Re: CASA report

["James E. Hord. Jr., Ph.D." <DrHord@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:49 AM 2/26/99 -0600, William Padberg wrote:

>Rather than a neat study, the technique raises far more questions than it
>answers.

Don't all neat studys raise more questions than they answer William?????

> Given the uncertain reliability of lie detectors, compounded by the
>"prison lore" about these machines, why would any inmate risk having time
added
>to his/her sentence by participating any further in the study.

Here you are moving away from the findings of the study, and reading in
your own assumptions.  The point is that the introduction of one variable,
i.e. being told that a "lie detector" would be used, produced a significant
change in the outcome as compared to the same study without the above
variable.  You may speculate as to why, but not as to the descriptors.  You
seem to be implying that the inmates did not participate in the study.
That is strange.

In case you missed it, an accurate account and a reference to this study
was subsequently provided by another list member.  I apparently
mis-remembered the percentages, but the essence of the study was correct.
It was unpublished when I heard the speaker, but was apparently published
after that date.

>>
>The study Jim describes was by Jan Hindman. It is decribed in:
>
>Hindman, J. (1988). Research disputes assumptions about child molesters. 
>National District Attorneys Association Bulletin, 7(4), 1, 3.
>

It was a neat, i.e. interesting and unique, study in my view.

Jim Hord
Jim@Hord.com
http://jim.hord.com