Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
experience with having an interpreter.
Phase 1
During Phase I of this study with no interpreter being provided, only three out of the 14
participants (21%) were able to complete the full polygraph examination, including the pre-test
interview, polygraph examination, and the post-test interview. The reason for this small number
of participants making it the whole way through was that the examiner was not able to ethically
continue, due to lack of understanding and being unable to communicate with the deaf participants.
As such, 11 of the 14 participants’ polygraphs were marked as incomplete. There were
communication issues as seven of the participants stated they lacked the ability to read lips. The
examiner noted that during the examination one male participant commented that only a small
percentage of words made on the lips were speech-readable.
Of the three participants who were able to complete the polygraph examination in Phase I,
one female participant had a No Opinion (NO) chart and the other two female participants had a
No Significant Response (NSR) chart. As mentioned previously, only one participant scored the
NO on the exam. The main reason why this individual received this score was due to a large spider
that was seen on the floor. She was afraid of spiders and her feelings related to that affected the
charts on the polygraph examination (see Roth, Bentley-Sassaman, & Lizor, 2017 for more
information regarding this finding).
Phase II
In Phase II, with the use of a certified legal interpreter, 13 out of 14 (93%) of the polygraph
examinations were able to be completed. Twelve out of 13 of the polyscores concurred with the
examiner’s findings. The one time it did not, the polyscore had an NO, while the examiner had an
NSR. The one polygraph exam that was unable to be completed in both Phase I and Phase II was
conducted with a particular male participant. The researchers and polygraph examiner posit that
the communication breakdown was due to education level, reading ability, and lack of
understanding of the words and phrases as noted by the examiner. This participant scored a 2.9 on
the Flesch-Kincaid and used homemade signs along with ASL to communicate. The prevalence of
semi-lingualism affected this participant’s ability to complete the exam. Even with the use of an
interpreter, the lack of comprehension did not allow the examiner to continue with the examination
process.
The polygraph examiner disagreed with the polyscore’s rating of an NO for one female
participant. The polygraph examiner determined from the charts that the score should have been
an NSR, but the machine rated it as an NO due to some movement during her exam, specifically
during the last chart, which is why there was a discrepancy. This participant received an NO for
both polygraph examinations due to too much movement during the tests. The remaining 12
polyscores concurred with the examiner’s interpretation of the charts.
For two male participants, the polygraph charts were determined to be SR. These
participants failed the polygraph based on the computer’s algorithm, which concurred with the
examiner’s findings. In the post-test interview with the examiner, both participants admitted that
they were not forthcoming with all the information.
Two female participants, on the other hand, showed an NO, meaning No Opinion, due to
the fact that the first one became fidgety at the end of the exam, which skewed the reading. The
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
14