Frequently Asked Questions
I have received information from various organizations and companies claiming they can certify or recertify CVSA Examiners. Is this true?
Is it necessary to participate in the Certification program if I wish to take the advanced training classes offered by the NACVSA?
(NOTE – All such courses must be POST Certified or pre-approved by the NACVSA in order to qualify for the Professional Certification Program)
- Advanced Interview/Interrogation Training
- Background/Pre-Employment Investigations
- Sexual Assault Crimes
- Child Abuse Crimes
- Property Crimes
- Intelligence Operations
- Custody/Jail Investigations
- Homicide Investigations
- Cold Case Investigations
What recognition will be afforded to those who participate in the NACVSA Professional Certification Program?
Expert CVSA Examiner: A high-quality certificate identifying the individual as an Expert CVSA Examiner; Recognition in a special section of the NACVSA website.
Master CVSA Examiner: A custom-made certificate identifying the individual as a Master CVSA Examiner; Recognition in a special section of the NACVSA website; Publication of the final IRP paper on the NACVSA website.
Why does the polygraph community continue to provide false and misleading information about the voice stress analysis technology when over 2,000 agencies worldwide use the CVSA?
In the US alone, dozens of private polygraph schools teach conflicting methods for administering polygraphs, which has led to turmoil and a weakening of polygraph support by US law enforcement. Additionally, the numerous developers of polygraph devices, each trying to outdo the other, developed non-standardized instruments and peripherals, some of which have been found to be defective or highly inaccurate. Discrepancies in training, examination methodologies and instrumentation have led to a crisis in the US polygraph community, which is now under fire from those inside and outside the US Government. In fact, in recent years the US Government has spent tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars researching more effective techniques to determine truth and deception – which is a de facto admission by the US Government of the polygraph’s inadequacies.
Returning to the questionable studies hyped by polygraph proponents, in a landmark 2003 study the US National Academy of Sciences lambasted the so called “scientific” basis of the polygraph by stating unambiguously the majority of polygraph research was “unreliable, unscientific and biased,” concluding that over 70% (57 of 80) of the research studies frequently cited by US polygraph proponents were significantly flawed. The US Supreme Court echoed this sentiment when it ruled 8-1 against allowing polygraph evidence in state and federal courts, observing: “There is no consensus in the scientific community that polygraph evidence is reliable.”
Despite what those in the polygraph industry claim, in recent years US Government research has validated the human voice as being the most accurate channel for detecting truth and deception. The BORDERS project is just one example of the US Government’s support of using voice technology for credibility assessment. The list of independent, peer-reviewed, and published studies supporting the precision, reliability and accuracy of voice stress analysis technology continues to grow, while use of the polygraph by US and international law enforcement agencies continues its precipitous slide.
There is a simple reason polygraph proponents continue to attack voice stress analysis technology – namely because it works as stated and it is driving the polygraph out of business in the US, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. If the CVSA was not a threat to the polygraph industry they would ignore it, as they do all other forms of truth verification that compete with polygraph. In the US alone, there are approximately 1,800 law enforcement agencies using the CVSA daily to solve crimes. Worldwide there are over 2,000 agencies using the CVSA. In fact, within the US, only a handful of US Federal agencies, primarily those within DOD and DOJ, are required to use the old polygraph based solely upon antiquated “polygraph only” directives. These directives are subject to being repealed with the stroke of a pen, which many believe will happen in the future due to the continued high-profile failures of the polygraph. This includes the polygraphs inability to detect Edward Snowden and Aldrich Ames as national security threats.
As for the CVSA, it is less than half the cost of polygraph, is far more accurate, and is three time more efficient than the polygraph. These facts are easy to verify – simply obtain a quote for a CVSA and training, and then get a quote for a polygraph and training. You will quickly learn the fabrications provided by the polygraph industry are not limited to fake price comparisons.
Don’t be tricked by the “unreliable, unscientific and biased” sales pitches being put forth by the pro-polygraph lobby. Investigate the CVSA for yourself and learn why the CVSA is the most widely used truth verification instrument in the world today.
“The test works best, Honts argues, when the questions are about specific events. Job screening questions, however, tend to be broad: “Have you committed serious crimes that went undiscovered?” or “Have you had unauthorized contact with a foreign national?” The difficulty is compounded, he says, in looking for spies or aspiring Edward Snowdens. “There are hundreds of thousands of people who work in the federal government who need security clearance,” he says. “How many people working for foreign governments apply for those jobs? If you’re looking for something that only occurs one-tenth of 1 percent of the time, running a test that’s 90 percent accurate doesn’t help you.” Depending on where you set your threshold, you either miss most of the spies or you cast suspicion on tens of thousands of innocent people. Sometimes you do both.
We don’t know how many good people we lose, and we don’t know how many bad people have gotten through and haven’t gotten caught,” Honts says. “And we don’t know whether the polygraph is at all predictive of either of those outcomes.”
To read the full Bloomberg article click here.