Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
interview was video recorded, to visually capture the language used, ASL.
Phase II. The same participants from Phase I participated in Phase II. Upon arrival for
Phase I participants were asked to choose their test date and time for their polygraph exam for
Phase II. Phase II was conducted approximately one month after Phase I. The second phase took
place in the same locations as Phase I. Phase II included the use of a nationally certified legal
interpreter who was given the booklet ahead of time and who met with the polygraph examiner
during Phase I to go over any questions that she had. The polygraph process was the same in Phase
I and Phase II. All exams began with the pretest, which was going through the pre-employment
polygraph booklet that the participants filled out in Phase I.
When the participants arrived, they did not need to view the videos again or fill out the
consent forms. This time the participants were led back to the examiner and the pre-test began
utilizing the same booklet from Phase I. The pre-test was now communicated using the interpreter
who was from the southeastern part of PA. The interpreter travelled to the northeastern location
for the first two days of testing. When the testing was concluded in this part of the state, the
polygraph examiner, the interpreter for the polygraph examiner, the research team, and the
interpreter for the deaf researcher traveled to the southeastern location for two more days of
polygraph examinations.
The polygraph examiner commented that in Phase II rapport building was minimal as he
was already familiar with the participants. When the polygraph examination process was
completed (it was the same as Phase I, with the addition of an interpreter), the participants were
asked to provide a writing sample to which the team applied the Flesch-Kincaid scale to determine
the participants’ reading levels. When the sample was completed, the participants were
interviewed again by the deaf researcher to follow up on the experiences now that an interpreter
had been provided. After the interview, participants were provided a stipend of $60 for their
involvement in the study. They had to participate in both phases to receive the stipend. Prior to the
beginning of the study, participants were advised that they would receive the stipend no matter the
outcome of the polygraph examination.
Results
The researchers had posited that the deaf participants would prefer the use of a certified
legal interpreter during the polygraph examination. The interview responses supported this
prediction. The participants expressed a strong appreciation for the provision of an interpreter over
the other session where no interpreter was provided. While the polygraph examiner had the choice
of pointing to the written materials, writing notes, and speaking for the most optimal
communication possible, the comments from the deaf participants suggest that speechreading was
their primary means of following and participating in the polygraph testing process. The
participants’ comments are clear about how the interpreter facilitated the polygraph examiner’s
communication with them. This is seen as a factor that can improve the participants’ chances for
successful completion of the exam. The results of how many participants completed the exam
across Phase I and Phase II are dramatic. The number of completed exams was increased by 71%
from Phase I to Phase II. The interviews from Phase I and Phase II were analyzed for common
themes among the participants. The themes were identified based on their specific comments and
the number of times a particular theme arose during the post-examination interview. Two of the
three researchers independently examined the interview transcripts to identify themes. The
common themes found were related to the polygraph process, their communication needs, and the
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
13