullens, Belgian Federal Judicial Police
Supreme Prosecution Office South Korea:Sang Hyun Lee, myself and Si On Kim
Myself and Russian polygraph examiner - Physicist Alexander Kalafati
Canadian Association of Police Polygra-phists
Professional Development CommitteeRecent applications for Continuing Edu-cation hours:
Georgia Bureau of Investigation 20 hoursSouth African Professional Polygraph As-
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 35
FROM THE BOARD
sociation 16 hours
International Association of Polygraph Professionals (Mexico) 22 hours
Seminar notes
The 2019 APA 54th Seminar in Orlando, Florida was a great success, due to volun-teers, member attendance and speakers with a desire to share their knowledge.
Now is the time:
1. Review and practice what you learned. 2. Follow up with an email to some-one you met. 3. Send your questions to the speak-ers that you found interesting4. Send your ideas for topics and speakers for the APA’s 2020 seminar in New Orleans to Seminar Chair, Mi-chael Gougler. 5. Remind your friends about the im-portance of being an APA member.6. Send a “thank you” to someone who impressed you, for a job well done. Two of my favorite seminar speaker’s quotes.
Greg Stube, retired Army Green Beret: “Get over ourselves” “See the good in ev-eryone”Thomas Coffey, Chicago P.D. Detective: “Behavior is not the issue” “ Withholding is the problem”
My favorite road sign, guess where....
Lisa RibacoffDirector
Hello From New York!First and foremost, I want to extend a thank you to all my colleagues that collab-orated above and beyond to put together such a great conference at the Hilton Bon-net Creek. Our seminar chair, Mike Gougler and APA Office Manager, Lisa Jacocks, APA’s General Counsel, Gordon Vaughn and the Board of Directors worked incred-ibly hard to bring it all together for another huge success. It was so great to see a diverse representation of our member-ship and the networking that took place amongst newly admitted members and existing members.
Second, I would like to take this opportuni-ty to thank the membership for their sup-port in the initial election as well as the run-off. For those of you that did not get a chance to read my platform, I expressed the desire to serve as a Director to contin-ue to promote the profession to the best extent of my abilities and I assure you, I will.
36 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
I have been tasked by President Starks to Co-Chair the Communications and Public Relations Committee with Director Thiel. Erika and I have worked closely together this past year on this committee and I am very grateful to be continuing our efforts for another year. I want to take this time to encourage ev-eryone to get more involved in the APA by joining committees. I know that I wouldn’t have taken an interested in running for the board had it not been for serving on two committees this past year. Because of my involvement with the Public Relations Committee, I made a suggestion about the nominations process for the APA Awards. This suggestion was taken to the Awards and Nominations committee chaired by Director Ortiz. This one suggestion was then brought to the board and voted on and was later approved. I had an opinion and a voice.
So much has been accomplished in the past few years, however there is so much more that is left to be done. We need the knowledge and expertise of our member-ship to contribute to the association’s fu-ture. If you are willing to make yourself available to the Public Relations commit-tee, please reach out to me at your conve-nience so we can move forward with our tasks.
My main goal of the committee is to uti-lize the various social media platforms as a tool of communication amongst the membership. Announcements regarding APA Approved Training and State Asso-
ciation Seminars will be available on the Facebook platform as well as through the Instagram account. The accounts will be utilized for membership related items such as Board Elections, Conference An-nouncements, Nominations and Awards, and more. I would like to see these plat-forms utilized as a place to not only create but encourage dialogue regarding best practices, day to day experiences as well as a forum for assistance.
I look forward to working with our Board of Directors and Membership these next two years.
Lisa [email protected]
Pam ShawDirector
Hello Fellow Members,I would like to thank each of you that at-tended the APA Annual Seminar in Or-lando last month! It was a great turn out, and so wonderful to catch up with friends from around the world! After the seminar the new board had it’s first meet-ing and received our new committee as-signments. In the year ahead, I have the privilege of continuing to serve as Chair of the Member Services Committee, as well as the Chair of an Ad Hoc Committee to Review Computer Algorithms. The role of the Member Services Committee is well-defined and guided by the needs of pro-spective members, current members and at times, those whose status has expired.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 37
FROM THE BOARD
The role and work of the Ad Hoc Commit-tee, however, is a work in progress and will evolve with new information, new findings, and new technology. For the past couple years conversations have been stirring around algorithms, such as their capabil-ity, their strengths, their weaknesses and their role in polygraph. Every instrument manufacturer includes an algorithm as part of their software package, but what guidance or understanding do we as field examiners have about the algorithms? What does the research tell us? Which algorithms have been found to be valid? How do we even define valid? Which algo-rithms have been shown to have reliability with examiner’s handscores? The ques-tions go on and on, which is precisely why a committee has been formed; in hopes of addressing and/or answering as many questions as possible. These questions aren’t new or unexpected, but in a climate of ever-increasing reliance on technology, our profession could use greater clarity and guidance. A couple years ago, fellow board member, Ray Nelson was commis-sioned with the daunting task to begin a more thorough, hands-on review of com-puter algorithms. He is continuing his good work in this area, and the committee is eager to eventually see the fruits of his findings.
While that research continues, one of the first objectives of the Ad Hoc commit-tee will be to conduct a literature review regarding any of the commercially avail-able computer algorithms. It is the com-mittee’s hope to share these findings with
you sometime in the year ahead. Con-current with this project, steps will also be taken to research whether computer algorithms have reliability with examin-er’s handscores. This project won’t work without you! I am seeking numerous vol-unteers who would be willing to score 20-25 exams and submit their scoresheets. If you have any interest in participating as a scorer, please contact me at [email protected]. Additionally, if you have any comments or information to share regarding your experience with computer algorithms, ideas for research, etc. I would love to hear from you.
I am excited for the year ahead and I am eager to serve you and our profession to the best of my ability. If there is anything I can do for you and your regional commu-nity of examiners, please reach out and let me know.
All the best,Pam
Erika ThielDirector
Public Relations and Communication Committee: I am very happy that Lisa Ribacoff has joined me as co-chair for this committee and am excited to see how much further we can take the social media experience for the APA with her help. Lisa will share details of this committee’s work in her board report.
38 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT) Committee:
In Orlando I talked to many PCSOT exam-iners and the message from most was the same: it is time to update the PCSOT model policy and operational policy. I could not agree more. Being the chair of the PCSOT committee this year I intend to exert effort into updating and implement-ing changes that will bring the PCSOT model current. The committee is diverse enough to ensure changes in the PCSOT model policy and operational policy will positively effect field examiners. It also ensures that PCSOT does not become any one person’s PCSOT (as that is not some-thing I am looking for it to become) and is inclusive of things outside of our indi-vidual purview. I am very excited for the people who have volunteered their time to assist us in this project as many of them were people who came to me discussing change or had people discussing change with them.
I am honored to be able to continue to contribute to these committees and look forward to updating progress as we move forward.
Comité de Relaciones Públicas y Comuni-cación:
Estoy emocionado de que Lisa Ribacoff se haya unido a mí como copresidente de este comité y estoy ansioso por ver cuán-to más podemos aportar la experiencia de las redes sociales a la APA. Los informes detallados de la junta para este comité se
detallarán en los informes de la junta de Lisa en el futuro.
Comité de Pruebas de Delincuentes Sexu-ales Post-Convicción (PCSOT):
En Orlando hablé con muchos examina-dores de PCSOT y el mensaje de todos fue el mismo: es hora de actualizar la política modelo y la política operativa de PCSOT. No podría estar más de acuerdo. Siendo presidente del comité de PCSOT este año, tengo la intención de hacer todo lo posible para ver qué podemos actualizar e imple-mentar para que PCSOT sea más actual. El comité es diverso. Esto es para garan-tizar que se tenga en cuenta la opinión de todos. También asegura que PCSOT no se convierta en PCSOT de Erika Thiel (ya que no es algo que estoy buscando que sea) e incluye cosas fuera de mi alcance. Estoy muy entusiasmado con las personas que han ofrecido su tiempo como voluntarias para ayudarme con este proyecto, ya que muchas de ellas eran personas que vini-eron a mí para discutir el cambio o tenían personas que discutían el cambio con el-los.
Me siento honrada de poder continuar contribuyendo a estos comités y espero actualizar el progreso a medida que avan-zamos.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 39
FROM THE BOARD
MINUTESAMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION
AUGUST 23-24, 2019BOD MEETING
Member present:
James B. McCloughan, Chairman Steve Duncan, President
Darryl Starks, President-Elect Pam Shaw, Director 1
Raymond I. Nelson, Director 2George H. Baranowski, Director 3
Roy Ortiz, Director 4Erika Thiel, Director 5
Donnie Dutton, Director 6 Brian Morris, Director 7
Walt Goodson, Director 8Gordon L. Vaughan, Esq., General Counsel
Mike Gougler, Seminar Program ChairChad Russell, TreasurerMark Handler, Editor
Barry Cushman, APA EAC Program ManagerLisa Jacocks, Secretary
40 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
I. Openinga. Chairman McCloughan calls meeting to order 8:20 am
II. Roll Calla. Roll call – Secretaryb. Anti-trust and Conflict of Interest discussion by General Counsel Vaughan
III. Adoption of the Agendaa. Chairman McCloughan calls for any amendments to agendab. Chairman McCloughan entertains a motion to adopt the agenda as presented or amendedMotion by DuncanSecond by DuttonMotion carried unanimously
IV. Minutesa. Motion by Jacocks to waive the reading and approve the minutes of the April 12-13, 2019 BOD meeting, and the May 23, 2019 teleconference (Attached #1 and #2)Second by DuncanMotion carried unanimously
V. Board Reportsa. Secretary/Manager – Jacocks i. Scanning updateb. General Counsel – Vaughan – i. Motion by Vaughan to go off recordSecond by DuncanMotion carried unanimously ii. Motion by Vaughan to return to record Second by Duncan Motion carried unanimouslyc. Seminar Chair – Gougler i. APA Annual seminar - Orlandod. Editor – Handler
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 41
FROM THE BOARD
e. Treasurer – Russell
10:30 am – Pre-Con Meeting with Hotel Staff – Steve, Mike, Gordon, Lisa – meet in lobby at 10:30
f. Director 1 – Nelson – Standards & Specialized Testing, Algorithmg. Director 2 – Shaw – Member Services, Ad-hoc 1.8.3 Committee report (Attached #3 )h. Director 3 – Baranowski – PCSOT Committee i. Director 4 – Ortiz i. Continuing Education ii. Awardsj. Director 5 – Thiel – Communications & Public Relationsk. Director 6 – Dutton – Ad-hoc Associationsl. Director 7 – Morris – Research & Developmentm. Director 8 – Goodson – Ethics & Grievance
Motion to accept the reports as givenSecond byMotion carried
VI. Old Business – Chairman McCloughan calls for any old business
VII. New Businessa. Standards of Practicei.Motion by Shaw to approve standard 1.8.3 as follows:1.8.3 For evidentiary examinations, an examiner shall report the probabilistic results that support the conclusion of deception or truth-telling and shall address in the written report any decision that is inconsistent with the computer scoring. for the technique and/or the rendered opinion.Second by DuncanDiscussion: committee had good discussion and debate and this is the recommendation of the committee, BOD also
Motion by Nelson for friendly amendment:
42 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
1.8.3 For evidentiary examinations, an examiner shall report the probabilistic results that support the conclusion of deception or truth-telling and shall should address in the written report any decision that is inconsistent with the computer scoring.Second by CushmanMotion failed yes 3, nay 7
Original Motion carried yes 7, nay 3
b. Reimbursement Policy i. Motion by Duncan to approve the reimbursement policy as amended (Attached #4) Second by Shaw
Discussion: updating departing board members and unavailable travel expenses Motion carried - 1 abstentionDiscussion: updating departing board members and unavailable travel expensesMotion carried - 1 abstention
c. Suitability Model Policy i.Motion by Thiel to approve the suitability model policy as amended (Attached #5) Second by Duncan Discussion: updating the policy to bring in line with current technology Motion carried unanimously
d. Tuition Reimbursement Policy i. Motion by Goodson to adopt the APA Tuition Reimbursement Policy (Attached #6) Second by Thiel
Motion by McCloughan for friendly amendment to remove 2.3 Second by Thiel Motion and second withdrawn
Motion by McCloughan for a friendly
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 43
FROM THE BOARD
amendment to strike full time in 2.1, strike 2.3,3.1 to include half-time reimbursement for part time employee who work a minimum of 20 hours per week, and add for a bachelor degreeSecond by ThielMotion carried one abstention
Discussion: this is for a single degree onlyOriginal motion carried one abstention (Duncan)
VIII. Education Accreditation Committeea. Motion by Cushman to approve the waiver request of Director Charles Slupski of the American International Institute of Polygraph (AIIP) dated August 6, 2019 requesting that Davydov Igor Anatoliiovych be recognized as meeting the APA’s degree requirements under its current accreditation standards to teach the physiology portion of the AIIP’s basic polygraph courses in the Ukraine (Attached #7)Second by ThielDiscussion: prior to the vote the BOD discussed the issues of school directors on the BOD voting for other school issues and was determined by counsel that it would not be a conflict of interest, the EAC committee reviewed the issues and recommends approving the waiverMotion carried unanimouslyb. Motion by Cushman to approve the accreditation of the Canadian Police College Polygraph School retroactive to April 1, 2019 (Attached #8)Second by ShawDiscussion: no discrepancies found, committee recommends approvalMotion carried unanimously
c. Motion by Cushman to approve the accreditation of the Virginia School of Polygraph retroactive to January 14, 2019 (Attached #8)Second by Dutton
44 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
Discussion: no discrepancies found, committee recommends approvalMotion carried unanimouslyd. Motion by Cushman to approve the EAC Accreditation Standards Version 2.05 (Attached #9)Second by DuttonDiscussion: most of the changes are not substantiveMotion carried unanimously
IX. MiscellaneousMotion by Dutton to recommend to the general membership Life Membership for Steve DuncanSecond by StarksMotion carried unanimously X. Round table
a. Roy Ortiz – webinar for CEH
XI. Adjourna.Chairman McCloughan entertains a motion to adjournMotion by DuttonSecond by StarksMotion carried unanimously
X. Round tablea. Roy Ortiz – webinar for CEH
XI. Adjourna. Chairman McCloughan entertains a motion to adjournMotion by DuttonSecond by StarksMotion carried unanimously
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 45
FROM THE BOARD
APA STANDARDS OF PRACTICE(Adopted August 23, 2019)
1. Statement of Purpose: To promote the highest degree of decision accuracy in credibility assessment, the APA establishes for its membership the following Standards of Practice. All examinations are required to be conducted in compliance with governing local, state, and federal regulations and laws.
1.1 Definitions
1.1.1 Polygraph examination: a psychophysiological test of deception or recognition sometimes referred to as lie-detection as a term of convenience. The polygraph examination is a standardized, evidence-based test of the margin of uncertainty or level of confidence surrounding a categorical conclusion of deception or the possession of knowledge or information regarding a test target issue. Test data are a combination of physiological proxies that have been shown to vary significantly with different types of test stimuli as a function of deception or truth-telling in response to the relevant investigation target stimuli as a function of deception or truth- telling in response to the relevant investigation target stimuli. The psychological basis of responses to polygraph stimuli is thought to involve attention, cognition, emotion, and behavioral conditions. The examination consists of an interview phase, to clarify the issue under investigation and related test stimuli, a data acquisition phase, during which physiological responses to test stimuli are permanently recorded, and an analysis phase during which differences in responses to different types of test stimuli are numerically quantified to calculate a statistical classifier for a categorical test result. The examiner may also provide the examinee an opportunity to explain any physiological responses and resolve any remaining inconsistencies.
1.1.2 Evidentiary Examination: A polygraph examination in which the written and stated purpose agreed to by the parties involved is to provide a diagnostic opinion as evidence in a pending judicial proceeding.
1.1.3 Paired Testing Examination: Polygraph examinations conducted in in
46 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
tandem on two or more individuals by different examiners who are mutually blind to the other test results regarding a single central contested fact to which all examinees are expected to know the truth thereof. Paired-testing is used by voluntary stipulation between the testifying parties to resolve disputed facts.
1.1.4 Investigative Examination: A polygraph examination which is intended to supplement and/or assist an investigation and for which the examiner has not been informed and does not reasonably believe that the results of the examination will be tendered for admission as evidence in a court proceeding. Investigative examinations may be conducted for screening purposes or to investigate known allegations or known incidents.
1.1.5 Diagnostic examination: An event-specific evidentiary or investigative polygraph examination conducted to assist in determining the veracity of an examinee regarding his or her knowledge of or involvement in a reported issue or allegation. Diagnostic examinations may address a single aspect or multiple-facts of an event.
1.1.6 Screening examination: A polygraph examination conducted in the absence of a reported incident or allegation. Screening examinations may be conducted as single issue or multiple issue exams.
1.1.7 Test data analysis in polygraph refers to any structured method, whether manual or automated, for the evaluation and interpretation of the recorded physiological data in terms of probabilistic margins of uncertainty and/or categorical test decisions concerning the examinee’s truthfulness or concealed knowledge. Decisions for diagnostic and screening examinations include:
1.1.7.1 Diagnostic Opinion: A professional opinion based on the results of a polygraph technique that meets the criterion validity requirements for evidentiary testing or zpaired testing. Results of deception tests can
be described in terms of statistical significance, and are normally reported using the terms Deception Indicated, No Deception Indicated, Inconclusive, and No Opinion (DI or NDI, INC, or NO). Test results of recognition tests are normally reported using the terms Recognition Indicated, No Recognition Indicated, or No Opinion (RI, NRI, NO).
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 47
FROM THE BOARD
1.1.7.2 Screening Opinion: A professional opinion based on the results of a polygraph technique that meets the requirements for screening purposes; normally reported using the terms Significant Response, No Significant Response, Inconclusive, or No Opinion (SR, NSR, INC, or NO). 1.1.7.3 Polygraph Technique:A polygraph technique consists of a combination of: 1) a polygraph testing format for which there is a published description of test administration procedures that conforms to evidence-based principles for target selection, test question construction, and test administration; and 2) a published description of the test data analyses model, including physiological features, transformation, decision rules, and normative data.
1.1.7.3.1 Polygraph techniques for evidentiary examinations shall be those for which there exists at least two published empirical studies, original and replicated, demonstrating an unweighted average accuracy rate of 90% or greater excluding inconclusive results, which shall not exceed 20%.1.1.7.3.2 Polygraph techniques for paired testing shall be those for which there exists at least twopublished empirical studies, original and replicated, demonstrating an unweighted average accuracy rate of 86% or greater, excluding inconclusive results, which shall not exceed 20%.
1.1.7.3.3 Polygraph techniques for investigative testing shall be those for which there exist at least two published empirical studies, original and replicated, demonstrating an unweighted average accuracy rate of 80% or greater, excluding inconclusive results, which shall not exceed 20%.
1.1.7.3.4 Polygraph techniques used for screening purposes shall be those for which there exist at least two published empirical studies, original and replicated, demonstrating an unweighted accuracy rate that is significantly greater than chance, and should be used in a “successive hurdles” approach which entails additional testing with validated methods when the screening test is not favorably resolved.
48 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
1.1.7.4 A Polygraph Examiner: a person who meets the training and education requirements as set forth in the APA Bylaws.
1.1.7.5 Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT) Examiner: a polygraph examiner who conducts examinations of sex offenders as a condition of treatment, probation, parole or supervised release, and who has completed specialized training consistent with APA standards.
1.2 Examiner Responsibilities
1.2.1 A polygraph examiner shall, where applicable, comply with all state continuing education requirements. Practicing examiners shall complete a minimum of 30 continuing education hours every two years in coursework related to the field of polygraphy. Examiners are responsible for maintaining their own records to document that they have met the
continuing education requirement.
1.2.2 Examiners shall accurately represent their APA membership category, their academic credentials, licensure, and certification status.
1.2.3 The examiner should make reasonable efforts to determine that the examinee is a suitable candidate for polygraph testing. Basic inquiries into the medical and psychological condition of the examinee should be made where allowed by law. Mental, physical, or medical conditions of the examinee that are observable by or reasonably known to the examiner should be considered when conducting and evaluating an examination.
1.3 Instrumentation and Recording 1.3.1 Polygraph examinations shall be conducted with properly functioning instrumentation that records with, at a minimum, the following physiological data:
1.3.1.1 Respiration patterns recorded by pneumograph components. Thoracic and abdominal patterns should be recorded separately,
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 49
FROM THE BOARD
using two pneumograph components;
1.3.1.2 Electrodermal activity reflecting relative changes in the conductance or resistance of electrical current by the epidermal tissue;
1.3.1.1 Respiration patterns recorded by pneumograph components. Thoracic and abdominal patterns should be recorded separately, using two pneumograph components; 1.3.1.2 Electrodermal activity reflecting relative changes in the conductance or resistance of electrical current by the epidermal tissue;
1.3.1.3 Cardiovascular activity including changes in relative blood pressure, pulse rate, and pulse amplitude; and,
1.3.1.4 A seat activity sensor.
1.3.1.5 Other physiological data may also be recorded during testing, but may not be used to formulate probabilistic or categorical conclusions unless their validity is supported by replicated and published research.
1.3.2 Physiological recordings during each test shall be continuous and should be of sufficient amplitude to be easily readable by the examiner and any reviewing examiner. 1.4 Test Location and Conditions 1.4.1 The testing environment should be reasonably free from distractions. 1.4.2 Examiners conducting polygraph examinations during public viewing are prohibited from rendering opinions regarding the truthfulness of the examinees on the basis of these examinations. Examiners should ensure that reenactments of polygraph examinations are clearly conveyed as such to viewers. If the examiner determines that the
50 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
reenactment will not or has not been clearly conveyed as a reenactment, the examiner shall immediately notify the APA National Office.
1.5 Preparation
1.5.1 Prior to an examination, the examiner shall dedicate sufficient time to identify and discuss the examination issues and potential problem areas.
1.6 Pretest Practices
1.6.1 The examiner shall obtain information sufficient to identify the examinee.
1.6.2 The examiner shall obtain the informed consent of the examinee prior to testing. It is recommended that the informed consent of the examinee be obtained after an overview of the polygraph process, including polygraph instrumentation and sensors, use of video/audio recording, issues to be discussed, requirements for cooperation during testing, and the need to report information and results to the referring professionals.
1.6.3 The examiner shall review all test questions prior to recording the physiological responses of the examinee.
1.6.4 The examiner shall conduct the examination in a neutral manner and shall not display or express any bias regarding the truthfulness of the examinee prior to the completion of testing.
1.7 Testing
1.7.1 A Member polygraph examiner shall use evidence-based validated testing techniques. For purposes of these standards, a testing technique shall be considered valid if supported by research conducted in accordance with the APA’s research standards. Where examinations deviate from the protocols of a validated polygraph technique, the deviations should be explained in writing.
1.7.2 Nothing in these standards of practice shall be construed as preventing
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 51
FROM THE BOARD
examiners and researchers from investigation and developing improved methods. Polygraph techniques that do not meet these standard for validation shall be considered experimental methods.
1.7.3 Field examiners who employ experimental techniques shall be in compliance with applicable law related to human subject research and should inform the examinee and the party requesting the examination of the use of any experimental techniques. Results from experimental techniques used in field settings shall not be used in isolation to render diagnostic or screening decisions.
1.7.4 Nothing in these standards of practice shall be construed as prohibiting the use of other supportive methodologies that do not meet the requirements of these standards (e.g.: Yes Test, Searching Peak of Tension, etc.). However, non-validated techniques shall not be used in isolation to render screening or diagnostic decisions.
1.7.5 Examiners shall conduct an acquaintance test for all diagnostic, evidentiary, paired-testing, initial screening, and initial investigative examinations.
1.7.6 Questions used in the assessment of truth and deception shall be followed by time intervals of not less than 20 seconds from question onset to question onset.
1.7.7 Examiners should use standardized chart markings.
1.7.8 An audio and video recording of all phases of the exam shall be maintained as part of the examination files, consistent with agency policy, regulation or law, for a minimum of one year.
1.7.9 A member polygraph examiner shall not conduct more than four diagnostic or three evidentiary examinations in one day, and no more than five examinations of any type in one day.
1.7.10 Examiners who test sex offenders as a condition of treatment probation, parole or supervise release, shall have earned a certificate of
52 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
FROM THE BOARD
training for a minimum of 40 hours of specialized instruction in post conviction testing.
1.8 Scoring
1.8.1 Examiner conclusions and opinions shall be based on validated scoring methods and decision rules. 1.8.2 Examiner notes shall have sufficient clarity and precision so that another examiner could read them and replicate the analysis and conclusion.
1.8.3 For evidentiary examinations, an examiner shall report the probabilistic results for the technique and/or the rendered opinion.
1.8.4 Examiners shall not disclose or report the results of the examination until the analysis has been completed.
1.8.5 Examiners shall maintain the confidentiality of their work conducted until a release by the client is obtained.
1.8.6 An examiner subject to quality control review shall fully disclose all pertinent information regarding the case under review.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 53
Founded by the Grand Master of Polygraph – Cleve Backster
Backster School of Lie Detection is dedicated of continuing his tradition
of excellence. At Backster you’ll learn the most modern polygraph techniques.
60 Years ofAcademic Excellence
I N P O LYG R A P H E D U C AT I O N
Visit our website for upcoming
sessions and school registration.
APA ACCREDITED
BACK S T ER . N E T
Introducing the Cleve Backster Scholarship Award!
One qualifying candidate will be awarded FREE TUITION to Backster’s
Basic Polygraph Examiner Training course and a Limestone Paragon
Silver instrument package to kickstart their career.
SCH
OO
L O
F LI
E D
ETEC
TIO
N |
EST.
195
9
54 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
Five Minute Science Lesson: Posterior Conditional Probabilities Raymond Nelson and Mark Handler
The purpose of test data (what we record and collect) and test data analysis (how we transform test data into test scores and test results) is to quantify conclu-sions that are made under circumstances that include some inherent uncertainty. Ideally, this is done in some reproducible and theoretically cogent manner. Profes-sionals who use scientific tests – and anyone who uses the results of scientific tests – will sometimes hope for a perfect test. The desire for certainty and perfec-tion may be so strong that it may lead some professionals to find themselves rewarded, both socially and economically, for overconfidence and overstatement of the level of certainty associated with their test results and conclusions. Pretensions towards infallibility may be gratifying in the short-term but will be aggravating in the long-term. This is because testing er-rors will inevitably occur and require some explanation or understanding. Both test-ing effects and testing errors will require
explanations other than wizardry and in-competence. All experts who use scientif-ic tests and scientific test results will face some obligation to engage in realistic dis-cussion of the potential for testing errors. Any discussion of testing errors should be reasonably informed about posterior con-ditional probabilities.
Scientific test results are often expressed using value-neutral terminologies such as positive or negative. These terms signify the presence or absence of the phenome-na or quantity of interest and are intended to avoid conveying any biased personal sentiment on the part of the evaluator. They are intended only to signify the pres-ence or absence of the phenomena or quantity of interest. Polygraph test results are commonly interpreted categorically as deception indicated (DI) and significant reactions (SR) or no deception indicated (NDI) and no significant reactions (NSR). These terms can be thought of as the con-
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 55
REGULAR FEATURES
textual allegory of the more general scien-tific terms positive and negative.
There is, in reality, no such thing as a per-fect test. This stems from the very fact that the purpose of a scientific test is to quantify a phenomena of interest for which neither deterministic conclusions (immune to influence from both human behavior and random variation) nor direct physical measurement (subject only to random measurement error) are possible. Because of that, all test results are funda-mentally probabilistic – including when test results are interpreted categorically.
A common way of quantifying the level of confidence or uncertainty associated with a test result or conclusion is to study the true-positive (TP), true-negative (TN), false-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) rates of a test using empirical (i.e., observable) data. Doing this requires data for which the criterion states are known – some-
times referred to by data scientists as la-beled data. Because some test results are inconclusive, TP and FN are not always complimentary (they do not necessarily sum to 1 under all circumstances, such as when some cases are inconclusive). Nei-ther are TN and FP always complimenta-ry. The most important limitation of these statistics is that they are simple prob-abilities under the frequentist statistical paradigm. That is, they indicate the num-ber of observed occurrences compared to the number of possible occurrences. A convenient and desirable aspect of these simple TP, TN, FN and FP probabilities is that they are robust or resistant to differ-ences in prior incidence rate (base-rate). That means they can be used as a test likelihood statistic that can be generalized to any group or individual that is reason-ably represented by the normative or sam-pling data that was used to calculate the values. Table 1 shows a 2x2 matrix for positive and negative test outcomes.
Table 1. 2x2 matrix for positive and negative test outcomes.
Although TP, TN, FN, and FP rates may be taken as the proportion of correct or in-correct results for groups of correctly la-beled cases, these simple statistics can-not be easily generalized or interpreted as the proportion of correct or incorrect outcomes for a group of unknown or un-labeled cases – which requires some ad-
ditional inferential procedures. Similarly, these simple statistics cannot be inter-preted as the likelihood than an individual case is correct or incorrect – without addi-tional information. Ultimately, any practi-cal decision that makes use of a scientific test result is an economic decision. There are expected economic benefits associat-
56 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
ed with correct test outcomes and expect-ed economic costs associated with erro-neous outcomes. Correctly understanding and anticipating those economic benefits and costs requires an understanding of the difference between these simple prob-abilities (TP, TN, FN, & FP) and their rela-tionship to posterior conditional probability, also referred to as a posteriori, the poste-rior probability, the conditional probability, or simply the posterior.
There are four posterior conditional prob-abilities of practical and economic inter-est. Positive - predictive - value (PPV) is the posterior conditional probability that a positive test result is correct. This is sometimes referred to as “outcome con-fidence” because it describes the confi-dence one can have the condition exists,
given the test result. Similarly, negative predictive - value (NPV) is the posterior conditional probability that a negative test result is correct. In this case the outcome confidence would describe how confident one can be the condition does not exist, given the test result. Related to these two terms are posterior error terms. The false - positive - index (FPI) is the posterior conditional probability that a positive test result is incorrect. And finally, the false - negative - index (FNI) is the posterior con-ditional probability that a negative test result is incorrect. Because these are pos-terior conditional probabilities, they are complimentary. That is, PPV and FPI are complimentary (they sum to 1). Similarly, NPV and FNI are complimentary. Table 2 shows the simple formula to calculate these posterior probabilities.
PPV, NPV, and their mathematical compli-ments FPI and FNI, are commonly used to describe the posterior probabilities for groups of cases. When referring to indi-vidual cases the same concepts are com-monly described as the outcome probabil-ity or outcome confidence associated with positive or negative conclusions. Howev-er, some liberties exist in the use of these terms with respect to individual cases or groups, and it is not unheard of to use of
the terms PPV, NPV, FPI and FNI with re-gard to individual cases.
Posterior conditional probabilities are useful in practical ways because they can be reasonably interpreted as the like-lihood (or probability) of observing cor-rect or incorrect test outcomes – for both groups and individuals. Using posterior conditional probabilities is a way to sim-plify the potentially complex task of an-
Table 2. Formula for posterior probabilities
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 57
REGULAR FEATURES
ticipating and managing the economic costs and benefits associated with vari-ous test outcomes. Another way to sim-plify our understanding of the economic advantages and disadvantages of various testing outcomes is to focus only on the greatest expected benefit and the great-est expected cost. For example: if it is decided that the greatest economic ben-efit is obtained by maximizing the level of confidence associated with negative test outcomes then the NPV will be the pos-terior conditional probability of interest. Or, if it is determined that false-negative errors represent the greatest economic or operational costs, then the FNI will be the statistic of interest.
Posterior probabilities can be derived us-ing Bayesian Analysis, which involves the use of Bayes’ theorem to make probabilis-tic inferences about unknown quantities or unknown parameters. To make use of Bayes theorem, and to correctly under-stand posterior conditional probabilities, it is also necessary to understand the prior probability information, sometimes referred to as a priori or simply prior. Prior information can sometimes be described as the incidence-rate or base-rate, though there are also other useful ways for ob-taining the prior. Bayes’ theorem is used to algebraically combine the prior infor-mation with the test likelihood statistics. All of the formulae to calculate posterior
Table 3. Prior probability distribution for lung cancer diagnoses among U.S. adults (2018/19 estimates).
conditional probabilities, shown in Table 1, can be derived from Bayes’ theorem.
Lung cancer example.
Table 3 shows an example of popula-tion information using lung cancer infor-mation for U.S. adults. According to the “population clock” at the U.S. Census Bu-reau website (https://www.census.gov/popclock/), the U.S. population as of Au-gust 2019 is over 329 Million persons, of which approximately 2/3 (~210 Million) are over age 18. The American Lung Asso-ciation (https://www.lung.org) expected over 234,000 new diagnoses of lung can-cer during 2018, and the National Cancer Institute (https://seer.cancer.gov) has predicted over 228,000 new diagnoses of lung cancer during 2019 along with over 142,000 deaths from lung cancer among U.S. adults. It is estimated that over 540,000 U.S. adults have, at this time, been diagnosed with lung cancer at some point during their lives. From these data we can roughly estimate the incidence rate for new diagnoses of lung cancer at approximately 0.001% of the U.S. adult population. This is sometimes referred to as a prior probability distribution because it implicitly refers to the set of [.001, .999] associated with each of the different pos-sible conditions [lung cancer, no lung can-cer].
58 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
Table 3 represents the prior information. Table 4 shows a 2x2 table with the sen-sitivity, specificity and error rates for pre-
clinical detection of lung cancer via low dose computed tomography (CT) scans.
Table 4. Sensitivity, specificity and error rates for pre-clinical detection of lung cancer (Toyoda, Nakayama, Kusunoki & Suzuki, 2008).
The lung cancer context is an example of a low-incidence/high-cost problem. From the standpoint of simple test ac-curacy, the incidence rate of lung cancer among U.S. adults is much less than the test error rate. Overall decision accuracy can achieve a level of .999 without even using the test – simply by guessing that each individual does not have lung cancer – and will be lower than .999 when using the test.
Quite obviously, there is a potential prob-lem with not using the test. The problem when not using the test will be that nearly one-quarter of one-million U.S. adults with lung cancer might remain un-diagnosed – or may be subject to delayed diagnosis and treatment – for which there may be real economic and social costs to individ-uals, families, communities and business-es. According to the American Cancer So-ciety (www.cancer.org) 13% of all newly diagnosed cancers are lung cancers, and lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer
related deaths among U.S. adults. Doing nothing to identify and diagnose lung can-cer is an economically un-wise option, de-spite the limitations of existing testing and diagnostic methods. This is not a unique challenge - in fact, this very challenge can be observed in many other contexts.
For practical purposes, in this example, what we want to know is the likelihood that an individual does or does not have lung cancer – or the likelihood that we are correct or incorrect when concluding that an individual does or does not have lung cancer. This can also be thought of as the proportion of correct or incorrect classifications when diagnosing or ruling-out lung cancer with groups of persons. What we want to know is the PPV, NPV, FPI, and NPI. Table 5 shows the calcula-tion of these statistics using the formulae in Table 1 with the information in Table 2 and Table 3.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 59
Table 6 shows the same information as Table 5, but without the formulae. Notice that the marginal sums for the rows in Ta-ble 4 and Table 5 are equal to 1, showing that PPV is complementary with FPI, while NPV is complimentary with FNI. The most important aspect of Table 5 is that NPV
is nearing certainty, while FNI is nearing zero. This illustrates that there may actu-ally be some very real social and econom-ic advantages to an ability to confidently rule-out lung cancer for many patients – even when the test itself is far from per-fect.
REGULAR FEATURES
Table 5. PPV, NPV, FPI and FNI lung cancer example.
Table 6. PPV, NPV, FPI and FNI for CT diagnosis of lung cancer using the population prior.
The challenge for all professionals, pro-gram managers, and policymakers is to learn to make correct use of tests and test results, in the context of the known capa-bilities and limitations of different avail-able testing solutions. The conditional probabilities shown in Table 5 tell us the likelihood of lung cancer, given the test result. NPV, the outcome confidence for negative test results, is approaching cer-tainty (<.999).
To further illustrate the potential social and economic advantages of using good
– even if imperfect – test information, consider the population of one large U.S. city. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the combined statistical area of Los Angeles exceeds 18 million people. Fac-toring for the proportion of adult age peo-ple and the incidence rate of lung cancer (0.1%), gives a rough estimate of as many as 18,000 cases of lung cancer in that city. Considering that the National Cancer In-stitute (www.seer.cancer.gov) reports that lung cancer patients have among the low-est survival rates of all cancers (deGroot, Wu, Carter, & Munden, 2018), un-diagnosed
60 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
and untreated cases could conceivably escalate the social and economic stress and uncertainty for every family member and business connected to each individ-ual case. Table 7 shows the 2x2 table for
posterior probabilities using the lung can-cer frequencies for Los Angeles. Table 8 shows that we can get the same posterior probabilities by using the incidence rates instead of numerical frequencies.
Table 7. Lung cancer estimates for the combined statistical area of Los Angeles.
Table 8. Lung cancer estimates for the combined statistical area of Los Angeles.
Table 9. Posterior odds for CT diagnosis of lung cancer using an equal prior (values from Table 8).
Information in Table 8 can be used to cal-culate a posterior odds by taking PPV / FPI and NPV / FNI and then reducing the result to a value that can be compared to 1. Table 9 shows the posterior odds us-ing the results from Table 8, and Table 10 shows the odds using the population inci-dence rate for lung cancer. These posterior
odds are somewhat similar to a Likelihood Ratio (LR), except that LRs are calculated with the simple sensitivity, specificity and error rates whereas these odds are calcu-lated with posterior conditional probabili-ties. Notice that odds are often expressed using whole numbers such as x to 1, or 1 in x.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 61
Assuming, for convenience, the impossi-ble, that every person in Los Angeles could be screened for lung cancer, the number of undetected cases of lung cancer could be reduced from 18,000 to approximately ~2000 cases (.111 * 18,000,000 = 1998). It is, in reality, impossible to screen every person. Instead, it will be more realistic to test people for lung cancer if they ex-hibit symptoms or lifestyle factors that in-crease the likelihood of lung cancer (i.e., respiratory problems, chronic cigarette smoking, etc.).
What, then, will be the best prior probabil-ity estimate for lung cancer when testing people who are not selected randomly from the population but are instead se-lected systematically for factors that are
known to be associated with increased risk? As it often happens little objective in-formation may be available for each indi-vidual. All that may be known, objectively, is that there exists some possibility that a person may have lung cancer, or may not have lung cancer, with no objectively quantifiable information to indicate either possibility is more likely than the other. In this case, when neither possibility can be objectively supported as more likely than the other, it may be useful to calculate the posterior probabilities under and equal prior (0.5). Table 10 shows the 2x2 table of posterior probabilities under the equal prior. Table 11 shows the posterior odds ratios for positive and negative outcomes using an equal prior.
REGULAR FEATURES
Table 10. Posterior conditional probabilities for CT diagnoses of lung cancer, using an equal prior.
Table 11. Posterior odds for CT diagnosis of lung cancer using an equal prior (values from Table 10).
Table 11 shows that positive test results under an equal prior would indicate a pos-terior odds of 11 to 1 that an individual has lung cancer. (Recall that table 9 shows that a positive test result under the popu-lation prior (0.1%) gives a posterior odds
of 1 in 83 (or 82 to 1) that an individual has lung cancer.) Negative test results un-der an equal prior give posterior odds of 7 to 1 that a diagnosis of no lung cancer is correct, while the population prior (0.1%) gives an odds of 8331 to 1 that a nega-
62 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
Table 12. Posterior odds for CT diagnosis of lung cancer using an equal prior (values from Table 10).
tive test result is correct. Which estimate is the correct estimate of the likelihood that a person has, or does not have, can-cer? Also, lung cancer is itself not a prob-ability – an individual either does or does not have lung cancer. In the scientific test-ing context, we are not quantifying the lung cancer itself, but can only attempt to quantify the likelihood of a correct or in-correct conclusion about lung cancer.
Polygraph example.
Selection of a prior probability is an im-portant consideration for those who use scientific tests and scientific test results. However, can sometimes be difficult to
obtain good objective prior information. It is sometimes possible to use population group knowledge as the prior information. Other times it may be best to use objec-tive knowledge at the level of each indi-vidual. Another strategy for working with uncertain prior information is to test the posterior results under a range of possi-ble priors. Table 12 shows the results for a range of possible priors in the polygraph testing context. In this example we used the TP, TN, FN and FP rates for criterion independent polygraph techniques taken from Table 7 in the APA (2011) meta-ana-lytic review and varied the prior probability of guilt from .01 to .99.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 63
REGULAR FEATURES
Table 12 shows that the prior probability can have a profound influence on the Out-come Confidence (PPV, NPV, FPI and FNI). PPV for polygraph testing is weak when the prior probability is low. Similarly, NPV is weak when the prior probability of guilt is high. Related to this is the fact that a low prior probability of guilt is associated with a higher FPI for, while a high prior probabil-ity of guilt is associated with a greater FNI. For priors within the interquartile range of .25 to .75 the PPV, NPV, are both greater than chance (~.6x or greater), while FPI and FNI are reduced to lower than chance levels (~.3x or lower).
Summary and conclusion.
In this paper we have described the cal-culation of Bayesian posterior conditional probabilities: PPV, NPV, FPI, and FNI. We have demonstrated the calculation of these posterior probabilities from the sim-pler likelihood statistics: TP, TN, FP and FN. While TP, TN, FN and FP rates describe the expected outcomes for any single test result, calculation of economic values and costs requires that these statistics are in-tegrated computationally with the prior probability information (sometimes de-scribed as the incidence-rate or base-rate, though there are other ways of obtaining a prior probability). We have also shown
two different worked examples; one using lung cancer diagnosis via CT scans, and another using polygraph screening tests such as those used in public safety ap-plicant testing, post-conviction programs, and operational/information security.
The first example involves the diagnosis of lung cancer, for which it is important to point out that a positive test result for lung cancer is not itself lung cancer – it is merely a test result. Discussion of lung cancer as a probability is compatible only with a Bayesian definition of probability (degree of belief in some knowledge or conclusion), but incompatible with the frequentist definition of probability (num-ber of times something is observed to oc-cur compared to the number of times it could occur). Either an individual does or does not have lung cancer. And the initial incidence or diagnosis of lung cancer for any individual is neither easily observable nor repeatable. Another important point is that a test result, whether positive or neg-ative, is not itself a material substance or object. Nor is a test result itself an action verb. A test result is merely a description of the strength or uncertainty of a conclu-sion, premised on the test data and analy-sis, along with some prior knowledge or assumptions and some test input param-
64 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
eters (e.g., stated tolerance for error or uncertainty). Ergo, a test for lung cancer is a measurement of the likelihood or un-certainty of a correct or incorrect conclu-sion about lung cancer. In this example we showed how the selection of different prior probabilities can influence posterior conditional probabilities such as the PPV, NPV, FNI and FPI.
In the second example, polygraph screen-ing, we showed again how testing under strong prior information - such as when the prior is outside the interquartile range - results in a situation where the prior odds will already begin to exceed 3 to 1 for one possible conclusion over another. Testing under a strong prior (i.e., any prior that has a strong influence on the poste-rior)is something that should be done only with thoughtful consideration for both the goals of testing and the posterior condi-tional probability associated with the test result. As in the previous example, test re-sults can continue to offer practical and economic value even under a strong pri-or condition; though there is an inherent compromise. Briefly, NPV is very high and FNI is very low when the prior probability is very low. This is, however, achieved at the cost of a high FPI.
One way to think about the purpose of a scientific test is to quantify and reduce the inherent uncertainty that surrounds an eventual decision – thereby increasing the accuracy and effectiveness of profes-
sional decision-making. In practical terms this means that immediate decision and action (such as radical lung surgery for a medical patient, or restriction of rights and liberties in the polygraph screening context) may not be warranted as a re-sponse to positive test results achieved under a strong prior probability without further evaluation of each individual case or without further consideration of other economic factors.
Two important points are demonstrated by these examples: 1) positive test results under a low prior incidence rate can pro-duce an elevated rate of FP errors that can be substantially larger than TP out-comes, and 2) negative test results under a low prior incidence rate have an elevat-ed likelihood of being correct. In practical terms this is an indication that the cor-rect interpretation and use of a test result calculated under a strong prior should be informed by the testing objectives. For example: medical diagnostic testing may prioritize the reduction of FP errors in or-der to reduce the use of expensive and in-vasive action where it is un-needed, while security screening tests may prioritize test sensitivity and the reduction of FN er-rors in order to reduce the potential for se-curity problems where these represent the greatest economic costs. Regardless of the practical or programmatic objectives, careful attention should be paid to the se-lection of a prior probability estimate.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 65
REGULAR FEATURES
Another way to think about the purpose of any scientific test is to obtain and ana-lyze data to change the strength of infor-mation in support of one conclusion over other possible conclusions. In Bayesian analysis, discussion of the change in the strength of information, from the prior to the posterior, is referred to as the Bayes Factor. Bayes Factor can be thought of as the ratio of the posterior odds to the prior odds. Returning to the lung cancer exam-ple: among Los Angeles residents, PPV, the outcome confidence for positive test results, is weak (.012026 to 1, or 1 in 83). However, this posterior is several times greater than the prior odds (.001 = .001 / .999 = .001001 = 1 / .001001 = 999.001 = 1 in 999). The Bayes Factor (83 / 999 = .083083 = 1 / .083083 = 12.03616) tells us that under the population prior (0.1%) a positive test result indicates that poste-rior information is 12 times stronger than the prior information.
Calculation of Bayes Factor for a positive test result under the equal prior gives a similar result. Using the information from Table 11, a positive result gives a poste-rior odds of lung cancer of 11 to 1, which we can convert to a decimal by using the formula: (posterior odds + 1) / prior odds. So, (11 + 1) / 1 = 12 / 1 = 12. Here, un-der that equal prior, the Bayes Factor for a positive test result again tells us that posterior information is 12 times stronger than the prior information.
A useful characteristic of Bayes Factor is that it is robust against (or resistant to) different prior probabilities. Another char-acteristic of Bayes Factor is that it is equal to the posterior odds under the equal prior. In this example, the Bayes Factor for posi-tive test results (indicative of lung can-cer) tells us that posterior information is 12 times stronger than prior information – regardless of the chosen prior. Some theorists have suggested that discussion of test results in terms of Bayes Factor, and the relative change in the strength of information to support a conclusion, may be a more straightforward and sensible alternative to the use of decimal proba-bilities or odds. A complete discussion of Bayes Factor is beyond the scope of this project and will have to be the subject of a different report.
Regardless of whether uncertainty is quantified as a posterior conditional prob-ability or as a Bayes Factor, errors are the bane of any scientific test. Testing errors are costly, frustrating and potentially con-fusing – especially for those who are hop-ing for an infallible test result. However, the potential for testing errors is a fact of life, and it is understood throughout all areas of science that the purpose of any scientific test and data analysis protocol is to quantify the level of confidence or margin of uncertainty associated with a test result or conclusion. Correct interpre-tation and practical use of any test result depends, in part, upon an understanding
66 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
REGULAR FEATURES
of both simple TP, TN, FN and FP rates, how to take into consideration prior prob-abilities, and finally how to calculate the posterior or conditional PPV, NPV, FNI and FPI.
All scientific test results are, fundamental-ly, probabilities. Without informed proba-bilistic thinking, there will be an inevitable tendency to engage in wishful thinking around the desire for perfect or infallible test results. When this happens, test effec-tiveness and infallibility can be mistakenly as primarily a function of expertise, while testing errors can be too often attributed to professional incompetence (neglecting the very real potential for random or un-controlled variation as a potential factor in testing errors). Familiarity with proba-bilistic concepts and vocabulary will help to reduce the risk that professionals may engage in wishful or magical thinking and unrealistic expectations for infallible test
results, and will increase the potential re-producibility of analytic results and con-clusions.
The ultimate value of any scientific test is the ability to assist professional deci-sion makers to realistically anticipate the potential economic benefits and costs associated with decisions and actions in contexts that are subject to some inher-ent uncertainty. An important objective, when providing probabilistic test informa-tion, is to communicate the fact that sci-entific test results are always subject to some degree of uncertainty and to quan-tify the margin of uncertainty or level of confidence associated with a test result or conclusion. It is our hope that this infor-mation about posterior conditional prob-abilities will help to contribute to informed discussions about field practices and poli-cies that will best achieve desired objec-tives.
References
American Polygraph Association (2011). Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph, 40(4), 196-305. [Electronic version] Retrieved August 20, 2012, from http://www.polygraph.org/section/research-standards-apa-publications.
deGroot, P. M., Wu, C. C., Carter, B. W., Munden, R. F. (2018). The epidemiology of lung cancer. Transnational Lung Cancer Research. 7(3), 220-233.
Toyoda, Y., Nakayama, T., Kusunoki, Y., Iso, H. & Suzuki, T. (2008). Sensitivity and speci-ficity of lung cancer screening using chest low-dose computed tomography. Brit-ish Journal of Cancer, 98(10), 1602-1607.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 67
REGULAR FEATURES
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 69
SPECIAL FEATURES
Devil’s Advocate Tactic to Generate RapportEduardo Pérez-Campos Mayoral 1 3 and Arre Anne Langer2
1 Medical Research Center-UNAM-UABJO, Medicine Faculty, Oaxaca, México. Polygraph Services of Oaxaca.2 University of Minnesota, Morris, Master’s candidate at the “Benito Juárez” Autonomous University of Oaxaca.3 National Institute of Technology of Mexico/ ITO-Oaxaca.Correspondence:Eduardo Perez-Campos Mayoral*Medicine Faculty, UABJO. Oaxaca, México D.F.Phone: +52 (951) 5512145826
Abstract
One purpose of polygraph testing is to obtain a complete, truthful, and accurate ac-count of what happened through interview, as well as specific information about the event being investigated.
Rapport is an essential element to achieve this goal. In the course of an interview, rap-port must fulfill its primary objective: to favor good communication between sender and receiver of information, that is to say, between polygrapher and interviewee.
To date, there are many known tactics to establish rapport, such as treating the inter-viewee with respect or explaining the full procedure. This text intends to illustrate the alternative use of the technique devil´s advocate. Regularly, this technique is used to evaluate the strength and veracity of a testimony or authentic beliefs individuals have about something.
Key words: devil’s advocate, rapport, investigative interviewing.
70 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
What is Rapport?
Over the years, the term rapport has been given to a person’s ability to identify with someone and share their feelings, tradi-tions, tastes, interests, customs, beliefs, ideals, and values at a given time. Ac-cording to the Merriam-Webster Diction-ary (Merriam-Webster, 2016), rapport “is a state of sympathy that allows influence or communication”.
In general terms, it is the environment generated between two people and all the elements that can influence the develop-ment of their interactions and can be es-tablished in different ways. In the case of an interview, rapport must be maintained and remain until the end of the encoun-ter. The establishment of rapport makes it possible to influence behavior and thus persuade other human beings to make decisions. In criminal investigations, it is useful because in conducting investiga-tive interviews or polygraph evaluations, it helps generate confidence in the in-terviewee with the purpose of obtaining quality information that allows the resolu-tion of a crime.
How Rapport is generated
Morgan & Cogger (1982) suggest that an affectionate greeting, a firm hand-shake, and a proper presentation of self will help to establish rapport. However, the reality is that not all interviewees are
cooperative, sometimes the interviewer will face interviewees with a hostile and uncooperative attitude. In this scenario, the interviewer should not be affected by their performance, and as Acevedo (2007) mentions, “the first minutes of the inter-view are decisive to achieve success,” so decisions must be made.
To generate rapport, we must consider the basic needs of the interviewee, for ex-ample, we should explain the ground rules like what they can do inside the interview room, or their right to have basic needs such as going to the toilet or access to clean drinking water. Boyle and Vullierme (2019) suggest the following:
a) Identify yourself and explain what the roles will be during the interview.
b) Explain the motive of the interview clearly and precisely.
c) Explain how and what the interview will consist of.
d) Explain their rights.
e) Instruct the interviewee that they can ask any questions in case of doubts, or in case they need anything (going to the toilet, drinking water).
This should be done in a clear, understand-able, open, and respectful way.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 71
SPECIAL FEATURES
Other tactics to consider are the follow-ing:
a) Decrease the tension in the person being evaluated. This can be achieved through trivial questions such as: How´s your day going? How do you feel today? What do you think of the climate? Did you have trouble getting here? and so forth.
b) Empathy: Let them know that the interview procedure can cause stress or nervousness, and that this condi-tion is normal. For example: I under-stand that you feel nervous about being here because it’s something unknown to you, but don’t worry, when it’s your first time doing some-thing, we can feel anxiety, but as we talk you will see that this feeling dis-sipates. If during the exam you have any doubt about the process or the questions, let me know so that I can clarify immediately.
c) Interview rules: Indicate the stages of the interview in a clear and precise way. Emphasize mutual respect.
d) Fluid communication: This should be generated from the first moment through the application of open ques-tions to reduce monosyllabic answers like “yes” or “no.”
e) Authority: It must be made clear to the interviewee that we understand
his/her situation, however, he/she must also recognize that authority is solely and exclusively held by the in-terviewer, in order to avoid problems during the interview.
f) Role: The interviewer must adjust their approach to the mental and emotional ability of the examinee, for example, if the interviewee has an intellectual disability, then the inter-viewer must avoid technical words, so that they can be understood by the examinee.
Once the above actions have been car-ried out, it is necessary to identify if rap-port has been successfully established. An easy and effective way to do this is through the observation of non-verbal language in a mirroring way, that is, if the interviewer and interviewee match their movements, gestures, tone of voice, and attitudes in a similar way, this means that a good communication has been estab-lished and understanding was procured among the participants.
Devil´s advocate
Textually, this concept refers to a person who defends a position directly or indi-rectly, as a lawyer may do in a court in de-fense of their client. Technically, it is the verbal expression of a person with the aim of a message to provoke a debate or test the opposed arguments versed by an-
72 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
other person. In this sense, the concept has been applied to the field of identify-ing a true or deceptive judgement, when the theme is conceptual and not percep-tual. These last concepts are intimately related. Both terms refer to cognitive pro-cesses that allow us to understand how we perceive reality from an event, and how that event is transformed into experience according to the sensations and percep-tions that develop conceptions (conceived ideas) or ideas of thought, “realities sub-ject to experience,” with prejudices, infer-ences, and biases. Thus, this tactical el-ement makes it possible to evaluate the strength of a judgement, because the lat-ter is a concept attributed to a mental pro-cess of the subject according to an idea conceived through the experience and in-terests of the person, and therefore could not be used to evaluate credibility in po-lice interviews with suspects, because in these scenarios, conceptual truthfulness is not important. In fact, the objective is to examine the lack of veracity about the transgressions of the law which suggests the evaluation of acts and not of thoughts (Leal, Vrij, Mann & Fisher, 2010).
The described tactic above could be ex-emplified as follows: person one arrives at a meeting with coworkers, in place they observe that there is a group of people talking, including the general manager of the company for whom they work and other directors, a scenario that makes them think that it is a good opportunity to
express innovative ideas to implement in their work, then secondarily standing out and get a salary increase or to improve their position in the company. When ap-proaching the group, they hear that co-workers are talking about politics, and the candidate will have to make a comment against their own interests to observe the determination and strength of the beliefs and opinions of the group to identify their true political affiliation (Ex. I think the president has done well at his job), and perhaps some members of the group will have a different opinion. Acting this way, subject one will know with this tactic who can be allies without having revealed their political preferences. In this same sense, this technique will serve to develop rap-port because it will help to identify related themes and political positions, and there-fore will facilitate the communication pro-cess that will result in obtaining more ob-jective information. While this tactic is not useful in a police setting interview to identify truth or deceit, it could be used to generate rapport with interviewees, whether they are witnesses, victims, or suspects, and it could be used in a polygraph test with the same objec-tives.
Conclusions
As we have noticed, there are various tac-tics to generate rapport. The use of em-ploying a statement against one’s own interests has two positive effects within
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 73
SPECIAL FEATURES
an interview process, the first is that it al-lows assessing the strength and convic-tion of a belief or manifestation, and the other is a strategy to identify allies can serve to create a good conversation and
therefore rapport, an essential element for good communication and the application of different models of existing investiga-tive interviews, such as the PEACE Model of Investigative Interviewing.
References
Acevedo A., (2007). El proceso de la entrevista: Conceptos y modelos. 4 ed. Mexico: Limusa. ISBN: 13:978-968-18-2738-0.
Boyle M., Vullierme J.C., (2019). Breve introducción a la entrevista de investigación Guía para el profesional. Fomento de principios y normas profesionales comunes en la policía europea, enero de 2019.
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2010). Detecting true and false opinions: The Devil’s Advocate approach as a lie detection aid. Acta psychologica, 134(3), 323-329.
Morgan, H. H., Cogger, J. W., (1982). Manual del entrevistador. Madrid, España. El Man-ual Moderno.
Webster M., (2016). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts. Mer-riam–Webster Inc.
74 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
Examiner Bias: The Enemy WithinGerald Carter
1 Bonpasse, Morrison. Polygraph and 215 Wrongful Conviction Exonerations. Polygraph, 2013, 42(2) PP 124-125.
Polygraph works – not every time – not for everybody – but it is an invaluable inves-tigative tool when used competently and conscientiously. In his 2013 Polygraph article, Morrison Bonpasse analyzes 215 exonerations due to wrongful conviction cases in which polygraph was involved. His analysis concludes that “polygraph examinations pointed toward the correct result more than 80% of the time. This is accurate enough to warrant careful con-sideration of their use as evidence in criminal trials, as is the practice in New Mexico.” Moreover, “Even without this ac-ceptance as trial evidence, this accuracy level is sufficient for investigators and lawyers to use the results of polygraph ex-aminations to more aggressively search for and uncover the truth.” He then further recommends that “Polygraphs should be
encouraged for defendants claiming inno-cence and for witnesses whose testimony supports that innocence as well as for wit-nesses whose expected testimony points toward guilt.” 1
Why don’t we trust the polygraph to do its job? More to the point, do our peers and our clients trust us to do our jobs? Is there even common agreement regarding the nature of that job? I do not believe that common agreement exists and, further-more, I believe that a form of imposed ex-aminer bias is the greatest threat to our profession today.
Remember the comics we used to read, those featured in the daily newspaper de-livered to our doorsteps? If so, you prob-ably remember Pogo and one of his most
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 75
SPECIAL FEATURES
2 Pogo is the title and central character of a long-running daily American comic strip, created by cartoonist Walt Kelly (1913–1973) and distributed by the Post-Hall Syndicate. This particular comic is from a Pogo daily strip from Earth Day 1971.3 Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press. Festinger was a social psychologist who lived from 1919-1989. In 1945 he joined the faculty at Kurt Lewin’s Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 4 Donald J. Krapohl and Donnie W. Dutton. Believing is Seeing: The Influence of Expectations on Blind Scoring of Polygraph Data. Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment, 2018, 47(2). 5 Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (19 December 1916 – 25 March 2010) was a German political scientist. Her most famous contribution is the model of the spiral of silence, detailed in The Spiral of Silence : Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. The model is an explanation of how perceived public opinion can influence individual opinions or actions.
famous quotes: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”2 In this case, we need to consider the “us” as a complex and con-flicted system that lacks clear guidelines and accountability.
Problem:
In 1957, Dr. Leon Festinger published his theory on “cognitive dissonance” (CD) pro-posing that human beings are vulnerable to a built-in bias. According to this theo-ry, internal inconsistency between one’s thinking or perceptions (i.e. “cognition”) tends to make individuals psychologically uncomfortable. This motivates many to try to reduce their discomfort by making changes to justify or mitigate the cause. One person could add new variables to his perception of a scenario in order to offset inconsistencies; another might ignore cir-cumstances and information likely to re-sult in contradictions.
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and behaviors in
harmony and to avoid internal conflict or discomfort (dissonance). This is known as the principle of cognitive consistency. When there is an inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors (dissonance), something must change for that discom-fort to be eliminated.3
As polygraph examiners, we have a pro-fessional responsibility to look reality in the face despite pressure to do otherwise. Specifically, consider the police examiner who is informed by a supervisor, detective or fellow officer that “the SOB is guilty, and we need a confession.” Likewise, con-sider the private examiner informed by his client defense attorney that “we know our client is innocent and need him to pass your test.”4
This is cognitive dissonance at work:
• Consider the police examiner again. He lives in a “spiral of silence” 5 since he is both a polygraph examiner and a sworn police office. As an officer, he belongs to a group often charac-
76 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
terized as a “brotherhood.” His ability to function and succeed in his em-ployed position depends on build-ing and maintaining positive work-ing relationships with fellow officers. NDI results on exams of suspects considered “guilty until proven inno-cent” highlight psychological con-flict within that brotherhood. Unless driven by very strong evidence and/or an intense ethical commitment, it is less stressful for him to design and implement an exam likely to provide deceptive or inconclusive charts than to face his peers with the unwelcome “No Deception Indicated.”
• Next consider the private examin-er. Likewise, with his business being competitive, he faces ethical chal-lenges. When an attorney asks for or implies that he expects a polygraph report reflecting no deception on the part of his client, that attorney’s be-havior is comparable to the prosecu-tor coercing a guilty plea from a de-fendant claiming innocence.
What is really going on here? In both cases, the more powerful individual is using that power to secure an outcome that serves his own personal, professional or even political goals. Self-interest is the prior-ity, not truth, and definitely not justice. For whatever reasons, the leader here is tilting
the scale of justice in favor of himself, his team, and statistics.
The interests of the powerful and the inter-ests of justice may actually align on occa-sion, but such alignment is philosophical at best while random at worst. Polygraph research, training and technology is the best that it has ever been, but without a commitment to professional implementa-tion of “best practices” these advances bolster scientific credibility which may do more harm than good. When used as a prop for alternative motives, examiner ef-forts are reduced to a sham. If we do not identify ourselves as seekers of the truth, what are we? More to the point, what is a polygraph professional? Is there a poly-graph profession at all?
A statistic from The National Registry of Exonerations states that in 2018, there was a total of 151 exonerations of in-mates in prison and, of that total, 107 were attributed to official misconduct. This was a record for a single year. Official misconduct compasses a wide range of behavior – from police officers threaten-ing witnesses, to forensic analysts falsify-ing test results, to child welfare workers pressuring children to claim sexual abuse where none occurred. The most common misconduct documented in the cases in the Registry involves police, prosecutors, or both concealing exculpatory evidence. 6
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 77
SPECIAL FEATURES
Focus:
According to my early training, the under-lying goal of a polygraph exam is to “seek the truth.” The main instructor in the poly-graph school I attended7 made a state-ment that I have never forgotten: “Better to have egg on your face than on your sub-ject’s.” What she meant is that it is always better to miss a guilty person than to have an innocent person fail a polygraph and pay the consequences. This is in line with a famous quote from Sir William Black-stone in 1765: “Better that ten guilty per-sons escape than that one innocent suf-fers.” 8
In their 2012 article, Mark Handler and Raymond Nelson examine laboratory re-search into CD theory, with emphasis on how it can apply to psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD). Their article emphasizes the subject of a polygraph exam within a law enforcement context.9 In contrast, this article applies CD theory to polygraph examiners working either side of the criminal justice system, law enforcement agencies and defense attor-
neys, when administering a single-issue exam. Both articles emphasize the critical nature of professional ethics. The com-mon denominator is “truth” and the im-pact of attitude on truthful versus decep-tive behavior. As straight forward as this sounds, in practice it can be confusing. When I be-came interested in polygraph after leaving ATF, I was an instructor teaching criminal justice classes at one of our state univer-sities. Many of my students were law en-forcement officers at the time they took my classes, and others soon joined the ranks. Consequently, my first clients were law enforcement departments or agen-cies, and I experienced pressure to use my polygraph to secure confessions. As a pri-vate examiner with multiple clients, I was able to resist the pressure, but it could still be uncomfortable. The case summarized below is a good example.
Investigators trying to solve a double murder were focused on a woman whose dog was known to be present at the scene during the murder. Said dog
6 National Registry of Exonerations, Newkirk Center for Science and Society, University of California, Irvine, California. 7 Zonn Institute of Polygraph, Atlanta, Georgia. 1980.8 The Commentaries on the Laws of England are an influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765–1770. The work is divided into four volumes, on the rights of persons, the rights of things, of private wrongs and of public wrongs.9 Handler, Mark and Nelson, Raymond. A Primer on Cognitive Dissonance and its Application to Polygraph Testing. POLYGRAPH, 2012, 41(3)
78 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
had no blood on his feet. Why? Clearly the suspect had washed the dog’s feet. Right? But the woman passed my poly-graph and that became an obstacle. Fortunately, new information devel-oped in the pretest interview casting suspicion on a different individual and shifted suspicion from the woman to him. Additional evidence reinforced his connection. He was charged and con-victed. Case closed.
But what about the dog? He had been locked up in a bedroom, howling away the whole time, but away from any blood. Second case also closed.
In order to maintain my license, I partici-pate in annual continuing education pro-grams. Most trainers come from law en-forcement backgrounds. Some promote the perspective that the best use of a polygraph is to secure confessions. In my early years as a private examiner for law enforcement agencies, I found polygraph useful for securing new details regarding a crime, and sometimes these details did help move an investigation forward. I also
remember securing a confession or two, all “by the book” of course. Still, it can be a thin line. Over the past forty years, I have adminis-tered an untold number of exams, but my true awakening as a “seeker of truth” oc-curred in conjunction with a court case in 2014 when I testified in a capital murder case specifically to challenge the deliber-ate misuse of a polygraph exam to force a confession.10 The jury found the defen-dant not guilty of capital murder although he was convicted of a lesser charge.11 The backlash from my state polygraph associ-ation leadership caught me off guard. As a member in good standing for over thirty years, I did not expect the personal and professional attack that followed.
There was nothing remarkable about the precipitating event. Two defense attor-neys asked me to review an exam admin-istered to their client by a police examiner. After four hours of contact, the defendant made a significant admission which he later recanted. My review of charts and video determined that the examiner did not comply with several standard prac-tices promoted in professional research and literature as early as January 2009.12
10 Jennifer Perillo and Saul Kassin. Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff and False Confessions. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY. Law and Human Behavior, August 24, 2010.11 C.G. Carter, College Fraternity or Research Based Profession, American Polygraph Association, Mar/Apr 2016, Vol 49,2, Page 69.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 79
SPECIAL FEATURES
I testified to those findings and further provided documentation to support my assertions. I expected rebuttal witnesses, but the prosecution called none.
In less than a month, a few officers in my state association initiated an effort to pre-vent similar testimony in future criminal trials. They did not cite or try to rebut my testimony, which referenced appropriate research and was upheld in the verdict. While I was attacked as a messenger, my message was neither explained nor rebut-ted for its content.
Rather, they objected to the fact that I testified at all. In the association’s first meeting following the trial, one officer proposed that members adopt a new pol-icy that would define testimony by one member “against” another member as an ethical violation of association policy. Members agreed to create a committee to consider the policy. The association had no published Code of Ethics to cover this issue at that time; this would have been a stand-alone policy. To my knowledge, the committee never functioned. I resigned my membership of over 30 years, and the effort died. Ethical questions, however, re-main. Bottom line, this had nothing to do with the quality of the polygraph exam, but
rather its purpose was to protect an asso-ciation member. In most situations, that would be called a “cover up”. I am curious if this attitude is current among members of professional polygraph associations outside of my state. If so, the profession has a problem.
Solutions?
My experience tells me that conducing a polygraph examination requires the high-est element of ethics. A simple definition of ethics is “the philosophy of doing right.” Maintenance of ethical integrity should rank foremost in our minds. Without an overt commitment to integrity, some police examiners will succumb to the pressures of the “brotherhood,” and some private ex-aminers will succumb to the pressures of business profits.
I acknowledge – but do not affirm – the logic of discord between police and pri-vate examiners. While both sectors are engaged in competitive – even adversarial – efforts to administer justice, the goal for both must still be justice. Respectful com-petition of professional knowledge and expertise would better serve the common goal of justice. In the past, police were of-ten referred to as “officers of the peace.”
12 C.G. Carter, College Fraternity or Research Based Profession, American Polygraph Association, Mar/Apr 2016, Vol 49,2, Page 69.
80 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail that “A posi-tive peace. . .is the presence of justice.” If we all want peace and despise violence, then should we not commit ourselves to serving the cause of justice above self-interest? Which is more important – em-ployer/peer group approval or profession-al ethics?
I accept the fact that, as a private exam-iner, I am an anomaly. My former state as-sociation is made up of over 75% police examiners, largely because there are few private examiners in the state. That was not always been the case. Following pas-sage of the Employee Polygraph Protec-tion Act, with the sole exception of sex offender screenings, the bulk of business opportunities for private examiners disap-peared. Testing subjects who can afford a private defense attorney is largely what remains, and it is a small category. Num-bers dictate that law enforcement domi-nates leadership of the association. A more equitable distribution of public and private examiners might foster more bal-anced leadership and perspective around issues important to both sides of the scale of justice. Still, that is speculation, and, given current economic realities, no semblance of numerical balance between law enforcement and private polygraph examines is likely to emerge.
An alternative approach to establishing mutual accountability might be the use of quality control reviews of examiner work product similar, in principle, to those ad-ministered through federal quality control programs. Such a system would likely be voluntary, fee based, and would confer a new level of professional credibility on ex-aminers holding the credential. Once such a credential became recognized, which would take some time, it could increase competitive advantage for individual ex-aminer and enhance opportunities for both employment and advancement. The American Polygraph Association could develop and offer such a program to all ex-aminers, law enforcement and private, at local, state and federal levels. While devel-oping and administering such a program would be a big job for the APA, it also has the potential to become a significant rev-enue producer for the organization.
Many national professional association offer certifications that enhance employ-ability of individual professionals. Re-search into other professional certifica-tion programs could turn up ideas relevant to designing a quality control certification program for polygraph. But why stop with quality control? Since many states do not support licensing programs, a separate APA credential could provide professional credibility to examiners trying to work in non-licensing environments. Compliance
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 81
SPECIAL FEATURES
to a code of ethics could be included in certification requirements. The interna-tionally recognized Project Management Professional (PMP) certification includes such a code along with procedures for grassroot participation in enforcement. There are many other examples of profes-sional associations developing and ad-ministering a variety of certification pro-grams.
Would such a credentialing program el-evate professional standards and ac-countability? CD research seems to sug-gest that it might. Research on both “The Induced Compliance Paradigm” and “The Effort Justification Paradigm” imply that enhancing the perceived value (attitude) of specific behavior – in this case defined professional ethics – may reinforce that behavior. 13
Conclusions: Surviving in Today’s Ethical Jungle
While I love these ideas, I understand that such a system is unlikely to materialize in time for me to benefit. Given that, what are my options under existing circumstanc-es? As a private examiner, it is difficult to find another examiner who can do a qual-ity control review of my charts. For one
thing, the traditional approach for assess-ing exam quality is based on polygraph tracings. While this is the current “state of the art,” I believe that it is inadequate.
I have learned that I need to ask the ques-tion: “What caused those tracings?” The polygraph tracings only exhibit the final re-sult– not the totality – of your exam. Fail-ure to follow proper procedures can result in either a false positive or false negative. Reliable reviews must take into consider-ation chart tracings, relevant and control questions, circumstances under which an exam was conducted, as well as some factors that may be unique to a specific test. Consequently, all relevant documen-tation must be submitted, not just chart tracings.
I protect my work by writing very detailed reports that address potential criticisms. My goal is to present full transparency through the report. Where I anticipate a question or doubt from the reader, I in-clude research that supports decisions made and action taken. The report is for-mal and meant to demonstrate that the re-sults are objective and without bias to the extent possible.
My No Deception Indicated reports are ac-
13 Handler, Mark and Nelson, Raymond. A Primer on Cognitive Dissonance and its Application to Polygraph Testing. POLYGRAPH, 2012, 41(3)
82 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
cepted by prosecutors in one of the larg-est counties in my state and I stand ready to defend my results. Listed below are the areas that I address in my NDI polygraph reports:
• Friendly Polygrapher Hypothesis if client is defense attorney;• Statement and source(s) of case facts;• Forms that were executed;• Type polygraph system used, soft-ware update, explanation, motion sensors, video and audio recording, functionality check information;• Technique used, accuracy rates, spacing seconds, EDA mode, Silent Answer Nod (if used);• Relevant questions and response as well as number of charts adminis-tered;• Results reported using ESS scoring and OSS-3 scoring; and• Confidence level of results and prob-ability of error. • Included at the end of the report is the following statement: “Charts as-sociated with this polygraph exami-nation are available for review only by a qualified neutral examiner not associated with a law enforcement agency.”
There is no doubt in my mind that poly-graph is useful and adds value to con-
scientious investigations. We see the technology improving consistently. Good training is available for polygraph examin-ers, at both initial and continuing educa-tion levels. The research conducted on polygraph today is some of the best that I have seen in the past 40 years. But Dr. Festinger was right. Bias is built into human nature and examiners are hu-man. For polygraph to do what it was in-vented to do – identify both deceptive and truthful subjects with equal validity – the profession needs to promote the highest ethical standards among examiners. In-tegrity must provide moral backbone for all of us. Without integrity, some police examiners will succumb to the pressures of the “brotherhood” and some private ex-aminers will succumb to the pressure of business profits. As such we will enable those non-examiners around us who want to use our work to justify their precon-ceived opinions and ulterior motives. To truly reach our potential, we must embrace and uphold the honorable title “Seekers of the Truth.”
The problem of human bias is real. Ac-cording to his recent dissertation, “False Confessions from the Viewpoint of Fed-eral Polygraph Examiners,” Bradford Beyer documents that, in August 2017, The In-nocence Project identified 343 persons exonerated by DNA evidence. Of that
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 83
SPECIAL FEATURES
number, 27% were related to false confes-sions.14 This information, when connect-ed to Morrison Bonpasse’s work cited in the first paragraph of this article, strongly suggests that polygraph is far more effec-tive than the legendary “non-verbal cues,” in detecting deceptive – and truthful – be-havior. As such, it is a viable alternative or companion to other interrogation meth-ods. 15
I think it fitting to end this article with a quote from a famous American who did a
14 Beyer, Bradford. False Confessions from the Viewpoint of Federal Polygraph Examiners. PHD Dissertation, Walden University, Collee of Social & Behavioral Science. Approved January 2017. 15 M. Hartwig and CF Bond. Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY PMID 21707129. 16 Rogers, Fred: The World According to Mister Rogers. Hachette Books, 2014, Page 26.
lot to influence generations of young peo-ple and their parents.
“It’s not the honors and the priz-es and the fancy outsides of life that ultimately nourish our souls. It’s the knowing that we can be trusted, that we never have to fear the truth, that the bedrock of our very being is firm.”16
“If a polygraph examiner cannot be trust-ed,” to use an old saying from our analogue polygraph days, “We are just running chart paper.”
84 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
PDD + EyeDetect = 98% Confidence
The eyes don’t lie.+1 801-331-8840
[email protected] converus.com
Combining PDD with EyeDetect can help you achieve as high as 98% confidence the examinee is telling the truth (or is lying).
Get more confident results and increased profits for your polygraph business.
Conquer deception by exposing it to 2 largely independent tests for greater accuracy.
Scientifically Validated
EyeDetect was scientifically validated by the same scientists that invented the computerized polygraph.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 85
SPECIAL FEATURES
How Does a Polygraph Examiner Develop a Trauma – Informed Approach?
Erika Thiel
Trauma informed approaches are being utilized in many situations, these include; hospital settings, a therapist’s setting, and even in a police station. When some-thing is out of the usual for a person, and they must proceed through it, there is an assumption that this person is going to be feeling emotions out of the norm. How their brain processes this information will differ for person to person. If there is an approach that is not more traumatizing, then the chances of the brain successful-ly sorting through the chaos improve and more information can be gathered and discussed. Polygraph can be an inclusive part of this process. Whether the test is being done for preemployment, criminal investigations, domestic disputes, or PC-SOT testing there is an opportunity for the examiner to conduct the test in a trauma informed approach.
A trauma informed approach is one that:
1. realizes this may be a situation where trauma may be present, 2. recognizes the signs of trauma within a person, family or even a staff member, and 3. responds to the trauma and actively seeks to resist re-traumatization. It is axiomatic that a per-son arriving for a polygraph in many cases would have gone through a traumatic ex-perience. For the criminal, the trauma it-self could be getting caught (though many have likely scoffed at reading that line, it is still true). For the innocent person who is accused of committing the crime, being accused may be traumatic. Depending on how invasive a preemployment book is, answering some questions that ulti-mately may be deemed as inappropriate to ask can be traumatic. The expectation of trauma to a victim of domestic violence is likely obvious to most polygraph exam-
86 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
iners, but the trauma may be applicable to both sides of that situation.
Signs of trauma during a polygraph can present in a cognitive, a behavioral, a psy-chological, and/or a physical way. Cogni-tive signs will likely be the hardest to deter-mine during a polygraph but are important to be aware of. A cognitive sign of trauma may be intrusive thoughts, nightmares, visual images of the events (flashbacks), loss of memory and concentration abili-ties, disorientation, confusion and mood swings. Behavioral signs may be avoid-ance of situations similar to the traumatic situation, social isolation, and/or a lack of interest in things that the person used to be interested in. This may present in a polygraph as a person who avoids an-swering questions and does not seem to care about anything. Psychological signs are generally shown in the mood a person presents in (shame, guilt, anger, anxiety, ir-ritable, etc.). Physical signs are generally the easiest to see. This may be a person who easily startled, very tired, is experi-encing chest pains, is paranoid, is unable to sleep, and may have muscle twitches. Psychological and behavioral signs may be discovered during a suitability assess-ment section of the pretest interview. Peo-ple may present with some of these signs that are not trauma-related. The impor-tant point (and most prudent one) is to be aware that they could be trauma-related.
There are principles examiners can in-corporate into their polygraph approach that would make the test a more trauma informed approach. These principles are safety, trustworthiness and transparency, peer support, collaboration, empower-ment, and being culturally informed. To be clear, these principles do not establish rapport with an examinee as there is no realistic way to create rapport with a per-son within one testing time frame. How-ever, to create an environment inclusive of a trauma informed approach would allow the person being tested to come forward with more information.
Safety in a testing environment may be found in the approach of the examiner. It is not uncommon for a polygraph exam-iner to test in multiple locations. Exam-ples of testing locations include: a private office, a prison, a civil commitment pro-gram, a police station, probation and/or parole offices, hotels, police vans, etc. A person being tested in any of these situ-ations will likely have some suspicion to-wards their safety. A calm professional approach amongst the chaos that may exist in one of these locations will allow the person being tested to focus on the examiner themselves. But this cannot be achieved if the examiner is approach-ing a test in a demeaning or fear invoking manner. Trustworthiness and transpar-ency can and should be established right
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 87
SPECIAL FEATURES
from the beginning. It is a professional expectation that an examiner is going to explain to the person taking the test what the test is like, and what the person can expect to while there. This is a part of a true “informed consent”. As long as an examiner follows through with their own testing process, then this principle will likely tie quickly and easy with continuing to create a safe environment for a person to disclose what they need to disclose in order to pass their test. As the person dis-closes, positive reinforcement can allow for empowerment to bring more informa-tion forward.
Being culturally informed is important to this process as there are many culture’s that have mannerism that would be con-sidered as signs of respect where other cultures would consider these as signs of disrespect. Being culturally informed encompasses someone’s heritage, his-tory, and gender issues. Cultural diversity is something that all examiners should spend time on getting to know.
Collaboration and Peer Support can be achieved by being informed of resources available in the process moving forward. For example, if an examinee breaks down about their own victimization during a ses-sion, then simply being able to hand them a list of victim services they can look into can significantly impact that person’s per-
ception of the testing environment and be more motivating towards disclosure of additional information. If a person is be-ing arrested, and the person reports men-tal health issues, that might be red-flag behavior while incarcerated. Encourag-ing that person to inform officers moving forward and telling them that you will be informing officers moving forward, is also a way to improve collaboration and peer support.
There is zero expectation for the any per-son to become a quasi-therapist in a poly-graph world. Many examiners may al-ready be incorporating a lot of these key principles into their pretest without even realizing it. One approach is to strive to in-corporate the six key principles and there-fore work towards achieving the goal of a trauma informed approach. Most humans ultimately want to do good. This is a part of the principal as to why examiners setup their tests to help a person pass their test. Creating a trauma informed approach to testing can not only allow for more admis-sions during a pretest interview, but it less mental stress for both examiner and ex-aminee.
88 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
Practical Polygraph: How to Annotate the Acquaintance Chart as a Functionality Check
Ben Blalock1 and Raymond Nelson2
Procedures exist for each different poly-graph instrument as to how to conduct a formal functionality check. Blalock and Nelson (2018) described an instrument-independent procedure for a field-function-ality-check (FFC) that can be used for any instrument in virtually any environment. However, even without the completion of a functionality check, it is not likely that a polygraph sensor malfunction or instru-ment malfunction will go un-noticed or un-corrected prior to the onset or comple-tion of an examination. In practice, FFC is rarely required except to investigate and document a suspected sensor or sys-tem fault. However, some field practice
standards may require periodic comple-tion and documentation of functionality checks for polygraph instruments in field service. For this reason, the routine ac-quaintance test (ACQT) – a part of virtually every polygraph exam – is, for practical purposes, a form of functionality check, in addition to providing the examinee an opportunity to become accustomed to the polygraph recording sensors and instruc-tions that will be used during the data-acquisition phase of a polygraph exam. Nelson, Prado, Blalock & Handler (2018) described the basic procedure, and also summarized the literature and history, for the acquaintance test.
1 There are no proprietary interests associated with this publication.2 Ben Blalock is the director of the Peak Credibility Assessment Training Center, an accredited training program owned by Lafayette Instrument Company. 3 Raymond Nelson is a research specialist with Lafayette Instrument Company, which develops and markets polygraph instrumentation and software.
APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5) 89
SPECIAL FEATURES
Figure 1. Acquaintance functionality test (ACQT-FFC).
We suggest a convenient way to use chart comments to formalize and document the ACQT as serving the FFC purpose. See Figure 1 for an example. This is easily ac-
complished by entering a series of com-ments to describe the functional state of each recording sensor and the data acqui-sition instrument.
The American Polygraph Association mandates that its members conduct an ACQT in conjunction with all diagnostic, evidentiary, paired-testing, initial screen-ing, and initial investigative examinations (APA Standards of Practice, effective Sep-tember 1, 2018, paragraph 1.7.5). Poli-cies, procedures, standards, and statutes have previously required that functional-ity checks occur prior to each evidentiary examination, and at minimum intervals, such as at least once every three months (i.e. Utah Administrative Code, effective February 1, 2012. R156-64-502.22(i)).
However, it is not inconceivable that, for different reasons, all examiners may have not consistently administered a function-ality check prior to either each evidentiary examination, or during each period of time mandated by law, standards, rules or regu-lations.
The suggestions we make herein provides a simple way to document that an instru-ment and its accompanying sensors are properly functioning according to manu-facturer’s specifications prior to each di-agnostic (or other) examination where an
90 APA Magazine 2019, 52 (5)
SPECIAL FEATURES
ACQT is administered. It also serves to assure both the examiner and any sub-sequent exam data reviewer (courtroom, peer, quality control, etc.), that the instru-ment was properly functioning just prior to the data acquisition phase of each ex-amination. Finally, and more practically,
it serves to alert both the original exam-iner and any quality assurance personnel of any improperly functioning recording sensor(s). This procedure can be easily accomplished with any polygraph instru-ment for which it is possible to add writ-ten comments to the chart data.
References
American Polygraph Association (2018). APA Standards of Practice(Effective Septem-ber 1, 2018). Retrieved (January 20, 2019) from https://www.polygraph.org/apa-bylaws-and-standards.
Blalock, B. & Nelson, R. (2019) Practical polygraph: how to perform a field functionality check. APA Magazine, 51(5), 58-62.
Nelson, R. Prado, R., Blalock, B. & Handler, M. (2018). Practical polygraph: the known solution acquaintance test and functionality check. Polygraph & Forensic Cred-ibility Assessment , 2018(47), 122-134.
![[Polygraph] Test Data AnalysisTitle [Polygraph] Test Data Analysis Author Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) Subject Polygraph chart scoring criteria Keywords polygraph,](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/612d2d8f1ecc5158694206e4/polygraph-test-data-analysis-title-polygraph-test-data-analysis-author-department.jpg)
