RE: Informed Consent

[John M Price PhD <jmprice@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Ron Kokish wrote:

> Thank you for the information on survey research.
> 
> >>it may as well be a club, whip, or other coercion method as it doesn't
> show anything of value.<<
> 
> Quite to the contrary, a complete sexual history and the ability to monitor
> certain behaviors is of great value in sex offender management and
> treatment, but only to the degree our information reflects actual events. We
> cannot obtain equivalent information with whips and clubs, because that
> would be illegal. Polygraphy is not. Also, with whips and clubs we have no
> assurance about accuracy. Polygraphy at least holds out the promise of
> reasonable accuracy and known error rates.
> 
> The degree to which this promise is kept is of course, in dispute.
> Empirically supported claims range from "no better than chance" to "near
> 99%." It seems reasonable to assume that accuracy varies across individuals,

I'd check those claims well.  For the most part, it really is bunk, save,
perhaps, for the guilty knowledge test Lykken developed.  Raskin, of
course, believes otherwise, but I see its use, however legal, with a
confined population as flatly abusive and magical.  It isn't probative,
nor for that matter is the penile plethysmograph, of anything but a
physiological response.  At least in the GKT, you have some decent memory
research (on GSR upon recognition) to lay your hat on, but for the rest,
no, I have seen no convincing data to its usefulness.  That, in fact, is
why its use in court is illegal pretty much throughout the US:  It isn't
probative of anything as usually applied.

Sadly, police love it to death.

I will stick this on my FTP site for your gathering.  I would hope you've
read it by now, but have, perhaps, missed it in your lit. search.

Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
A Techni-cal Memorandum (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of
Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983).

You can get this at:

ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/ploygraph.pdf

You need the Acrobat Reader to view it.  I don't want to keep it there
long.

If you have data that counter this now old and established tome, I would
love to hear of it.  My bet is that it won't pass rigorous examination.

> settings, procedures and examiners. How wide these variations are and how
> they inter-relate cannot be ascertained at this time.  Nonetheless,
> polygraphy is coming into increasingly wide-spread use in sexual offender
> treatment and management, perhaps partly because anecdotal reports
> (including my own) are optimistic. Colorado now mandates the procedure for
> all sexual offenders in community based programs. Given these circumstances,
> it seems to me that research which can potentially shed light on the
> accuracy issue would be worth undertaking.

This is very sad, indeed.

> Being new to research, I posted a question about informed consent. I've
> received several useful answers and thank those who are taking time to
> respond. It may be worth noticing that several respondents included comments
> on polygraphy itself. Some were so focused on the polygraphy issue, they
> missed my question altogether. There seems to be a great deal of emotion on
> both sides of this issue. (To use or not to use?) I think it best to not let
> personal values and feelings guide our practice or our research in this
> area.

Persoanl values and emotion?  I've actually read a good deal of this
literature.  The polygraph, as usually administered, is flat out
bunk.  That is a data based opinion.


-- 
John M. Price, PhD                                     jmprice@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!      |      PGP Key on request or FTP!
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated          Atheist# 683