Polygraph VOLUME 37 2008 NUMBER 1 Special Edition – Norman S. Ansley Selected Articles from his Work Contents A Tribute to Norman S. Ansley 1 By Donnie Dutton, APA President Research on the Validity of the Relevant/Irrelevant 3 Technique as Used in Screening Testing the Physically Handicapped 10 Development of Deception Criteria Prior to 1950 17 The Frequency of Appearance of Evaluative Criteria 26 in Field Polygraph Charts The Irrelevant Question: A Descriptive Review 34 Question Formulation 42 The History and Accuracy of Guilty Knowledge and 49 Peak of Tension Tests Published Quarterly © American Polygraph Association, 2008 P.O. Box 8037, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37414-0037 A Tribute to Norman S. Ansley Donnie W. Dutton President American Polygraph Association This issue of Polygraph is devoted to the published works of Mr. Norm Ansley. By necessity it can only cover a small fraction of the polygraph-related publications Norm produced in over 50 years of writing. His articles have spanned the full spectrum of polygraphy, from law to history, physiology to techniques, science to data analysis to legislation. There is scarcely an aspect of our field that has been left untouched by Norm’s pen. Despite age and health challenges, Norm keeps current with the field, and continues to read the APA publications he created. When I was a student going through the then-United States Army Military Police School (USAMPS) polygraph program I was fortunate to have been taught the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique by Norm. At that time I was like a sponge trying to soak in everything that there was to our profession. As a student I didn’t know how much Norm had already contributed to the field of polygraph with the research that had been conducted, nor did I appreciate the importance of what his research has now led us to today. As the years went by I became aware of the multitude of contributions he made and eventually, I too got to teach at the USAMPS which later became known as the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (now the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, or DACA). While instructing there I was assigned the task of putting a history lesson together. Wanting to impress Mr. Ron Decker, the school Director at the time, I did a lot of research and developed an extremely challenging block of instruction. As luck would have it, Norm was at the school during the unveiling of my new and improved history block and I asked him for his feedback on my product. Norm took the examination and upon completion missed one of the answers. I just knew I had stumped a master, and was preparing for my proud moment. He expressed appreciation for the test and then informed me that my research was wrong in one particular area. As the discussions continued I showed him where I had obtained my data. With the care of a great teacher he politely pointed out that he had been the one who had conducted the initial research I was quoting, and went on to correct the error in my test. I had been granted a teaching moment from one of the masters, one that will long be with me. Norm never showed pride or impatience, but simply offered to send me a copy of his research so that we could place it into the school library for future reference. He was good to his word, and the DACA library holds a copy of that research to this day. Norm not only has conducted research on the various areas of polygraph but was also instrumental in the growth of the APA. Norm was the first Editor of the APA Newsletter (predecessor to the APA Magazine) and the APA’s journal Polygraph for over 25 years. His work allowed examiners to conduct polygraph examinations which would produce a higher degree of validity and reliability, he challenged scientist to disprove his polygraph research findings, and provided documents used in Congressional hearings on the polygraph. Norm was awarded the Lifetime 1 Polygraph, 2008, 37(1) Achievement Award in June of this year for his contributions to the APA and polygraph profession. Norm’s research projects have been the catalyst for other scientists to build upon over the years and without his pioneering efforts, I dare to say we would not be nearly as far in the discovery of truth. I hope you enjoy reading this issue of Polygraph, and as you read I hope you too will come to appreciate what Mr. Norm Ansley has done to shape the profession. And so, to this great polygraph writer, researcher, chronicler, editor, teacher, leader, colleague, and inspiration we dedicate this publication. Polygraph, 2008, 37(1) 2 Ansley Research on the Validity of the Relevant-Irrelevant Technique as Used in Screening Norman Ansley The use of the Relevant-Irrelevant (RI) if there are no significant responses to polygraph technique in employment screening either the relevant or irrelevant goes back to 1931 when Leonarde Keeler questions, the subject is reported as began a program of testing employees of truthful. (Reid, 1977) banks in Chicago on a systematic basis to detect and prevent embezzlement and theft This description is significantly (Keeler, 1931). Federal use of the RI incomplete and inaccurate; and ignores the technique in screening began in World War II detailed descriptions of RI by the authorities with a program to protect the atom bomb on two current major forms (Weir, 1974; project (Trovillo, 1951) and another program Harrelson, 1973). In fact, RI examiners may involving the screening of German prisoners of use control questions and control methods, ware for post-war police assignments in question repetition, guilt complex questions, Germany (Linehan, 1978). After the war, the and other types of questions and procedures Government developed polygraph screening which were not mentioned above. The book programs for the protection of intelligence by Leonard Harrelson, The Keeler Technique operations and agencies, programs that and the lengthy article by Raymond J. Weir, continue to exist (Hearings, 1974). The Jr., “In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant screening of Chicago bank personnel also Polygraph Test” are readily available; the continues, and commercial testing has former from the Keeler Institute in Chicago expanded dramatically into other fields. and the latter from the APA Reference Service. Although other techniques may be used, Another proponent of control question much of the commercial employment technique, David C. Raskin, gave the following screening is conducted with the RI technique, description of RI technique during his and almost all of the Federal security presentation in opposition to employment screening is done with RI techniques. screening at a symposium on the polygraph at the 1979 meeting of the American Criticism Psychological Association: Criticism of RI technique has been In its simplest form, the relevant- confounded by inaccurate descriptions. For irrelevant technique includes questions example, in their textbook on Reid Control about the crime (relevant) and questions Question Technique, Reid and Inbau give the totally unrelated to the crime following description of RI technique: (irrelevant) . The simple-minded theory of that test is that an individual It contains some questions who is deceptive [about] his involvement pertaining to the issue under in the crime feels very threatened by the investigation (relevant questions) and relevant questions and shows larger other questions that are irrelevant but autonomic physiological reactions to chosen because the answers are known those questions. However, the innocent to be truthful . The responses to the subject does not have those strong relevant and irrelevant questions are concerns, and therefore shows no then compared and if the subject greater reactions to the relevant as responds more to the relevant (issue) compared to the irrelevant questions questions than to the irrelevant (known (Raskin, 1980). truthful) questions, the subject is considered as not telling the truth, but This article was originally published in Polygraph, 1980, Volume 9(3) 3 Polygraph, 2008, 37(1) Research on the Validity of the R/I While Raskin took care to say this was screening (Lykken, 1974; Raskin, 1980) make the simplest form, and put it in the setting of the assumption that false positives and false the 1920’s and 1930’s under John A. Larson negatives are nearly equally distributed and Leonarde Keeler, the casual reader might among errors made by examiners. Research be misled to think that this is an adequate suggests that assumption may be false, description of current RI technique. It is, of rendering the analyses specious so far as RI is course, utterly inadequate. In fact, it is not concerned. None of the research shows a even a fair description of how many of the RI false positive rate as high as the false negative tests were conducted in the 1930’s (Cf. Keeler, rate. Research at the University of Georgia 1938). Keeler was using recognition factors in (Correa, 1979) did not produce any false RI relevant questions in which the significance positive errors in their simulation of of certain details would be known only to the employment screening. There were no false perpetrator (Keeler, 1931) and Lee was positive errors among those employees teaching and practicing the use of guilt examined by Professor MacNitt (1941). complex questions; threatening questions Similarly, Blum and Osterloh had a false which appear relevant to the subject, which positive rate of less than one-tenth of one per are answered truthfully. Then, as now, it was cent, which represented only one false positive common practice to combine RI and peak of in the four errors he made in testing the tension tests in a single interview (Lee, 1943). truthfulness of 2,120 subsets of information It is not at all unusual for that combination to (Blum, 1968).