Voicestress

Is there a polygraph or Voice Stress Analyzer (VSA) in your future? ABC’s Dateline did a special on the VSA. Here’s a segment from the report:

'Nothing More Than a Prop'

"This device (VSA) is nothing more than a prop," said John Palmatier, who earned a doctorate in psychology and who studied the machine for the Michigan State Police Department, where he worked. He said his study along with others found no scientific basis for Humble's claims, the inventor of the VSA.

One evaluation critic of the VSA said, “The VSA has no better chance of determining if someone is lying as hooking someone up to a sewing machine.”

In an interview with the inventor of the VSA, Humble, it was revealed that he had no background in this field, there are no scientific research studies that can validate if the VSA works, and he has a phony degree in psychology hanging on his wall. This is the machine that’s going to pass judgment on whether you get a badge or not.

"You could not accurately discriminate between truthful and deceptive subjects using that device (VSA)," said Palmatier. As to whether the device could be used as a scare tactic, Palmatier answered, "Oh, exactly. Police officers have for years."

You can read the entire report here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1786421&page=1

Bottom line you need to prepare for every step in the hiring process before you get there including the polygraph and the VSA by going to www.polygraph.com

The first time I saw a voice analyzer was in a James Bond movie. Bond used mouth spray to throw the machine off. This is not fiction anymore because several agencies have been convinced this is the cats meow. Better than a polygraph. Interesting, the Department of Justice will not use this system. Those agencies that are using them have experienced a higher rejection rate. Candidates who are failing are going on to be hired by other departments who give a polygraph, too. It is thought these agencies use this system because it costs less.

I know several candidates who have elected not take the voice stress test for one agency because of the high rejection rate and that it will place them on some kind of secret black list that would prevent them from being hire by another department. I’m not aware of the existence of any black lists.

One head of HR (who has been educated beyond her intelligence) still hangs onto this tool even with overwhelming evidence questioning the validity of the process. Many experts say the operator of a voice stress analyzer test has the same chance of determining if you are lying as the flip of a coin. Unfortunately, he or she has the same chance of determining if you are telling the truth. Some say get an attorney and don’t take the test.

Consider this:

Have you lost a job opportunity with a public service agency because you wrongly failed a voice stress analyzer test? You may have a legal remedy. Most large agencies are governed by state or municipal civil service rules or laws, which make them also subject to the US government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule 29 CFR 1607, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (July 1, 1998). According to the EEOC, all employee selection tools must meet minimum standards, including validation. It is simply a matter of law that departments must use validated tools for hiring, such as the MMPI, CPI, polygraph, urinalysis, intelligence tests or others that have withstood independent scientific investigation. They are specifically prohibited from using unvalidated methods. The voice analyzer technology falls into the unvalidated category. If you took a voice stress to get a public service job, it is a violation of your rights under these EEOC provisions. Contact your attorney for more advice.

How about this:

I was given the test, first time operator said they were not interested in and that it was used only to show you the machine. Second one said I failed a drug use question, which I have never seen let alone used the illegal substance in my life, nor would I or could I give an explanation for this. So he did a third test. This time I passed the same drug question but now failed a serious crime question of which I had passed on the second one. So I again will not admit to something that I haven’t done. I was told by the person that this test is 99% accurate and I argued the point that I got the same questions right then wrong and visa versa. Obviously there is no discussing or changing their views on the matter of accuracy.

A recent candidate failed a voice analyzer test was in disbelief when he was told the machine indicated he had sold drugs and had forced women to have sex with him. Neither was true according to him. He requested and was granted a retest with another operator. Same results. Fortunately he is a medic on several other hiring lists.

A Summary of the Testimony Before the Texas Legislature Regarding the Reliability and Validity of the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer

A Summary by Victor L. Cestaro, Ph.D. March 7, 2001

During my tenure as a researcher at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute at Fort McClellan, Alabama, between 1993 and 1999, I performed research using the National Institutes for Truth Verification (NITV) Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA). Prior to beginning any research using that instrument, I attended a one week CVSA examiner training course conducted by NITV’s chief instructor at that time, Captain David Hughes, a retired police officer. After completing the course, I was given certification as a CVSA examiner. The training session was given at the Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Sheriff’s Department and was attended by law enforcement personnel from various state and local agencies, including the Fort Lauderdale Sheriff’s Department.

A major portion of the training was devoted to assessing the amount of “blocking” – squareness of – and the degree of “diagonality” --- ramping of – the voice patterns collected on the CVSA voice charts. The percentage of “blocking” -- 80% or higher – was the determining factor for deception (or the stress associated with that deception). After a significant number of hours, most students could agree on a percentage to assign to a chart tracing – within 5 to 10 percent. This scoring ability established that potential examiners could independently assign a number to a tracing and essentially be in agreement.

In other words, this process established some degree of reliability in scoring chart tracings, at least during the training session. However, it did not establish any validity for the measure. In other words, it did not confirm that the chart tracings were actually a measure of the respondents’ levels of stress. There were no laboratory sessions conducted during this training in which students could operate the instrument using subjects within a mock crime scenario. The manufacturer states that there is insufficient “jeopardy” on the part of subjects in a mock crime situation, and that the lack of “jeopardy” can compromise the validity of the instrument. It is evident that the manufacturer does not feel compelled to resort to the scientific method to validate the instrument.

During my research, I attempted to validate the instrument’s ability to measure respondents’ stress levels. Over a period of approximately three years of conducting research using the CVSA, I was unable to establish that the instrument could detect differential levels of stress, or provide any indication that the respondents were being truthful or deceptive. Additional independent studies I performed, using laboratory-grade equipment and computer sound spectrum analysis software, did not provide any evidence that voice analysis is efficacious for differentiating levels of stress. All of the aforementioned results were published in several government technical papers, and in the journal Polygraph, which is published by the American Polygraph Association. As a result of my studies, the Institute issued a policy statement regarding the lack of effectiveness of voice stress analysis for detecting deception.

Additionally, collaborative research was conducted at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) in Washington, DC. In this highly controlled research, and in several previous studies, the research staff at WRAIR had established that specific biochemical measures of blood and saliva, and physiological measures – such as blood pressure and heart rate – were directly associated with subject stress. In a robust study in which blood and saliva samples, blood pressure and heart rate, and voice samples were collected before, during, and after a highly stressful psycho-social event, the CVSA chart analyses did not correlate with the biochemical and physiological measures. All of the medical measures indicated that stress levels were highest during the stressing event. The CVSA charts tracings, collected collaterally with the biochemical and physiological measures, were randomly scrambled and scored by several examiners chosen from a list provided by the staff of NITV. The examiners scored the CVSA charts independently and were not given the identities of the other scoring examiners. Although the medical measures were highly correlated with the situations, the CVSA results were not. Additionally, there was very little agreement among the examiners, indicating very poor scoring reliability – making the validity issue extremely questionable. The conclusion drawn in that study was that no basis was found for recommending the use of CVSA technology for medical assessment nor for the detection of deception.

However, the utility of other voice stress analytic technologies was not ruled out. I am not aware of any published controlled studies using other voice stress equipment or technologies.

To my knowledge, no other scientific research has been conducted using the CVSA, and there has been no scientific evidence presented that would support the contention that the CVSA is capable of detecting differential levels of stress, or differentiating between truth and deception at any level greater than chance. Unless and until there is compelling scientific evidence to the contrary, it is my opinion that the CVSA is not capable of distinguishing truth from deception in human speech.

For more on the voice stress analyzer, go to http://www.voicestress.com

"Nothing counts 'til you have the badge . . . Nothing!"

Fire "Captain Bob"

www.eatstress.com

888-238-3959