VOLUME 28 1999 NUMBER 2 Contents Reprint Response to Cross & Saxe's "A Critique of the Validity of Polygraph 105 Testing in Child Se:>(ual Abuse Cases" Vergil L. Williams The Discussion of Questions Between List Repetitions (Charts) Is 117 Associated With Increased Test Accuracy Charles R. Honts Validation of Potential Response Elements in the Directed-Lie 124 Control Question James A. Matte & Ronald M. Reuss A Case Study in PDD Countermeasures 143 Peter S. London & Donald 1. Krapohl PolyScore 3.3 and Psychophysiological Detection of Deception 149 Examiner Rates of Accuracy When Scoring Examinations from Actual Criminal Investigations N. Joan Blackwell Polygraphing the Adolescent Sex Offender in the Residential Setting 176 1. Stephen Harrison & Richard S. Eliot Published Quarterly © American Polygraph Association, 1999 P.O. Box 8037, Chauanooga, Tennessee 37414-0037 Williams Response to Cross & Saxe’s ‘A Critique of the Validity of Polygraph Testing in Child Sexual Abuse Cases’ Vergil L. Williams There is growing use of forensic terminology of the discipline of forensic psychophysiology in the treatment and control psychophysiology. That job description of child sexual abusers. To date, the Journal traditionally called “polygraph examiner” is of Child Sexual Abuse has published one now called “forensic psychophysiologist”. The article on the subject. This piece, by Theodore overall complex of activities conducted by a Cross and Leonard Saxe (1992), focused forensic psychophysiologist is called psycho- primarily on the authors’ views of the physiological detection of deception or PDD. reliability and validity of “polygraph testing” Thus, it is proper to refer to “PDD testing” of and presented a highly negative image of its child sexual abusers as opposed to the less utility in the prevention of child sexual abuse. descriptive “polygraph testing”. Others, including many professionals who work with child sexual abuse offenders on a While there are many possible areas of daily basis, see considerable utility in the use disagreement, this author will focus on two of psychophysiological detection of deception points. Leonard and Saxe (1992) maintain tests both as a means of probation/parole that: (a) the reliability and validity of PDD surveillance of convicted child sexual abuse testing is wholly inadequate; and, (b) since offenders and as an aid to the therapists PDD test is an imperfect tool, it cannot be working with these offenders. At the National used with child sexual abusers. The following Conference On Sentencing Advocacy comments on the second contention first. (Practising Law Institute, April 19-20, 1991), the assemblage recommended an expansion of The notion that an imperfect technique the use of polygraph monitoring of probated cannot be used in working with child sexual offenders, especially sex offenders. abusers is curious, more so when it comes from two social scientists. Lest the reader The purpose of this reply is to comment think that I misunderstand their meaning, I on Leonard and Saxe’s views and to note some offer the following direct quotation that of the positive aspects of using psycho- constitutes the conclusion of the Cross and physiological detection of deception tests that Saxe article (1992): are causing its use to expand greatly with child sexual abusers. Subsequent to their The difficulties of ascertaining truth in publication, professionals in the field have child sexual abuse matters should not begun implementation of a more descriptive provide license to use invalidated, and terminology to identify and classify the potentially misleading, psychological test processes and technology involved (Yankee, procedures. That the use of polygraph 1992). This discussion uses the newer This paper originally appeared in 1995 Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(3), 55-71, and is reprinted here with the kind permission of Haworth press. See Editor’s note at the end of this article. Vergil L. Williams, PhD, is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama and an Adjunct Forensic Psychophysiologist on the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute faculty. He is a practicing forensic psychophysiologist licensed in the State of Alabama currently conducting periodic psychophysiological detection of deception testing on probated child sexual abusers, a full member of the American Polygraph Association and the National Association of Polygraph Specialists in Sex Offender Testing/Monitoring. Requests for reprints may be addressed to Dr. Williams at Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama, P.O. Box 870320, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0320. E-mail inquiries should be sent to: [email protected] Polygraph, 1999, 28 (2) 105 Response to Cross & Saxe tests in child sexual abuse cases occurs perspective, is different for each person (see extra-judicially makes it even more Brown, 1977; Collins, 1981; Douglas, 1972; important to exercise caution. Perhaps Giddens, 1984; Knorr-Cetina & Cicourel, we could reduce the incidence of child 1981; Pfuhl & Henry, 1993). Accordingly, sexual abuse if an infallible lie detector there is no one “truth” that can serve as the were available. Such is not the case, base for investigators to pinpoint. However, however, and we should not deceive the forensic psychophysiologist is not ourselves into believing that such a conducting tests to find the ultimate truth. magic tool exists. (p. 30) The task in PDD testing is much more basic. PDD testing allows the forensic psycho- Pondering these statements, one physiologist to form an opinion on whether the wonders what “magic tools” exist among other examinee is being truthful or deceptive professionals working in the field and which concerning his perception of the reality relevant disciplines have achieved perfection? surrounding a particular event. As a While I do not wish to stray too far from the hypothetical example, the examinee is accused main themes in this response, I would briefly of fondling the vagina of a sleeping child. The note that a recently published study (R. K. child, being asleep at the time, has no memory Hanson, R. A. Steffy & R. Gauthier, 1993) of the act -- it has no reality-- no existence. reports that the long-term recidivism rate of The examinee is asked a question during the their sample of child molesters was 42%. course of a PDD test, “Did you put your hand Since this 42% represents only the offenders on X’s vagina?” Assuming guilt, the who were caught and reconvicted, the authors examinee’s reality is that he knows that he did suppose that the recidivism rate is actually put his hand on the child’s vagina. This higher than 42% by some unknown amount. action, unless accidental, is a key element in a Further, in attempting to evaluate the research crime and the examinee is confronted with the literature concerning the effects of treatment choice of lying or being truthful. Technically, on child sexual abusers, Hanson et al. find the guilty examinee has made the decision to extremely limited evidence that treatment lie before the PDD test by agreeing to undergo clearly reduces recidivism of sexual offenses this voluntary procedure. In this hypothetical (1993, p. 647). Therapists, then, may not be case, the PDD test would show that the perfect. If that is true, it does not logically examinee is lying when he answers “no” to this follow that they should not be working with question. One has not determined the ground child sexual abusers. Likewise, if PDD testing truth about the events, but one has learned has imperfections but is relevant and helpful, that the examinee is attempting to be it does not logically follow, as claimed by Cross deceptive concerning his perception of the and Saxe, that it should not be used in testing events. Such information certainly does not sexual offenders. To turn to consideration of conclusively close out an investigation into the some concerns of these authors, first the allegations, but it does provide one bit of nature of ground truth will be discussed. helpful information that can be added to corroborating findings. Truth is relative, but Does Psychophysiological Detection one can be truthful or not truthful concerning of Deception Work? one’s own understanding of truth. Whether the placing of the hand on the vagina was One concern raised by Cross and Saxe deviant, immoral, harmful, and/or illegal is a subjective matter determined by social mores, in their article is a philosophical issue also described by Leonard Saxe elsewhere (see laws and even politics. The “ground truth” is a Saxe, 1991). Saxe fears that the reliability and complex mixture of all of these processes and the PDD test can play only a small (but validity of PDD testing can never be adequately determined because there is no such thing as important) part in the examination of the “base truth” around which to marshall the issue. evidence of success or failure on the part of the forensic psychophysiologist. In this Pragmatists and Unbelievers respect, I believe that I do share a social Contrary to the views of Cross and constructionist perspective with Cross and Saxe (1992), there is a considerate body of Saxe. Social reality, being largely a matter of quality research demonstrating that the Polygraph, 1999, 28 (2) 106 Williams reliability and validity of PDD testing is rather disposition. Both types of research are respectable. Some highlights of that research important to the understanding and accept- are noted below. But first, some observations ance of PDD testing.