Polygraph VOLUME 37 2008 NUMBER 2 Contents A Focused Polygraph Technique for PCSOT and Law 100 Enforcement Screening Programs Mark Handler, Raymond Nelson, & Ben Blalock Optimal Decision Rules for Evaluating Psychophysiological 112 Detection of Deception Data: An Exploration Stuart M. Senter & Andrew B. Dollins Degrees of Deception: Diploma Mills and the Polygraph 125 Examiner Community – A Recommendation for Change Timothy J. Weber & Frank Horvath Improving the Detection of Physical Countermeasures with 136 Chair Sensors Jack Ogilvie & Donnie W. Dutton Exploration of a Two-Stage Approach 149 Stuart M. Senter & Andrew B. Dollins An Introduction to the APA’s Panel on International 165 Developments in Polygraphy Frank Horvath The Use of the Polygraph in Lithuania 166 Anonymous Published Quarterly © American Polygraph Association, 2008 P.O. Box 8037, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37414-0037 A Focused Polygraph Technique A Focused Polygraph Technique for PCSOT and Law Enforcement Screening Programs Mark Handler, Raymond Nelson and Ben Blalock The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands, but in seeing with new eyes. - Marcel Proust, French novelist Abstract Testing techniques most commonly used in polygraph screening programs were adapted from protocols originally developed for event-specific investigative polygraph testing, including the examination structures and decision rules. Screening examinations are being increasingly recognized for providing a unique and powerful tool for decision-makers and with the widening demand for polygraph screening services there is a commensurate obligation for polygraph professionals to give attention to oft-neglected questions regarding the validity and reliability of the methods they employ. In that vein, the authors propose a focused approach for polygraph screening, derived from a validated polygraph screening technique developed at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (now the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment). In addition, we suggest selecting investigation targets that are informed by risk prediction and risk management research, and are consistent with our present understanding of the psychological and physiological mechanisms upon which the polygraph technique depends. An example of this approach is provided. Background One early screening test, the Counterintelligence Screening Test (CIST) was Screening polygraph examinations are developed in about 1971 by US Army military those conducted where there is an absence of intelligence examiners using directed-lie a known event or known allegation. comparison (DLC) questions (Barland, 1981). Polygraph screening has been used since as DLC questions are those which the examiner early as the 1930’s when Leonarde Keeler instructs the examinee to answer falsely signed an agreement with the insurance firm (Honts & Raskin, 1988; Raskin & Honts, Lloyds of London to periodically test bank 2002). Studies using DLC techniques (DoDPI employees for embezzlement (Alder, 2007). Research Division Staff, 1997; Research Krapohl and Stern (2003), however, provided Division Staff, 1998) suggested that a DLC an overview of the challenges inherent in approach and other improvements in test screening polygraph programs in their administration structure and decision policies discussion of the “successive hurdles” contributed significantly to polygraph testing approach (Meehl & Rosen, 1955). Research program objectives of sensitivity to deception by Barland, Honts, and Barger (1989) and and specificity to truthfulness. Honts (1992) revealed potential inadequacies existed in polygraph screening methods There are undoubtedly fewer field and employed at the time. laboratory studies that address validity of the Authors’ Note The authors are grateful to Paul Menges, Don Krapohl, Dale Austin, Donnie Dutton, George and Paula Baronowski, Dr. Bonnie Harrison, Dr. Stephen Harrison, Dr. Charles Honts, Jerry Thomas, Dr. Stuart Senter and Dr. Tim Weber for their thoughtful reviews and comments to drafts of this paper. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Defense, American Association of Police Polygraphists, or the American Polygraph Association. Questions and comments are welcome at [email protected]. Polygraph, 2008, 37(2) 100 Handler, Nelson, & Blalock DLC than the PLC. However, the results of the TES format outperformed both versions of existing studies (Barland, 1981; Barland et the CSP; 83% for the TES versus 56% for al., 1989; DoDPI Research Division Staff, CSP-PLC and 59% for CSP-DLC. These 1997; DoDPI Research Division Staff, 1998; accuracy estimates are given excluding Honts & Raskin, 1988; Horowitz, Kircher, inconclusive rates which were 21%, 23% and Honts & Raskin, 1997; Kircher, Packard, Bell 20% for the TES, CSP-PLC and CSP-DLC, & Bernhardt, 2001; Reed, 1994; Raskin & respectively. Kircher 1990) have shown the DLC to perform as well as the probable-lie comparison (PLC) The DoDPI Research Division Staff questions. DLCs require less complex (1998) conducted a second study as a formal administration practices than those replication of the first study using data from associated with the PLC approach and offer the first TES study to evaluate new scoring greater potential for standardization. criteria in an effort to improve upon the technique. In this second study innocent The Research Staff at DoDPI undertook examinees were identified with 98% accuracy an effort to address the perceived and guilty examinees with 83% accuracy. The inadequacies of the currently used screening researchers reported an initial average tests and eventually created the Test for inconclusive rate of about 15% but this was Espionage and Sabotage (TES). The design later reduced to an inconclusive rate of 2% for specifications of their improved screening the innocent and 0% for the guilty after technique included the standardization of the continued testing to resolve inconclusive tests. pretest portion of the examination, as well as standardization and reduction of investigation Reed described a third TES study targets to two primary issues. The two target (Reed, 1994) addressed examiner subjective issues are usually presented three times each opinion bias, an expanded comparison in a single examination chart. Test protocols question list, question formatting and allow for the inclusion of additional wording, and a “team approach” to the investigative targets in a separate series of administration of the TES. The “team questions, again conducted within a single approach” portion of the study explored an examination. Variability in test administra- approach where one examiner administered tion is reduced through the presentation of half of the examinations including the pre- each test question in a standardized test, in-test, and data analysis phases. The sequence. The testing protocol includes a remaining half of the examinations was standardized acquaintance test, a standard performed by two examiners; one conducted rationale and explanation of the DLC the pre-test and one conducted the in-test. questions, a standard explanation of Both examiner-members of the team instrumentation and psychophysiological evaluated the test data individually. The responses and a standardized in-test chart overall combined accuracies (excluding presentation. Decision policies require that inconclusive results) were 85% for the the examinee is regarded as responding innocent, 78 % for the guilty with an average significantly to the examination as a whole, initial inconclusive rate of about 13%. In rather than to individual questions, if the summary the three studies indicated that the observed responses are significant or TES could produce accuracy rates that were consistent with those expected from deceptive significantly above chance levels. persons. The National Research Council (2003) reported the accuracy index (A) of the Standardization of any technique can improved screening test to be 0.90. serve to increase inter-rater and test-retest reliability and both measures constrain the One relevant study (DoDPI Research potential validity of a technique. Excessive Division Staff, 1997) compared the TES to the variability in test administration or CSP using PLCs and the CSP using DLCs. interpretation will necessarily compromise the There was no significant difference in the reliability and validity of any test method. overall accuracies in identifying programmed Inter-rater reliability is a concern that will innocent participants; 89%, 95% and 95% for remain of paramount importance to questions the TES, CSP-PLC and CSP-DLC, respectively. about polygraph validity. When standardized However, for programmed guilty participants, practices are based on principles that are 101 Polygraph, 2008, 37(2) A Focused Polygraph Technique consistent with validated constructs and data or uninterpretable data, examiners should be obtained through the objective study of data, careful to assign scores only to pneumograph we can more reasonably anticipate that data of arguable authentic quality and improvements will contribute meaningfully to interpretive value. One cautionary issue the test design goal of criterion validity. exists in scoring DLC exams. Kircher and Raskin (2002) and Kircher et al. (2001) have Test Description reported that the data collected from pneumographs in DLC examinations do not Following existing practices we defined appear to have diagnostic value. a screening technique we