Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
the northeastern and southeastern regions of Pennsylvania. The participants’ ages ranged from 22
to 70 years old, with the mean age of 43 and the median age of 47. Approximately 85% of the
participants were white; one was Asian, and one was Hispanic.
The research team collected a series of language acquisition samples from the 14
participants by having them complete a booklet of questions for use during the polygraph exam
provide a writing sample, provide their educational background, and communication preference.
The language competency disclosed by the participants was as follows: eight were bilingual
(competent in both English and ASL); four were semi-lingual (not proficient in either English or
ASL). The situation for deaf people who are identified as semi-lingual is an important
consideration as these individuals may not possess the full capacity for linguistic comprehension
skills. They are not expected to communicate clearly using ASL without misinterpreting the
information given to them (see Andrews, 2013 for further discussion on semi-lingualism among
the deaf population). The last two deaf participants were bimodal/bilingual (can either speak or
sign and are competent in English and ASL).
Finally, the research team examined the participants’ educational level by inquiring about
their academic achievements: five participants earned a high school diploma as their highest level
of education; two participants attended trade school/some college credits; one participant was
currently enrolled in an undergraduate program; 1 participant received a Bachelor’s degree; 1
participant was currently enrolled in a graduate program; and 4 participants received a Master’s
degree.
Study Procedures
Prior to the study, the polygraph examiner emailed a copy of the Law Enforcement Pre-
Employment Test examination booklet to the research team. As the team is comprised of one active
law enforcement officer and two mandated reporters, certain questions had to be removed related
to mandated reporting, to maintain the goal of this study of examining the communication process
and not detecting previous criminal activity. Questions related specifically to employment in the
law enforcement field were also taken out or modified to talk about work in general. Further
modifications of wording were made to be more comprehensible to deaf individuals. One of the
researchers who is deaf and holds a doctoral degree was involved in the modification of questions.
After the questions were modified, the booklet was submitted for IRB approval and given to the
polygraph examiner to use during the testing. The study took place in two different months, July
(Phase I) and August (Phase II).
Prior to the study, the polygraph examiner met via conference call with the research team
members to go over the process. During that time, the research team members who have experience
working with deaf populations gave the examiner tips on how to communicate with those who
have a hearing loss. One of the items that was discussed was facial hair. When a deaf person needs
to read lips, facial hair makes it harder to see the lips. The examiner noted that he had recently
shaved his beard and moustache to resolve this issue.
Phase I. The first phase of the study was conducted over a four-day period in both the
northeastern location and the southeastern location of PA. The participants were able to choose
which location they preferred. Prior to agreeing to participate, the participants were told that there
would be no nationally certified interpreter present during the first phase and they had to
speechread to understand the examiner throughout the process. When the participants arrived, they
were greeted by a member of the research team who could communicate in ASL. The participants
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
11