[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Polygraphy
Thanks for the references. I have read most (not all of the ones you list),
and that is one reason for my particular characterization of the state of
empirical knowledge about polygraphy. That is, I see the current state of
empirical research as a basis for using polygraphy as very questionable
(presently--I will do some more reading). The historical comparisons I used
were meant to highlight that, based on what is presently known (as far as I
know), the uses of polygraphy are extremely oversold and not supportable.
In terms of scientific ethics and credibility, I believe one should
seriously question highly questionable empirical work, and that this is much
preferable to accepting as a given that something is empirically supported
when clearly is not. Thus, my flamboyant (I prefer this adjective to
inflammatory) characterization.
Your own point about one of the studies being a trade publication is well
taken, indeed. For now, based on the evidence I know about, I'll let stand
both my language and my prediction that over time, polygraphy will go the
way of other kinds of knowledge that weren't real.
Does anyone else have any additional research references on polygraphy?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Kokish [mailto:dka@northcoast.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:18 AM
To: 'Thomas R. Chibucos'; 'Child Maltreatment Researchers'
Subject: RE: Polygraphy
>>Does anyone know of any research literature in any field that produces
reasonable support for the notion that the lie detector actually works?<<
The following citations offer this type of information.
The American Polygraph Association commissioned a study by Forensic
Research, Inc. (Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing, Sevrna Park,
MD, 1997) It's impressive but suspect trade publication.
Perhaps more scientific is:
Raskin, David, Does Science Support Polygraph Testing? in Gale, Anthony ed.,
"The Polygraph Test: Lies, Truth and Science," (1988) Sage Publications,
London, Newbury Park, Beverly Hills, New Delhi in association with The
British Psychological Society
Raskin, et al, "Validity and Reliability of Detection of Deception - Final
Report," Contract # 75-NI-99-0001, National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice, LEAA, U.S. DOJ done at the Psychology Dept. of the
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 8.30/1976 ("The Utah Study)
Carroll, Douglas, How Accurate Is Polygraph Lie Detection? in Gale, Anthony
ed., The Polygraph Test: Lies, Truth and Science, (1988) Sage Publications,
London, Newbury Park, Beverly Hills, New Delhi in association with The
British Psychological Society
Also of value in understanding polygraphy may be:
Abrams, Stan, Ph.D., "The Complete Polygraph Handbook," Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA 1989 See especially, chapter 13 - "Validity and Reliability."
There are of course, other empirical studies contrary to the ones cited
above. As I said in my earlier post, polygraphy is a controversial area that
tends to tap into strong values and arouse strong feelings on both sides of
the issue. When this happens, impassionate scientific inquiry and rational
discourse become difficult. Comparisons to phrenology and homunculus seem
inflammatory, unwarranted, and contrary to the spirit of scientific
skepticism.
****************************************************************************
***
Ron Kokish at Delson-Kokish Associates, P.O. Box 476, Trinidad, CA 95570
Clinical and Forensic Consultation and Training for Agencies and Courts
(707)677-3181 (voice) ron@delko.net (Email) (707) 677-0187 (fax)
****** On the World Wide Web @ www.northcoast.com/~dka ******
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas R. Chibucos [mailto:tchibuc@bgnet.bgsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 2:12 PM
To: dka@northcoast.com; Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: Polygraphy
I respond to question the validity and reliability of the polygraph.
I know of no empirical studies that show polygraphy to be reliable or valid
for any use, despite the "common knowledge" of many that polygraphy is a
wonderful vehicle to the truth.
I know that a good number of people in law enforcement think it is valid,
that spies and other such love the blazes out of polygraphy, that accused
persons often sweat when they take a polygraph test, and that nobody wants
to be in the position of having to take and pass one.
But it was also common knowledge that the 'homunculus' existed, that
phrenology could predict criminality (among other things), and that, more
recently, the 'cycle of abuse' was self-evidently the cause of child abuse.
Does anyone know of any research literature in any field that produces
reasonable support for the notion that the lie detector actually works?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]On Behalf Of Ron
Kokish
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:10 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: Informed Consent
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,
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.
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.
Thanks again to those who sent suggestions. I wouldn't mind more.
****************************************************************************
***
Ron Kokish at Delson-Kokish Associates, P.O. Box 476, Trinidad, CA 95570
Clinical and Forensic Consultation and Training for Agencies and Courts
(707)677-3181 (voice) ron@delko.net (Email) (707) 677-0187 (fax)
****** On the World Wide Web @ www.northcoast.com/~dka ******
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]On Behalf Of
John M Price PhD
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:31 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Cc: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: Informed Consent