In order for the Board to arrange advanced training seminars that meet the needs and aspirations of our members, we are calling on the members to give us feedback on aspects that they feel need to be addressed in such local seminars. One such topic was raised in the article provided in a previous post, namely the advantages of using semi-structured and structured interviews when conducting pre-test interviews. This issue was also raised by Ray Nelson in an article in the latest APA Polygraph edition. The advantage of using semi- and structured interviews is that the pre-test interview procedure is then standardised and this promotes more consistency and accuracy in the process and in results. We could assist members in learning this interview skill.
Another topic raised above was the issue of corroborating evidence. In most cases circumstantial evidence exists before a polygraphist is called to assist with an investigation. This evidence can be used to corroborate a polygraph finding but it is often not correctly incorporated into a final report for a hearing or arbitration by the client or the polygraphist for that matter. This brings us to the issue of report writing. Many clients report that polygraph reports are too vague, non-committal, ‘fence-sitting’ and by implication, not of much use. This matter needs to be urgently addressed because this is ultimately the final ‘product’ that the polygraphist produces – the written findings/report – and if it cannot be used to resolve the issue in dispute or has no value to the client, then the entire polygraph examination itself has no value, no matter how well it was conducted.
Please send Adel van Wyngaard the topics you would like us to deal with during trainings seminars asap, so that we can start planning topic-driven training seminars.