The consistency of the use of the polygraph exam during the

Rowan University Rowan University

Rowan Digital Works Rowan Digital Works

Theses and Dissertations

5-23-2014

The consistency of the use of the polygraph exam during the The consistency of the use of the polygraph exam during the

selection process among law enforcement agencies selection process among law enforcement agencies

Jessica Rachel Mark

Follow this and additional works at: https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd

Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Mark, Jessica Rachel, "The consistency of the use of the polygraph exam during the selection process

among law enforcement agencies" (2014).

Theses and Dissertations

. 551.

https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/551

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Rowan Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion

in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Rowan Digital Works. For more information, please

contact graduateresearch@rowan.edu.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH EXAM DURING

THE SELECTION PROCESS AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Jessica Rachel Mark

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Department of Psychology

College of Science and Mathematics

In partial fulfillment of the requirement

For the degree of

Maters of Arts in School Psychology

Rowan University

May 6, 2014

Thesis Chair: Roberta Dihoff, Ph.D.

Dedication

I dedicate this manuscript to my parents, Joyce and Donald Mark

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Roberta Dihoff, Dr. Eleanor Gaer,

and Dr. Terri Allen for their guidance throughout this research.

Abstract

Jessica Rachel Mark

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH EXAM DURING THE

SELECTION PROCESS AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

2013/14

Roberta Dihoff, Ph.D.

Master of Arts in School Psychology

The current study examined the use of and the consistency of use of the polygraph

exam by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States as part of the screening

process to find suitable applicants for employment as police officers. The polygraph

exam can be a valuable tool for law enforcement agencies to use in screening applicants,

but research has shown that there are questions with regard to the validity and the

reliability of the polygraph exam and that improvements in the consistency of use and

standardization of practices would increase the validity and reliability of the polygraph

exam as a screening tool (Kircher & Raskin, 1988; Honts & Amato, 2007). A survey

addressing police applicant screening procedures was mailed to the ten largest law

enforcement agencies in the United States. Results indicated that the polygraph exam

was not standardized or used consistently by the law enforcement agencies throughout

the United States in the screening of law enforcement applicants. Seventy percent of the

agencies surveyed used the polygraph exam, and 20% of the agencies administered one

polygraph exam to each applicant. The type of polygraph instrument used for the

polygraph exam was inconsistent among the agencies, and 75% of the agencies disclosed

the results of the polygraph exam to the applicant. The current study provided additional

information to the available research concerning the law enforcement agency applicant

screening process and provided implications and future direction for further investigation.

Table of Contents

Abstract v

List of Figures viii

List of Tables ix

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review 3

2.1 Introduction 3

2.2 History of the Polygraph Exam 3

2.3 Reliability and Validity of the Polygraph Exam 10

2.4 Administration and Evaluation of the Polygraph Exam 12

2.5 Polygraph Exam Use by Law Enforcement Agencies 20

2.6 Standardization of the Polygraph Exam 25

2.7 Implications 28

Chapter 3: Methodology 30

3.1 Subjects 30

3.2 Variables 30

3.3 Procedure 31

Chapter 4: Results 32

Chapter 5: Discussion 39

5.1 Conclusions Regarding the Polygraph Exam Use in Sample Population 39

5.2 Limitations 42

5.3 Future Research Recommendations 43

References 44

vii

Table of Contents (Continued)

Appendix Survey 50

viii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 Polygraph Exam Use in Selection Process 32

Figure 2 Polygraph Exam 33

Figure 3 Polygraphs Administered 34

Figure 4 Polygraph Results 34

Figure 5 Procedures Used 35

Figure 6 Appeals 37

Figure 7 Minimum Age of Applicants 38

Figure 8 Minimum College Credits Required 38

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Procedure Order 36

Chapter 1

Introduction

The current study focused on the use of the polygraph exam by law enforcement

agencies as part of a screening process to select police officers for employment. The

polygraph exam has been used since the 1920’s to detect lying by measuring

physiological changes in a subject who is being questioned (Green & Heilbrum, 2011).

There is a lack of standardization in test administration, analysis, and evaluation among

law enforcement agencies (Handler, Honts, Krapohl, Nelson, and Griffin, 2009). The

polygraph exam can be a valuable tool for law enforcement agencies to use in screening

applicants, but research has shown that there are questions with regard to the validity and

reliability of the polygraph exam and that improvements in the consistency of use and

standardization of practices would increase the validity and reliability of the polygraph

exam as a screening tool. This study is relevant because police officers are important to

the safety and welfare of society. Fair, accurate, and uniform screening procedures

including the use of the polygraph exam are necessary to ensure that the applicants

chosen to be police officers are good candidates for the job.

The purpose of this study was to examine the use of the polygraph exam by law

enforcement agencies as part of a screening process to find suitable applicants for

employment as police officers. This study focused on whether or not the polygraph test

is standardized and used consistently by law enforcement agencies. A survey addressing

police applicant screening procedures was sent to various law enforcement agencies in

the United States. It was hypothesized that polygraph exams are not standardized or used

consistently by selected law enforcement agencies. The study was conducted with regard

to the following operational definition:

Polygraph Exam: an instrument used to record changes in physiological

responses of blood pressure, respiration and dermal response during questioning.

These physiological responses controlled by the autonomic nervous system are

evaluated and provide information about whether the subject is providing truthful

information (Slavkovic, 2002).

The study was also conducted with regard to the following assumptions. Is is

assumed that the questions on the survey were answered truthfully by the selected law

enforcement agencies and that these agencies were a representative sample of law

enforcement agencies in the United States. Limitations of this study included the small

sample size, the low response rate of selected law enforcement agencies, and the

accuracy of the responses to the survey questions as well as the accuracy of the

information obtained from internet law enforcement blogs and websites.

The literature review focused on the history of the polygraph exam, the

components of the polygraph exam, and the procedures of administering the polygraph

exam and evaluating the polygraph exam results. Next, the literature review focused on

problems related to the reliability and the validity of the polygraph exam with particular

emphasis on the use of the polygraph exam during the police applicant screening process.

Reviewed literature also focused on solutions to the problems with the use of the

polygraph exam as a screening tool and how to improve the validity and reliability of the

polygraph exam through consistency and standardization of use.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Introduction

The literature review presents the history of the controversial polygraph exam,

including the legal policies that govern the use of the polygraph exam. Next, the

literature review focuses on problems related to reliability and validly of the polygraph

exam. Then, the literature review focuses on the procedure of administering and

evaluating the polygraph exam including the question techniques and the scoring method.

Particular emphasis is placed on the use of the polygraph exam by law enforcement

agencies in pre-employment screening of police officers and how this screening

procedure lacks standardization.

History of the Polygraph Exam

The literal meaning of the word "polygraph" is many writings (White, 2001). A

polygraph test, more commonly known as a lie detector test, is defined as an instrument

that continuously and simultaneously records changes in cardiovascular, respiratory and

electrodermal activity ("New Rules," 1988). There is no instrument that measures lying.

The changes in the physiological processes that are linked to lying may be occurring in

response to some other psychological factor. The polygraph exam measures

physiological responses or arousal to certain sets of questions (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009).

Polygraphic interrogation is a form of psychological testing based on psychometric

theory and psychophysiology (Lykken, 1974).

The polygraph exam has been used since the 1920's to detect lying by measuring

physiological changes in a subject who was being questioned (Green & Heilbrum, 2011).

The search for a reliable way to detect deception has a long history. Since the 19th

century, a wide variety of lie detecting techniques have been developed as scientists have

experimented with instruments to measure deception which they have found to be linked

to physiological arousal. Many studies have been done based on the assumption that

human deception is linked with nervousness, and that liars would exhibit more

nervousness than truth tellers with behaviors such as increased movement or speech

errors (Grubin & Madsen, 2005). Even early societies were interested in finding

procedures and techniques to detect deception in human beings.

Early societies used various forms of torture to detect deception and thought that

deception was linked with emotionality. Some of these early methods to detect deception

were of a physical nature and consisted of activities such as holding a human arm under

boiling water or putting a hot iron on a human hand (Ford, 2006). Evidence of the use of

these methods of detecting deception has been found in ancient Greece, Scandinavia,

Iceland, Japan, and Africa (Grubin & Madson, 2005; Candland & Campbell, 1961). The

idea that deception is linked with nervousness, emotionality and physiological changes in

the human body continued to be investigated in the 19th century.

In the late 19th century, Cesare Lombroso, an Italian criminologist, claimed to be

able to detect deception by monitoring changes in blood volume during questioning of a

subject using a hydrosphygmomanometer, a crude polygraph. In 1914, Vittorio Benussi,

a psychologist, investigated a link between deception and physiological changes such as

blood pressure, pulse, and breathing rate (Gordon, 2008). Hugo Munsterberg also

investigated the link between physiological changes and deception, and a student of

Munsterberg, William Marston invented a deception test based on changes in blood

pressure. Marston got the idea for his deception test by observing his wife whose blood

pressure rose when she was angry or excited. Marston reported high positive correlations

between lying and changes in systolic blood pressure using his deception test and used

his test in criminal proceedings (Grubin & Madsen, 2005).

Marston's deception test was used in a criminal proceeding in which a male

named James Frye was accused of robbery and murder. Frye confessed to the crime but

later withdrew his confession claiming that he was bribed to confess. Marston's

deception test found that Frye was truthful about his innocence, but the judge would not

allow Marston's testimony because his deception test was not considered scientific

evidence (United States v. Frye, 1924). Frye was actually later exonerated of his crime

suggesting the validity of Marston's test (Office of Technology Assessment, 1983).

Following the Frye case, the admissibility of deception tests as scientific evidence in

court was not questioned again until 1993.

In 1993, the United States Supreme Court provided guidelines for determining the

admissibility of evidence such as the deception test in court following Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaecuticals, Inc. (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993). The

1993 United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. modernized the Frye precedent and required courts to make

scientific judgments and apply a broad set of criteria for determining the admissibility of

scientific evidence (Saxe & Ben-Shakher, 1999). In the Daubert case, the Supreme Court

outlined the test for the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts (Faigman,

Fiebert, & Stern, 2003). Many federal courts still exclude polygraph evidence because of

high error rates and the lack of standards for administering polygraphs (US v. Cordoba,

1999).

In 1998, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the use of the polygraph

as evidence in the case of United States v. Schaeffer. An Air Force man accused of using

illegal drugs wanted to use a polygraph test to prove his innocence, but the Supreme

Court denied his request questioning the reliability of the polygraph (US v. Schaeffer,

1998). Some states in the United States allow polygraph exam results to be admissible

in state courts under certain conditions, and some states do not allow the results to be

admissible in state courts under any conditions. Federal courts follow a different set of

rules regarding the admission of the polygraph exam results into court, and the decision is

left to the judge's discretion (LaMance, 2013).

In 1921, John Larson, a police officer with a Ph.D. in physiology, began

investigating the link between blood pressure and respiratory changes and deception. He

is recognized as having created the first modern polygraph instrument, and his device

made paper recordings of blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiration of a subject who was

being questioned (Kanable, 2010). Larson used his polygraph instrument for criminology

with a question technique later known as the relevant-irrelevant test. The subjects were

presented with questions that were related to the crime and questions that were not related

to the crime while their physiological changes were recorded. Larson's reasoning was

that a guilty subject would exhibit an increased physiological response to the questions

related to the crime, but an innocent subject would not exhibit an increased physiological

response to the questions related to the crime. Although Larson's polygraph instrument

showed promise, he became skeptical about the accuracy of his results especially when

used in court (Grubin & Madson, 2005).

In 1939, following the research by Larson, Leonarde Keeler developed the first

portable polygraph instrument that simultaneously recorded pulse rate, blood volume

change, and breathing, but he added the recording of skin response to the instrument.

Keeler's reasoning was that a deceptive subject would sweat more than an honest subject.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation purchased Keeler's instrument, which became the

prototype for the modern polygraph and the first polygraph machine used by a police

department (Grubin & Madsen, 2005; "Lie Detector," 2013).

In the late 1930's, Keeler and John Reid, an attorney, emphasized that while using

the polygraph as an interrogative instrument, the clinical interpretation of the subject's

behavior and the training of the examiner should be considered. Since the interpretation

and training of the examiner were important in the evaluation of a subject's polygraph

test, the test was very subjective and lacked standardization which led to questions

concerning the validity of the polygraph. A student of Keeler and Reid, Cleve Backster,

developed the first numerical scoring system for evaluating the polygraph test, but

numerical scoring did not remove the possible biases of the examiner interpretation

(Grubin & Madsen, 2005).

By the 1940's, the polygraph was used by law enforcement agencies for criminal

investigations and by various government agencies. By the 1960's, the polygraph was

used throughout the United States, and other countries had started polygraph programs.

Bersh (1969) studied the validity of the polygraph exams given to military personnel

during criminal investigations. Cases were randomly chosen from criminal investigations

conducted by three branches of service during the years 1963 to 1966. Decisions of guilt

or innocence following a polygraph exam were compared to decisions made by a panel of

military judges who reviewed the case file which did not include the polygraph exam

results. Results showed that the percentages of agreement between the polygraph

examiner and the panel of judges were 92.4%. These results supported the use of the

polygraph exam in this situation (Bersh, 1969). In the United States, businesses in the

private sector began using the polygraph to screen applicants for employment (Office of

Technology Assessment, 1983; Grubin & Madson, 2005).

In 1965, the Committee on Government Operation conducted the first evaluation

of the polygraph and found no scientific evidence to support the use of the instrument to

detect deception (US Congress, 1965). Regardless of this evaluation by Congress, most

large police agencies in the United States began using the polygraph test to screen

applicants and employees during the 1970's (Grubin & Madsen, 2005). In 1983,

President Reagan issued the National Security Decision Directive 84 which authorized

federal agencies to administer the polygraph exam to their employees after a leak of

information regarding the funding of defense plans was found (US Congress, 1983;

Brooks, 1985). The Committee of Government Operations in the United States House of

Representatives requested the Office of Technology Assessment to conduct an evaluation

of the scientific evidence for polygraph tests, and the Office of Technology Assessment

found that the accuracy of the polygraph was undetermined and found no scientific

evidence to support the use of the polygraph test for screening applicants or employees.

The National Security Decision Directive 84 was rescinded (Office of Technology

Assessment, 1983).

In 1988, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act legislation restricted the use of

the polygraph test in the private sector, but exempted federal agencies, pharmaceutical

companies, security firm employers, and public service employers, such as law

enforcement agencies (Kanable, 2010). This legislation represented the first time that the

federal government exercised control over the controversial use of the polygraph exam

for screening employees (Kurtz & Wells, 1989). The Act was administered by the United

States Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration. By the 1990's,

many state police agencies and local police departments required recruits to pass a

background polygraph exam before being hired, since as public service agencies, they

were exempted from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (Forrer, Mino, & Ehart,

2008).

Polygraph test use continued, and in 1999, the Department of Energy requested a

scientific review of the use of the polygraph test in personnel security screening (Grubin

& Madsen, 2005). The National Academies of Science found that the polygraph test had

significant limitations for screening applications. They found the test to be unreliable,

unscientific, biased and a measure of physiological responses that are not uniquely

related to deception. The National Academies of Science also found that due to the lack

of supporting evidence of reliability and validity, using the polygraph exam for screening

purposes was unjustified (Warner, 2005). Regardless of the additional findings about the

lack of reliability of the polygraph test, the machine continues to be widely used in the

United States and other countries. Some states restrict the use of the polygraph as a

screening tool for possible employment, but few states mandate a total prohibition of the

polygraph exam. Most states do not restrict use of the polygraph exam for law

enforcement officers or prospective officers (Herron, 1986). Although private sector use

of the polygraph is more restricted, public sector use continues. Many large companies

and companies engaged in retailing use polygraph testing (Lykken, 1985). Even though

the results of polygraph testing has been found to be not valid and unreliable, law

enforcement agencies still feel that valuable information is provided by polygraph exams

(Warner, 2005). Many federal and local law enforcement agencies use the polygraph test

for criminal investigations as well as for personnel selection (Kanable, 2010; Honts &

Perry, 1992).

The modern polygraph is very similar to the original machine used in the 1920's,

but the modern instrument uses digital technology and has some improvements in

hardware. The polygraph machine has evolved from an analog to a more efficient digital

instrument (Kanable, 2010). Polygraph machines used to be briefcase sized machines

that measured physiological signals by recording the signals with multiple pens on a roll

of paper, but more recent machines consist of a digitizer and a laptop recorder (Meijer &

Verschuere, 2010). Some computerized polygraph systems are used in the United States

(Slavkovic, 2002). The machine still measures physiological responses linked to

deception, the regulation of polygraph examiners and the standardization of the

administration of the test is still problematic, and the test is still considered unreliable by

many scientists (Grubin & Madsen, 2005).

Reliability and Validity of the Polygraph Exam

Despite the technological advances, current methods of psychophysiological

detection of deception are often criticized due to a lack of scientific inquiry and

methodology (Slavkovic, 2002). There is much concern among experts about the use of

the polygraph in detecting deception (Ben-Shakhar, Lieblich, & Bar-Hillel, 1982; Saxe,

Dougherty, & Cross, 1985). Humans have motives and emotions and are not passive

recorders and retrievers of information who can be examined effectively with a polygraph

machine. The polygraph exam lacks a sound scientific basis and does not have general

acceptance as a tool to detect deception (Ben-Shakhar, Bar-Hillel, & Lieblich, 1986).

Studies addressing the validity of the polygraph test have not shown reliability or

proper standardization to warrant the use of the polygraph test, particularly in screening

applicants, such as police officers, for employment. Iacono and Lykken (1997) used

surveys to determine the validity of the polygraph. The surveys, sent to the Society for

Psychophysiological Research and the Fellows of the American Psychological

Association addressed many topics relevant to the scientific status of the polygraph. The

results of this study were based only on respondents' self report surveys. Survey return

rates were high, and respondents indicated that polygraph lie detection was not

theoretically sound. The surveys also indicated that claims of polygraph validity were

not sustained and accuracy was affected by the use of countermeasures, such as physical

and mental countermeasures (Iacono & Lykken, 1997).

Many factors must be considered to increase the validity and reliability of the

polygraph exam. Estimates of the validity of polygraph testing, as a method of detecting

deception, range from 90% to 95% by proponents of the polygraph to as low as 61% by

psychologists (Farber, 2011). Proponents of the polygraph claim that the polygraph

accuracy rate is about 90% excluding the inconclusive cases, and the errors show only a

slight preponderance of false positives over false negatives. Critics of the polygraph

claim that the polygraph accuracy is about 70% with most of the errors presented as false

positives (Barland, 1985). The American Polygraph Association emphasizes that a valid

polygraph examination requires the combination of a polygraph instrument that records

cardiovascular, respiratory and electrodermal activity operated by a properly trained

examiner using a accepted testing procedure and scoring system (Kanable, 2010).

A study conducted by Horvath and Reid (1971) investigated the reliability of the

polygraph examiner diagnosis. Previous studies have found that polygraph examiners

can successfully diagnosis truth or deception by interpreting only polygraph data. In this

study, experienced and inexperienced polygraph examiners analyzed polygraph data

independently of one another and with only basic factual information about the subject.

The polygraph data from 25 case investigations including guilty and innocent subjects

were presented to the polygraph examiners. The experienced examiners achieved a

91.4% accuracy rate, and the inexperienced examiners achieved a 79.1% accuracy rate in

diagnosing innocence and guilt (Horvath & Reid, 1971). Studies have shown that the

reliability and validity of the polygraph exam is questionable due to the collection of

physiological data, the use of the control question technique on the exam, the use of

countermeasures, and the training of the polygraph examiner who administers and scores

the exam, and yet these exams are used the government, the private sector, in court and

by law enforcement agencies during criminal investigations and to screen applicants.

Administration and Evaluation of the Polygraph Exam

There are 14 major polygraph testing formats used in the United States with some

formats dating from the original in the 1920's. A single-issue test format focuses on one

relevant aspect of a crime. A multifaceted test format focuses on more than one aspect of

a crime. A multi-issue test format contains relevant questions about completely different

issues. For example, a multi-issue pre-employment test could present questions about an

applicant's honesty, criminal activity and drug use (Gordon, 2008). The format of the

polygraph, the examiner administering the polygraph and the training and experience of

the examiner all influence the scoring procedure for the test (Slavkovic, 2002).

In the 7-Position Numerical Analysis Scale, scoring depends on spot analysis, and

each question asked during the polygraph exam has a specific location allowing the

examiner to look for changes in the baseline, amplitude, duration, and frequency of the

recorded signals at each spot and compare these changes to the changes at the nearest

control question. Values on the seven point scale ranging from negative three to three are

assigned to the differential of the two responses. The overall score for each spot is

calculated by adding the assigned values, and the grand total is the sum of all spot totals.

Higher reaction to the relevant questions is indicated by the negative values, and higher

response to the control questions is indicated by the positive values. A score of positive

six or greater indicates non-deception, and a score of negative six or lower indicates

deception. Scores in between indicate an inconclusive result (Slavkovic, 2002). These

inconclusive results may be classified as errors causing an examiner to be unable to

render an accurate diagnosis of deception (Kanable, 2010.)

The Control Questions Test and the Guilty Knowledge Test, also known as the

Concealed Information Test, are the two main types of test questions used on polygraph

exams. The control questions polygraph exam asks the subject control questions and

relevant questions. The guilty knowledge polygraph exam measures a subject's

knowledge of specific details related to a specific incident. For example, a guilty

knowledge polygraph exam during a criminal investigation may include questions about

different types of weapons, one of which may have been used in the crime. The rationale

is that a guilty subject will react more strongly to questions involving the crime weapon,

but an innocent subject will not react differently to questions involving any weapons.

Important to both types of polygraph exams is the pre-test interview (Lewis & Cuppari,

2009).

The initial interview with the polygraph examiner referred to as the pre-test is

very important to the results of the polygraph exam. During the pre-test phase of the

polygraph exam, the examiner may demonstrate the ability of the machine to detect lies

by asking the subject to tell a simple lie and witness the machine's reactions to the lie.

Usually after the effectiveness of the polygraph machine is demonstrated, truthful

subjects have reduced anxiety, but deceptive subjects have increased anxiety.

Experienced polygraph examiners want to identify truthful subjects as early as possible in

the examination process (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009).

The control question polygraph exam technique assesses a subject's credibility by

looking for differential reactions between control and relevant questions by the subject.

Relevant questions are direct accusatory questions that address the issue under

investigation. Control questions are ambiguous questions to which the subject is

maneuvered into answering in the negative (Honts, 1996). The rationale of using the

control questioning technique on the polygraph exam is that guilty and innocent subjects

will react differentially to relevant and control questions (Honts, Raskin, & Kircher,

1994). Innocent subjects will answer the relevant questions truthfully but are likely to be

uncertain about the truthfulness of their answers to the control questions. Guilty subjects

will answer the relevant questions deceptively but are likely to be more concerned about

these questions. Innocent subjects are expected to show stronger responses to the control

questions than to the relevant questions, and guilty subjects are expected to show stronger

responses to the relevant questions than to the control questions (Kircher & Raskin,

1988). Guilty subjects will produce strong physiological reactions when lying to relevant

questions since the questions deal directly with the issues of the exam, such as "Did you

kill the victim?" Innocent subjects will produce strong physiological reactions to control

questions, such as "Before 1970, did you ever do anything dishonest?" Innocent subjects

will produce stronger physiological reactions to the control questions than to the relevant

questions since they are certain of the truthfulness of their answers to the relevant

questions, but they may be lying or uncertain about the truthfulness of their answers to

the control questions (Honts et al., 1994). Analysis and interpretation of the

physiological data recorded by the polygraph is critical in providing validity and

reliability of the results (Slavkovic, 2002).

Thurber (1981) researched the relationship between psychometric data and

control question polygraph performance. The subjects in the research were 34 males in a

police department internship program. The subjects completed the California

Psychological Inventory and a polygraph exam. The results showed that subjects who

scored highly on the Good Impressions subscale of the California Psychological

Inventory also passed the polygraph exam. The Good Impressions subscale assesses

social desirability. This research indicated a connection between social desirability and

the capacity to control the autonomic processes and pass a polygraph exam. Subjects

who behaved in a socially desirable way may have learned to control their autonomic

processes efficiently. Subjects who passed polygraph exams may have been controlling

their physiological responses and their autonomic processes which is important to

consider when administering and evaluating the polygraph (Thurber, 1981).

Honts (1996) did a field study of the control question polygraph test using files of

criminal cases. Data from 41 criminal cases was examined for confirming information.

Numerical scores, decisions from the original examiners and an independent evaluation

were analyzed. The results indicated that the control question polygraph technique was

highly valid when excluding the inconclusive answers. This study supported the validity

of the control question polygraph test in real life settings. (Honts, 1996).

Ginton, Daie, Elaad, and Ben-Shakhar (1982) conducted a study to evaluate the

control question polygraph exam in a real-life situation instead of using a mock crime.

The study used 15 male subjects, some of whom actually cheated on an aptitude test

administered at the beginning of the study. Following the test, a polygraph exam was

administered, and each subject was evaluated by three examiners, one who gave the

polygraph exam, one who observed and heard the pretest interview through a one-way

mirror, and one who evaluated the polygraph data results. After the polygraph exams, the

subjects were debriefed. Evaluations based on physiological information were not

superior to those based on the behavioral information only, and evaluations based on both

physiological charts and behavioral information together were more accurate than

evaluations based on either information alone. A limitation of this study was that

although the study simulated a real-life situation for the subjects, the polygraph

examiners knew in advance that their judgments would have no consequences for the

subjects which is not true in real life. Also, due to the nature of this study in finding real-

life cheaters, there was difficulty obtaining a larger sample size (Ginton et al., 1982).

A meta-analysis of 14 mock crime studies of the control question polygraph exam

was conducted by Kircher, Horowitz, and Raskin (1988). They found that accuracy in

these studies depends on whether the subjects, the incentives provided to the subjects,

and the methods used for the evaluation of physiological data accurately represent field

conditions. In a mock crime study, the laboratory has advantages over the field, but the

results may not be representative of the field (Podlesny & Raskin, 1977). Bradley, Malik,

and Cullen (2011) found that laboratory mock tests with concealed information and the

polygraph exam resulted in overestimates of detection since laboratory studies foster high

recall on the part of the subject (Bradley et al., 2011). The real-life consequences of

failing a polygraph test and the motivations of subjects to be truthful are much greater in

the field than in the laboratory. There also may be differences in the qualifications of the

examiners of the polygraph test with regard to those done in the laboratory and those

done in the field which would affect the interpretation and diagnosis. In addition to these

differences, in these mock crime control question polygraph studies, the amount of

physiological data provided to the polygraph interpreter varied across experiments

(Szucko & Kleinmuntz, 1981). This meta-analysis found that conducting mock crime

experiments that closely resemble field conditions is crucial in providing accurate

polygraph exam information. More studies on the control question polygraph exam with

computerized standardization of scoring are necessary (Kircher et al., 1988).

Polygraph exams using control questions, which are specially formulated in a

pretest interview, are the most commonly used polygraph tests in law enforcement, but

simple countermeasures such as physical maneuvers during questioning enhances the

physiological reactions to control questions. A physical maneuver such as tongue biting

may help a subject pass a polygraph (Honts et al., 1994). Examinees may try to alter the

results of a polygraph exam by physical or mental processes. Physical countermeasures

consist of the subject engaging in some type of pain to mask the physiological response,

and mental countermeasures consist of the subject altering the thought patterns in order to

alter the results of the polygraph exam (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009).

Honts et al. (1994) did a study investigating the effects of mental and physical

countermeasures on polygraph tests and found that both countermeasures were equally

effective in defeating control question polygraph tests and passing these tests (Ginton et

al., 1982). The Honts study was conducted using 120 male and female subjects who were

randomly assigned to groups. One group was innocent of the mock crime, and one group

enacted the mock crime of stealing a rare coin. Some of the subjects received mental

countermeasure training, and some of the subjects received physical countermeasure

training. The results strongly suggest that control question polygraph tests may be

defeated by guilty subjects trained in mental or physical countermeasures. About one

half of the subjects in each countermeasure training condition passed their polygraph test

with even just thirty minutes of countermeasure training. The polygraph examiner

detected only 12% of the physical countermeasures and none of the mental

countermeasures. This a valuable study since countermeasures are a factor that

contribute to the high rate of false negative errors obtained in polygraph screening (Honts

et al., 1994).

In another study, Honts, Hodes, and Raskin (1985) investigated the effects of the

use of physical countermeasures on physiological detection of deception and found that

training in the use of physical countermeasures affected the outcome of a polygraph

exam. The study was conducted using 65 male and female subjects, some of whom

enacted a mock crime and were trained in the use of physical countermeasure to be used

during the administration of a polygraph exam. Countermeasure subjects were able to

defeat the control question polygraph exam by producing physiological responses that

were larger to control questions than to relevant questions, and the physical

countermeasures used to produce these physiological responses were undetected by the

examiner (Honts et al., 1985).

Honts, Devitt, Winbush, and Kircher (1996) did a study to investigate the effects

of mental and physical countermeasures on the concealed knowledge polygraph exam

and found that using these countermeasures reduced the accuracy of the concealed

knowledge polygraph exam. The study used 40 subjects and a mock crime scenario with

some subjects receiving countermeasure training and others not receiving the training.

Not only did the use of countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the polygraph exam, but

the use of countermeasures was undetected by the examiner. The results of this study are

consistent with other studies that show that control question and the concealed knowledge

polygraph exam results are influenced by the use of counter measures (Honts et al.,

1996).

The control question polygraph exam is used frequently particularly among law

enforcement agencies for the purpose of screening applicants to be police officers, but the

validity of this type of interrogation is not certain and remains controversial (Ginton et

al., 1982). The control question polygraph exam is widely used, but is very controversial

since the diagnoses made from the results rely on human interpretation which is

influenced by the use of countermeasures, bias, training and experience of the examiner.

In order to minimize the effect of interpretation of polygraph protocols and promote

standardization of practice, Kircher and Raskin (1988) investigated the feasibility of

using computer programs to quantify physiological responses to test questions on a

polygraph exam and to assess the probability that the questions were answered truthfully.

In the investigation, computer analysis was used to evaluate physiological responses and

assess the probability of truthfulness in data obtained from two mock crime experiments

involving subjects who were either guilty or innocent of committing a mock theft. The

computer analysis was compared to human numerical evaluations, and no significant

differences between computer and human evaluations were found (Kircher & Raskin,

1988).

A study by Honts and Amato (2007) investigated the automation of a screening

polygraph test. The study examined the effects of automating the relevant-irrelevant

psychophysiological detection of deception test using a mock screening scenario. Eighty

participants were either truthful or deceptive on an employment application and then

administered a polygraph exam by an experienced polygraph examiner or with a fully

automated polygraph exam. The automated polygraph exam produced significantly more

accurate results than the polygraph exam administered by the human examiner, and the

automated method significantly discriminated deceptive from truthful responses (Honts

& Amato, 2007).

Polygraph Exam Use by Law Enforcement Agencies

Most law enforcement agencies use the polygraph exam regardless of reliability

to gain additional information especially in criminal investigations. A study conducted

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's polygraph unit showed that out of the 2,641

deceptive criminal polygraph reports reviewed, 1,316 provided no additional useful

information, but 1,315 reports resulted in acquiring confessions, admissions, or

information of investigative value (Warner, 2005). A meta-analysis was conducted to

determine individual human differences in the ability to detect deception without the use

of the polygraph. Using 108 studies done between 1970 and 2004, Aamodt and Custer

(2006) found that age, confidence, experience, education and gender of the examiner

were not significantly related to the rate of accuracy in detecting deception. Of interest

was the finding that police officers, detectives, judges and psychologists were no more

accurate at detecting deception than other individuals not involved in these fields

(Aamodt & Custer, 2006).

Law enforcement pre-employment polygraph screening exams are a decision-

support tool which should be used in conjunction with other screening tools to help

increase the validity of the selection process. Problems surrounding the polygraph exam

such as the misunderstanding of the test, ineffective selection of test issues, poorly

constructed test questions and misguided policies addressing the use of the polygraph

decrease the validity and reliability of using the polygraph exam as part of the screening

process (Handler, Honts, Krapohl, Nelson, & Griffin, 2009). Polygraph exams are used

in both the pre-conditional and post-conditional offer stages in law enforcement. The

pre-employment evaluation stage of law enforcement may involve the integration of an

applicant's behavioral history information which will be accessed through a personal

history questionnaire, psychological testing, interviews and a polygraph exam (Ben-

Porath et al., 2011). Before a polygraph exam is administered, an applicant should meet

the requirements set forth by the Board of the American Polygraph Association (2012) to

be deemed suitable for the exam ("Model Policy for the Evaluation of Examinee

Suitability for Polygraph Testing," 2012).

In 1995, the American Polygraph Association conducted a survey to determine

the use of pre-employment polygraph testing in 626 law enforcement agencies

throughout the United States and found that 62% of the respondent agencies utilized the

polygraph exam as part of their applicant screening process. Most respondent law

enforcement agencies reported that the polygraph exam was as useful a tool for screening

applicants as background investigation, written psychological tests, psychological

interviews, personal interviews and interviews by a selection board, since they were able

to reject approximately a quarter of their applicants as a result of information obtained

through the polygraph exam that had not been uncovered with the other screening

procedures (Handler et. al., 2009).

In 1995, Sanders, Hughes, and Langworthy (1995) did a survey of police officer

recruitment and selection in major police departments in the United States and found that

between 1990 and 1994 there was an slight increase in the use of the polygraph from 69%

in 1990 to 69.5% in 1994 (Sanders et al.,1995). The Law Enforcement Management and

Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey is a nationally representative sample of state

and local law enforcement agencies (Burch, 2012). A 2000 LEMAS survey found that

67% of primary state law enforcement agencies in the United States used the polygraph

exam (U.S. Department of Justice, 2000). In 2003, about 45% of local police

departments in the United States used the polygraph exam in the screening process. In

2007, polygraph exams were used by 50% of local police departments in the United

States (Reaves, 2010). These statistics show an increase in the use of the polygraph exam

among law enforcement agencies which indicates that the exam is considered to be a

useful tool available to law enforcement agencies to use in obtaining information

concerning criminal activity or information about police officer applicants.

Screening polygraph questions used by law enforcement agencies test for

credibility about involvement in specified patterns of behavior which take place over long

periods of time. Criminal investigators use the polygraph exam to get information about

specific events, but questions on screening polygraph exams refer to the subject's entire

lifetime or their entire adult lifetime which seems to decrease reliability due to the

reliance on a much longer period of remembering. Pre-employment polygraph exams are

conducted in the absence of a known incident in contrast to criminal investigative

polygraph exams which focus on a subject's involvement in a single known event

("Model Policy for Law Enforcement/Public-service Pre-employment Polygraph

Screening Examinations," 2012). Screening polygraph exams involve investigation of

multiple behavioral or suitability topics instead of a known incident, which means that

the subject could be deceptive to one or more relevant issues while simultaneously being

truthful to others (Podlesny & Truslow, 1993). Questions on a screening polygraph exam

should all meet accepted criteria, and behaviors referred to should be supported by clear

definitions that are understood by the examinee and the examiner (Handler et al, 2009).

The questions on screening polygraph exams should provide predictive validity

concerning job performance and be presented in a structural way that is thorough and

non-confrontational. Studies have shown that relevant structured interviews produce

more accurate predictive results (Cortina, Goldstein, Payne, Davison, & Gilliland, 2000;

McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994). The base rate of the relevant questions

on the polygraph screening exams creates problems with interpretation and affects

validity and reliability. For example, a question about felonies may have a low base rate

of occurring, but a question about illegal drug use may have a high base rate of occurring.

These differences affect the interpretation of and the reliability of the test (Handler et al.,

2009). A diagnostic test analyzing base rate change is available, but behaviors with low

or high base rate occurrence are not effectively discriminated using the polygraph test,

and do not aid the interpreter in selecting suitable and unsuitable applicants (Wells &

Lindsay, 1980; Wells & Olson, 2002). The results of the polygraph exam become more

valid if the test questions meet standard, accepted criteria (Handler et al., 2009). In 2007,

the American Polygraph Association adopted a standard of practice effective January 1,

2012 that requires members to use validated physiological detection of deception

examination techniques that meet certain levels of criterion accuracy which means that

the test results have to correspond to what the test is designed to detect (Gougler et al.,

2011).

There are two types of errors, false positives and false negatives, common to

polygraph exams. A positive result signifies that the subject was involved with a specific

behavior, and a negative result signifies that the subject was not involved with a specific

behavior. A false positive results from a truthful subject being judged as deceptive by the

examiner, and a false negative results from a deceptive subject being judged as truthful

by the examiner. Reliable and valid screening polygraph exam questions should be

sensitive enough to the important issues to avoid false positives and false negatives.

Screening polygraph exam questions should also be very specific with regard to the

issues of concern in order to avoid the possibility of questions addressing unrelated issues

causing false positives. These types of errors on polygraph exams contribute to the lack

of reliability and validity of the test. In order to maximize the reliability and validity of a

screening polygraph test, questions should be empirically related to hiring decisions and

behaviors that are performance predictors (Handler et al., 2009).

Standardization of the Polygraph Exam

A major contribution to the lack of reliability and validity of the screening

polygraph exam is the lack of standardization in the interpretation of the polygraph exam.

Polygraph examiners should use analysis procedures based on scientific reasoning, but

interpretation is done by inspection of the data for physiological reactions or changes in

reaction trends that occur in response to repeated presentations of a specific question

which is limited to an examiner's impressions. Research shows that the rate of human

detection of deception is only about 54% (Aamodt & Custer, 2006). A screening

polygraph examiner may also use a numerical method aided by a computer-based

statistical analysis for interpreting the polygraph data, but this type of interpretation is

standardized from forensic settings and not accurately generalizable to screening settings.

In a numerical scoring, for a subject to be considered truthful, all test questions must

produce truthful answers, but to be considered as lying, only one untruthful answer is

necessary. Screening polygraph examiners rely on hand-scoring systems and their

opinions to arrive at a score (Handler et al., 2009). Polygraph examiners in the United

States are not well trained, and there is a lack of standardization of the process of

administering and interpreting the polygraph exam (Honts & Perry, 1992)

The validity, accuracy, and reliability of pre-employment polygraph exam

screening do not seem to be sufficient enough to justify the use of the polygraph exam as

a screening tool for law enforcement agencies. There is not enough research

investigating the accuracy of polygraph based pre-employment decisions, and test

outcomes are not directly related to employment decisions. More regulation and

standardization of the polygraph exam and screening process is necessary. The examiner

should be licensed, and there should be accountability with regard to the interpretation of

the polygraph results. There should be standard rules and regulations regarding what is

and what is not permissible practice during the process of administering the exam and

what course of action is available if the rules are not followed. Following standard

procedure would increase the validity of the polygraph exam particularly when used as an

applicant screening tool for law enforcement agencies (Horvath, 1985).

Some law enforcement agencies in the United States require police officer

applicants to have up to 60 college credits, and most state and local government agencies

require an applicant to have a high school diploma, be 21 years old, pass a written

examination, pass a physical exam, be a United States citizen, pass a psychological

evaluation and pass a polygraph exam (Woska, 2006). The use of the polygraph exam in

screening job applicants is subject to abuses. There must be standard rules to be followed

to protect the employer and the applicant in the investigative process. This may be

accomplished through regulation and standardization of the entire process of

administering a polygraph exam. Only experienced, licensed examiners should

administer a polygraph exam, and the exam should be standardized with clear

instructions given before, during and after the exam (Hurd, 1985).

The polygraph examiner should have an acceptable background and

qualifications. Education, training, experience and ethical principle standards and

requirements should be regulated by laws (Yeschke, 1965). The polygraph exam is a

complex and comprehensive exam, and the results are influenced by many factors such as

technique implemented, population tested, context of the exam, examiner training, and

goals of detection all of which should be regulated and standardized. The results are a

function of both science and the ability of the examiner to consider the many

psychological factors before making a decision about a subject's truthfulness. The role of

the examiner is critical to both the administration and the interpretation of the polygraph

exam (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009). Problems with the polygraph exam are compounded by

the complexity of the physiological response protocols and the lack of standardized

generally accepted methods for evaluation (Kircher & Raskin, 1988).

The Kircher and Raskin (1988) study found that computer techniques may be

developed for applied settings and would perform at least as well as expert human

interpreters. Computer analysis to detect truth and deception in applied settings would

not depend on the expertise and objectivity of polygraph interpreters. Use of an

automated polygraph exam method would reduce the risk of errors of human judgment,

and minimize disagreements among polygraph examiners and experts concerning the

polygraph outcome. Using an automated system for administering and evaluating

polygraph exams would improve the reliability and accuracy of polygraph exam results

particularly in job screening. A computerized evaluation could determine whether a

subject is truthful or deceptive and the probability of truthfulness which is more

informative than a categorical judgment and is readily understood and communicated

(Kircher & Raskin, 1988).

Much of the criticism of the use of the polygraph exam is concerned with the

examiner with regard to training and bias. This problem could be resolved with the use

of an automated system which would be more standardized, reliable and valid. A

computer would interactively present the examination and collect the data. Studies by

Kircher and Raskin (1988) and Honts and Amato (2007) have shown positive results

using automated polygraph systems. With the use of automated polygraph exam systems,

issues of examiner bias would be removed and reliability and validity of test results

would be improved (Kircher & Raskin, 1988; Honts & Amato, 2007). More research on

automation systems is needed.

Implications

The polygraph exam has been used in some form for over 90 years. From the

beginning of its use, the polygraph has been utilized as a lie detector to detect

physiological changes in the human body that are thought to be linked with deception.

Research has shown that these physiological changes may be due to other psychological

processes and not simply lying. There are many controversial problems with the

administration of the polygraph exam, such as type of test questions and the use of

countermeasures to pass the exam. Scoring and evaluation of the polygraph exam are

also problems since there does not seem to be a standardization of these processes. There

also does not seem to be standardization with regard to the examiner and the individual

who evaluates the polygraph exam. More consistency and standardization of polygraph

exam procedures as well as automated administration and computerized analysis would

increase the validity and reliability of the polygraph exam as a screening tool. Even

though research has shown that the polygraph exam may not be a reliable, valid tool to

detect deception and has not been used consistently, the polygraph exam is used by the

government, by the private sector, and by law enforcement agencies for criminal

investigations as well as for employment screening (Green & Heilbrum, 2011; Grubin &

Madsen, 2005; Slavkovic, 2002; Iacono & Lykken, 1997; Kircher & Raskin, 1988).

The purpose of the current study was to examine the use of the polygraph exam

by law enforcement agencies as part of the screening process to find suitable applicants

for employment as police officers and to determine if the polygraph exam is used

consistently by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The screening

process for law enforcement applicants is an important procedure since these applicants

have the potential to become enforcers and protectors of the safety and welfare of society.

It was hypothesized that polygraph exams are not standardized or used consistently by

law enforcement agencies.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Subjects

The subjects were the ten largest law enforcement agencies in the United States.

These agencies had the largest number of sworn police department employees. Survey

were mailed to New York City, New York, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Houston, Texas, Washington, D. C., Phoenix, Arizona,

Dallas, Texas, Miami-Dade, Florida, and Detroit, Michigan. The survey addressing law

enforcement agency employment screening procedures was completed by an employee of

the law enforcement agency and returned in the stamped addressed envelope which was

enclosed. The surveys were kept anonymous, the participants were not compensated,

there was no risk involved, and the law enforcement agencies represented various

demographic areas of the United States.

Variables

A survey (see Appendix) research technique was used to obtain data. The survey

research technique looked at the consistency of the use of the polygraph exam by law

enforcement agencies in the selection of applicants. The survey, similar to a survey used

by Chang-Bae (2006) in his study on psychological testing for recruit screening, was

created specifically for the current study and addressed polygraph exam use for police

applicant screening. Questions pertaining to the use of the polygraph exam, the

administration of the polygraph exam, the scoring and analysis of the polygraph exam,

and the disclosure of the results of the polygraph exam were included in the survey. The

survey addressing police applicant screening procedures was mailed to the law

enforcement agencies in New York City, New York, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles,

California, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Houston, Texas, Washington, D. C., Phoenix,

Arizona, Dallas, Texas, Miami-Dade, Florida, and Detroit, Michigan in order to obtain

data on law enforcement agency employment screening procedures. Included in the

mailing was an addressed, stamped envelope in which the survey was returned to the

researcher.

Procedure

A survey, addressing police applicant screening procedures, was mailed to each of

the ten participant law enforcement agencies. The subjects read an alternate consent form

and completed and returned the survey to the researcher in an included stamped envelope,

and all responses were kept anonymous. Information and data were also obtained

through reading law enforcement blogs, sending emails, reading websites, and telephone

calls to law enforcement agencies. After receiving the returned surveys, the responses

were recorded and analyzed. All of the participants were treated according to ethical

standards. The data obtained from the responses of the law enforcement agencies was

analyzed using descriptive statistics. These statistics reflected the consistency of the use

of the polygraph exam during the police applicant selection process.

Chapter 4

Results

The current study examined the use of and the consistency of use of the polygraph

exam by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States as part of the screening

process to find suitable applicants for employment as police officers. The administration

of the polygraph was investigated, and results showed that there was inconsistency with

regard to the type of polygraph used, the automation of the polygraph, the number of

polygraphs administered per applicant, the scoring procedure of the polygraph exam, and

the disclosure of the results to the applicant.

As shown in Figure 1, the polygraph exam was used by 70% (n=7) of the

agencies surveyed, and all of the agencies that responded to the questions regarding the

administration of the polygraph reported that the polygraph exam was administered by a

polygraphist.

Figure 1. Polygraph exam use in selection process.

Used: 70%

Not Used: 30%

Twenty percent (n=1) of the agencies reported that a police sergeant analyzed the

polygraph exam results, and 80% (n=4) of the agencies reported that a polygraphist

analyzed the polygraph exam results, but the qualifications of the polygraphist, or

polygraph examiner, and the police sergeant were not stated. The type of polygraph

instrument used was inconsistent among the agencies that responded to the survey (n=4),

with two agencies using the Lx-4000, one agency using the LPDT, and another agency

using different polygraph instruments for different polygraph exams. As shown in Figure

2, of the agencies that responded to the surveys, 75% used an automated polygraph exam

(n=3), and 25% of the agencies did not use an automated polygraph exam (n=1).

Figure 2. Polygraph exam.

An automated polygraph is one in which a technician oversees an automated system that

administers the polygraph exam as a standardized test with tape recordings. As Figure 3

shows, of the agencies that responded to the surveys, 20% of the agencies administer one

Automated: 75%

Not Automated: 25%

polygraph exam to each law enforcement applicant (n=1), and 80% of the agencies

administer one or two polygraph exams to each applicant (n=4).

Figure 3. Polygraphs administered.

Of the agencies that use the polygraph and responded to the survey (n=3), all of the

agencies use both human and computer scoring procedures for the polygraph exam. As

shown in Figure 4, of the agencies that responded to the surveys, 75% disclosed the

results of the polygraph exam to the applicants (n=3), and 25% of the agencies did not

disclose the results of the polygraph exam to the applicants (n=1).

Figure 4. Polygraph results.

One Polygraph

Administered to One

Applicant: 20%

One or Two Polygraphs

Administered to One

Applicant: 80%

Results Disclosed to

Applicant 67%

Results Not

Disclosed to

Applicant 33%

The procedures, the order in which the procedures are administered, and the

appeal process utilized by the ten largest law enforcement agencies in the United States

were also investigated. The screening procedures, in addition to the polygraph exam,

used by law enforcement agencies were the background investigation, the criminal record

check, the driving record check, the medical exam, the drug test, the physical agility test,

the credit history check, the written aptitude test, the personal interview, and the

psychological evaluation. As shown in Figure 5, the most frequently used procedures

used by all of the ten agencies surveyed were the background investigation, the medical

exam, and the psychological evaluation.

Figure 5. Procedures used.

The drug test, the written aptitude test, and the personal interview were used by 90% of

the agencies surveyed (n=9). The criminal record check was only used by 70% (n=7) of

Number of Agencies

Procedure

the agencies surveyed. The driving record check was used by 60% (n=6), and the credit

history check was used by 30% (n=3) of the agencies surveyed.

The order in which the procedures were administered by law enforcement

agencies was investigated. As shown in Table 1, the agencies varied in the order that

they each administered the procedures.

Table 1

Procedure Order

Procedure

Background Investigation

10%

50%

10%

20%

Criminal Record Check

17%

33%

17%

Driving Record Check

20%

40%

20%

Medical Exam

20%

10%

30%

10%

Drug Test

11%

22%

11%

22%

Physical Agility Test

10%

20%

10%

20%

Credit History Test

100%

Written Aptitude Test

67%

11%

22%

Personal Interview

22%

11%

Polygraph Exam

29%

14%

29%

14%

Psychological

Evaluation/Personality

Inventory

10%

20%

10%

The results indicated that the background investigation was administered by the agencies

as the fifth step of the procedures 50% (n=5) of the time. The written aptitude test was

administered by the agencies as the first step of the procedures 67% (n=6) of the time.

The polygraph exam was administered by the agencies as the third, fourth, sixth, seventh,

or eighth steps of the procedures. The polygraph exam was administered by the agencies

as the third step of the procedures 29% (n=2) of the time and was administered by the

agencies as the seventh step of the procedures 29% (n=2) of the time. The polygraph

exam was administered as the fourth step of the procedures 14% (n=1) of the time, as the

sixth step of the procedures 14% (n=1) of the time, and as the eighth step of the

procedures 14% (n=1) of the time.

Whether or not the agencies allowed appeals for any of the procedures of the

selection process was examined. As shown in Figure 6, of the agencies that responded to

the surveys, 86% (n=6) allowed appeals for any of the procedures of the selection

process, and 14% (n=1) of those agencies did not allow appeals for any of the procedures

of the selection process.

Figure 6. Appeals.

Minimum age of the applicant and minimum number of college credits attained by the

applicant were also investigated. As shown in Figure 7, results indicated that 50% (n=5)

of the agencies required a minimum age of 21 for applicants, 30% (n=3) of the agencies

required a minimum age of 19 for applicants, and 20% (n=2) of the agencies required a

minimum age of 18 for applicants.

Appeals Allowed: 86%

Appeals Not Allowed:

14%

Figure 7. Minimum age of applicants.

As shown in Figure 8, results indicated that 50% (n=5) of the agencies required a

minimum of 60 college credits for applicants, 10% (n=1) of the agencies required a

minimum of 48 college credits for applicants, and 40% (n=4) of the agencies did not

require any college credits.

Figure 8. Minimum college credits required.

Minimum Age

Agency

Number of Agencies

Number of College Credits

Chapter 5

Discussion

Conclusions Regarding the Polygraph Exam Use in Sample Population

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the use of and the consistency

of use of the polygraph exam as part of the screening process for prospective applicants

for employment as police officers by law enforcement agencies throughout the United

States. It was hypothesized that polygraph exams are not standardized or used

consistently by law enforcement agencies. The results of the current study supported the

hypothesis and indicated that the polygraph exam is not standardized or used consistently

by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States as part of the applicant

screening process.

The results showed that there was inconsistency with regard to the type of

polygraph instrument used, the automation of the polygraph, the number of polygraphs

administered per applicant, the scoring procedure of the polygraph exam, and the

disclosure of the polygraph exam results to the applicant. Not all of the agencies

surveyed used the polygraph exam, but all of the agencies that used the polygraph exam

administered the exam using a polygraphist who may or may not be licensed. Some

agencies reported that a police sergeant analyzed the polygraph exam results while other

agencies reported that a polygraphist analyzed the polygraph exam results, but the

qualifications of the polygraphist and the police sergeant were not stated. The type of

polygraph instrument used was not consistent among the agencies, and some agencies

used automated polygraph exams while other agencies did not use automated exams.

Some agencies administered one polygraph exam to applicants while others administered

one or two polygraph exams to each applicant. Scoring of the polygraph exam was done

by human and computer scoring procedures among all of the agencies surveyed, and

reliability issues exist with both types of scoring. Some of the agencies disclosed the

results of the polygraph exam to the applicants while others did not disclose the results of

the polygraph exam.

The agencies were also not consistent in the use of screening procedures other

than the polygraph in the employee selection process. There were differences in which

procedures were used, in the order in which the procedures were administered, in whether

appeals were permitted in the process, in the minimum age requirement, and in the

minimum amount of college credits required among the law enforcement agencies. Since

police officers are valuable to the welfare of society, the law enforcement applicant

screening process should be fair, accurate, consistent, and should ensure that the best

candidates are chosen for the job.

The results of the current study agree with previous research since inconsistencies

were found with regard to the use of the polygraph exam as well as with other screening

tools in the screening process of police officer applicants by law enforcement agencies

throughout the United States. Research indicates that since 1995, there has been an

increased use of the polygraph exam as a screening tool for law enforcement applicants in

the United States (Hughes, & Langworthy, 1995; Sanders, Hughes, & Langworthy, 1995;

U.S. Department of Justice, 2000; Reaves, 2010). Many federal and local law

enforcement agencies use the polygraph exam for criminal investigations as well as for

personnel selection (Kanable, 2010; Honts & Perry, 1992). Research indicates that

although the polygraph exam is used by law enforcement agencies in the screening

process of applicants, that use is not consistent, standardized, and not fully regulated

(Grubin & Madsen, 2005).

The lack of practice standardization in the use of the polygraph exam

administration for the police officer selection process is a challenge, and there is a lack of

effort among practitioners to develop a body of best practices for screening examinations

that could increase the reliability and validity of the polygraph exam when used as a

screening tool (Handler, Honts, Krapohl, Nelson, & Griffin, 2009). The American

Polygraph Association, established in 1966, is the largest professional association for

polygraphy in the world and has a code of ethics, standards of practice, and grievance

procedures, but non-American Polygraph Association accredited schools exist. There is

little regulation of polygraph examiners other than twenty of the states requiring

polygraph examiners to be registered with a state board or the American Polygraph

Association. Individuals do not have to be licensed or have particular training to

purchase a polygraph instrument and practice polygraphy privately. The consistency of

use, regulation, and standardization of use of the polygraph exam remains problematic,

especially when used as a screening tool by law enforcement agencies to screen police

officer applicants (Grubin & Madsen, 2005). Adopting more standardized approaches in

the administration and evaluation of polygraph exams will increase the reliability and

validity of this screening method which is a very important factor to consider since this

method is applied to the hiring process of individuals responsible for public safety

(Handler, Honts, Krapohl, Nelson, & Griffin, 2009).

Limitations

The current study provided additional information to the research on the law

enforcement screening process but was limited by a narrow focus on the ten largest law

enforcement agencies, a low response rate, whether or not the responses were truthful or

accurate, and a reluctance by the participants to divulge information. Not all of the

surveys were completed and returned, and some were returned incomplete. In addition to

the surveys, other methods were used to obtain information and data such as reading law

enforcement blogs, sending emails, reading websites and making telephone calls to law

enforcement agencies. The participants may not have been truthful in their responses to

the surveys, internet emails, and telephone calls, and the information and data obtained

from the law enforcement blogs and websites may not have been reliable.

Information and data obtained from internet websites may not have been reliable

since the websites may not be updated and maintained on a regular basis. The telephone

calls did not produce enough information and data because the participants were

apprehensive and not cooperative about divulging information about the law enforcement

screening process. Apprehension and non-cooperativeness seemed to be caused by the

participants not wanting to divulge information about the police screening process to

possible applicants. Even though the current study had limitations, the study provided

additional information to the available research concerning the law enforcement agency

applicant screening process and provided implications and future direction for further

investigation.

Future Research Recommendations

Future research should include more law enforcement agencies as participants in

order to obtain more information and data concerning the law enforcement screening

process with particular emphasis on the polygraph exam as a screening tool. Research

should investigate whether or not the use of the polygraph exam in the screening process

follows regulations and standardization. Sending surveys to multiple local state law

enforcement agencies across the United States, and not just the ten largest agencies,

would yield more information and data concerning the standardization of the screening

process that would be more generalizable and representative of the law enforcement

screening process in general. Other future research should include studies concerning the

screening process and how elements of the screening process, such as the polygraph

exam results, provide valid indicators of police officer success and job performance.

References

Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar?: A meta-analysis of

individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 15(1), 6-

11.

American Polygraph Association. (2012). Model policy for law enforcement/public-

service pre-employment polygraph screening examinations. Retrieved from

American Polygraph Association. http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/

download-policies-and-acts.

American Polygraph Association. (2012). Model policy for the evaluation of examinee

suitability for polygraph testing. Retrieved from American Polygraph Association.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/download-policies-and-acts.

Barland, G. H. (1985). Criminal investigation. Society, 22(6), 46.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., Fico, J. M., Hibler, N. S., Inwald, R., Kruml, J., & Roberts, M. R.

(2011, August). Assessing the psychological suitability of candidates for law

enforcement positions. The Police Chief, 78, 64-70.

Ben- Shakhar, G. Bar-Hillel, M. & Leiblich, I. (1986). Trial by polygraph: Scientific and

juridical issues in lie detection. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 4(4), 459-479.

Ben-Shakhar, G., Lieblich, I., & Bar-Hillel, M. (1982). An evaluation of polygraphers’

judgments: A review from a decision theoretic perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67(6), 701-713.

Bersh P. J., (1969). A Validation study of polygraph examiner judgments. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 53(5), 399-403.

Bradley, M. T., Malik, F. J. & Cullen, M. C. (2011). Memory instructions, vocalization,

mock crimes, and concealed information tests with a polygraph. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 113(3), 840-858.

Brooks, J. (1985). Polygraph testing: Thoughts of a skeptical legislator. American

Psychologist, 40(3), 348-354.

Burch, A. M. (2012). Sheriffs’ offices, 2007 – statistical tables. Retrieved from U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/

content/pub/pdf/so07st.pdf

Candland, D. K., & Campbell, J. F. (1961). Lie detection: A measure of emotion.

Exploring Behavior: An introduction to psychology (pp. 113-119).

Chang-Bae, L. (2006). Psychological testing for recruit screening. TELEMASP Bulletin,

13(2), 1-7.

Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., Gilliland, S. W. (2000).

The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and

conscientiousness scores. Personal Psychology, 53(2), 325-351.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 US 579. (1993).

Faigman, D. L., Fienberg, S. E, & Stern, P.C. (2003). The limits of the polygraph. Issues

in Science and Technology, 20(1), 40-46.

Farber, F. J. (2011). Pre-Employment polygraph examinations of public safety applicants.

Retrieved from Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Monthly Law Journal.

Ford, E. B. (2006). Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions.

International Journal and Psychiatry, 29(3), 159-177.

Forrer, D., Mino, M., & Ehart, C.W. (2008). The effects of the hiring process on

employee termination: Concept and issues. Retrieved from The 2008 American

Public Administration Society Conference. http://professorforrer.com/Research_

Data/Papers/HiringProcessesvsTermination- Forrer_Mino-Ehart-ASPA2008.pdf

Ginton, A., Daie, N., Elaad, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1982). A method for evaluating the

use of the polygraph in a real-life situation. Journal of Applied Psychology,

67(2), 131-137.

Gordon, N. J. (2008, September). Today’s instrument for truth testing. The Police Chief,

75(9).

Gougler, M., Nelson, R., Handler, M., Kraphol, D., Shaw, P., & Bierman, L. (2011).

Excutive summary of the meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated

polygraph techniques. Retrieved from American Polygraph Association. http://

www.polygraph.org/files/excutive_summary_meta_analytic_survey_apa_2012.

pdf

Green, E. & Heilbrun, K. (2011). Psychology and the Legal System (7

ed.). Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth.

Grubin, D., & Madsen, L. (2005, June). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical

review. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16(2), 357-369.

Handler, M., Honts, C. R., Krapohl, D. J., Nelson, R., & Griffin, S. (2009). Integration of

pre-employment polygraph screening into the police selection process. Journal of

Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, 69-86.

Herron, D. J. (1986). Statutory restrictions on polygraph testing in employer-employee

relationships. Labor Law Journal, 37(9), 632-638.

Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in

field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.

Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2007). Automation of a screening polygraph test increases

accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 187-19.

Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., Winbush, M., & Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical

countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test.

Psychophysiology, 33(1), 84-92.

Honts, C. R., & Perry, M. V. (1992). Polygraph admissibility: Changes and challenges.

Law and Human Behavior, 16(3), 357-379.

Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures

on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,

177-187.

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D., & Kircher, J. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures

reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-

259.

Horvath, F. (1985). Job screening. Society, 22(6), 43-46.

Horvath, F. S., & Reid, J. E. (1971). The Reliability of Polygraph Examiner Diagnosis of

truth and deception. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science,

62(2), 276-281.

Hurd, S. N. (1985). Use of the polygraph in screening job applicants. American Business

Law Journal, 22(4), 529.

Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of

scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 426-433.

Kanable, R. (2010). The truth surrounding lie detection technology. Law Enforcement

Technology, 37(8), 60-67.

Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). Human versus computerized evaluations of

polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 291-

302.

Kircher, J. C., Horowitz, S. W., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). Meta-analysis of mock crime

studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law and Human Behavior,

12(1), 29-80.

Kurtz, J., M., & Wells, W, R,. (1989). The employee polygraph protection act: The end

of lie detector use in employment decisions? Journal of Small Business Manage,

27(4), 76-80.

Lamance, K. (2013). Admissability of polygraph tests in court. Retrieved from Legal

Match Law Library. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-

of-polygraph-tests-in-court.ht

Lewis, J. A., & Cuppari, M. (2009). The polygraph: The truth lies within. Journal of

Psychiatry & Law, 37, (1), 85-92.

Lie detector. (2013). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6

Edition, 1.

Lykken, D. T. (1985). Detecting deception. Society, 22(6), 34-39.

Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detector industry. American Psychologist,

29(10), 725-739.

McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of

employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79(4), 599-616.

Meijer, E. H., &Verschuere, B. (2010). The polygraph and the detection of deception,

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(4), 325-328.

New rules govern polygraph tests. (1988). American Banker’s Association Banking

Journal, 80(7), 6-7.

Office of Technology Assessment (1983). Scientific validity of polygraph testing: A

research review and evaluation. Washington, DC: US Government Printing

Office.

Podlesny, J. A., & Raskin, D. C. (1977). Physiological measures and the detection of

deception. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 782-799.

Podlesny, J. A., & Truslow, C. M. (1993). Validity of an expanded- issue (modified

general question) polygraph technique in a simulated distributed- crime-roles

context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 788-797.

Reaves, B. A. (2010). Local police departments, 2007. Retrieved from U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov./content/pub/pdf/ pd07.

pdf

Sanders, B., Hughes, T., & Langworthy, R. (1995). Police officer recruitment and

selection: A survey of major police departments in the U.S. Police Forum, 5, 1-4.

Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests the application of

scientific standards post- daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203-

223.

Saxe, L., Doutherty, D., & Cross, T. (1985). The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific

analysis and public controversy. American Psychologist, 40(3), 355-366.

Slavkovic, A. (2002). Evaluating polygraph data. Department of Statistics, Paper 186.

http://repository.cmu.edu/statistics/186.

Szucko, J. J., & Kleinmuntz, B. (1981). Statistical versus clinical lie detection. American

Psychologist, 36(5), 488-496.

Thurber, S. (1981) CPI variables in relation to the polygraph performance of police

officer candidates. Journal of Social Psychology, 113(1), 145-146.

United States v. Cordoba, 194 F.3d 1053 (1999).

United States v. Frye, 293 F 1013. (1924).

United States v. Schaeffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998).

United States Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on

Government Information and Foreign Operations. (1965). Use of polygraphs as

‘lie detectors’ by the federal government (House Report No. 198). Washington,

DC: US Government Printing Office.

US Congress. (1983). Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and

Evaluation A Technical Memorandum. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology

Assessment, OTA-TM-H-15.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Law enforcement management and administrative

statistics, 2000. Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.Gov/

content/pub/pdf/lemas

Warner, W. J. (2005). Polygraph testing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 74(4), 10-13.

Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness

nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 776-784.

Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from

incrimination and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Applied, 8(3), 155-167.

White, R. D., Jr. (2001). Ask me no questions, tell me no lies: Examining the uses and

misuses of the polygraph. Public Personnel Management, 30(4), 483-493.

Woska, W. (2006, October). Police officer recruitment: A public-sector crisis. The Police

Chief, 73(10).

Yeschke, C. L. (1965). Ethics and the polygraph examiner. Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology & Police Science, 56(1), 109-112.

Appendix

Survey

The purpose of this study is to investigate the procedures that are used as part of

the law enforcement employee selection process. This research is being conducted by

Jessica Mark and Rebecca Mark of the Psychology Department, Rowan University, in

partial fulfillment of their M.A. degrees in School Psychology. Your participation in this

study will consist of answering the following questions and mailing the completed survey

in the enclosed, stamped, addressed envelope. There are no risks involved, and you are

free to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty. Your responses will be

kept anonymous. By taking this survey, you agree that any information obtained from

this study may be used in any way thought best for publication or education provided that

you are in no way identified, and your name is not used. Participation does not imply

employment with the State of New Jersey, Rowan University, the principal investigator,

or any other project facilitator. If you have any questions or problems concerning your

participation in this study, please contact Jessica Mark or Rebecca Mark at (856) 435-

0620 or their faculty advisor, Dr. Dihoff at (856) 256-4000 ext. 3783.

State:

________________________________________________________________________

Name of agency:

_______________________________________________________________

Size of agency: _______________________________________________________

Which of the following procedures do you use in the employee selection process? Check

all that apply and circle pre or post according to whether you use them as pre or post

conditional offer of employment:

_____Background investigation pre post

_____Criminal record check pre post

_____Driving record check pre post

_____Medical exam pre post

_____Drug test pre post

_____Physical agility test pre post

_____Credit history check pre post

_____Written aptitude test pre post

_____Personal interview pre post

_____Polygraph exam pre post

If you use the polygraph, please answer the following questions:

Who administers the polygraph exam?

Police Psychologist Chief of Police Other ____________

Who analyzes the polygraph exam results?

Police Psychologist Chief of Police Other ____________

Which polygraph machine is used? _____________________________________

Is the polygraph exam automated?

Yes No

How many polygraphs are administered to a single applicant?

1 2 More than 2

What is the scoring procedure of the polygraph exam?

Human Computerized Both

Describe the scoring procedure of the polygraph exam:

__________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

What is the selection/rejection rate for the polygraph exam?

__________________________________________________________________

Are the results of the polygraph exam disclosed to the applicant?

Yes No

_____ Psychological evaluation/Personality inventory pre post

If you use any type of psychological evaluation/personality inventory, please

answer the following questions:

Check all that apply:

_____ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI, MMPI-2,

or MMPI-A)

_____California Personality Inventory (CPI)

_____Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI)

_____Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI,

NEO-PI-R, or NEO-FFI)

_____Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

_____Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)

_____16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)

_____Clinical Analysis Questionnaire (CAQ)

_____Rorschach

_____Other: Name other tests_________________________________________

Who administers the psychological evaluations/personality inventories?

Police Psychologist Chief of Police Other__________

What is the selection/rejection rate for the psychological evaluations/personality

inventories?

__________________________________________________________________

Are the results of the psychological evaluations/personality inventories disclosed

to the applicant?

Yes No

Please number the following procedures in the order that you administer them during the

selection process. Leave blank if the procedure is not used:

_____Background investigation

_____Criminal record check

_____ Driving record check

_____Medical exam

_____Drug test

_____Physical agility test

_____Credit history test

_____Written aptitude test

_____Personal interview

_____Polygraph exam

_____Psychological evaluation/personality inventory

Do you allow appeals for any of the procedures of the selection process?

Yes No

Please describe the appeal process:

__________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

What is the overall selection/rejection rate of applicants? __________________________