Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
better.” The first female participant said that a “Certified Deaf Interpreter could be added so they
could be able to expand the message more, to be able to show the facial expressions and
movements, to make it more comfortable.” The fourth male participant noted that a CDI “would
be more visual and would be able to show the concept and interpret the concept more visually and
I could get a better understanding of what was asked.”
One female participant commented that the hearing polygraph examiner needs to learn sign
language. At face value, this might be taken to mean that she wanted him to learn her language.
However, we interpret this to mean that the participant would prefer direct communication instead
of going through an interpreter, which is understandable. The polygraph examiner would normally
interact with examinees directly with a common language in use. Deaf individuals have a similar
desire for this communicative set-up for the polygraph examination. Another female participant
added that she prefers conversing in ASL. A third participant commented “if there was a deaf
person who was already trained in providing polygraph examinations, because then we could have
direct communication with the deaf person who would sign the questions.” As the participants
commented, they would prefer direct communication of a polygraph examiner who could
communicate in ASL.
Discussion and Conclusion
As a result of the research conducted and reported in this paper, it is evident that providing
an ASL interpreter during a polygraph examination is effective. It is the status of ASL as a signed
language and how it operates as deaf people’s language which offers an explanation for why the
interpreter made a positive impact on the polygraph testing process during the second phase. With
the first phase (where the interpreter was not present), the faltering performance of many deaf
participants can be attributed to their lack of access to spoken language. Speechreading is a poor
or ineffective means for communication. The participants’ comments indicate their strong need
for communicating with ASL, which is understandable given that language constitutes a crucial
element for any human communication. The findings related to semi-lingualism also point to the
importance of ASL proficiency for deaf people’s participation in the polygraph examination.
The fact that the study was limited to two regions in one state and a small sample size of
14 people in the study must be noted. The current study is best described as an initial exploration
into the concept of linguistic accessibility that had not been adequately addressed in the research
literature. While the deaf participants in the study were diverse in age, education, ASL proficiency,
English literacy skills, and some ethnic diversity, there could have been a larger sample that
included more a diverse population. More controls are also desirable for future studies. One
example is investigating the polygraph testing performance of two groups of deaf participants that
share a similar background, with one group using an interpreter and the other without the use of
an interpreter. All participants would take the exam just once, and the variable of performance
improvement due to taking the exam twice would be removed.
The new focus on linguistic accessibility can include a specific investigation on the impact
of ASL proficiency among deaf polygraph test takers (e.g., by creating two groups with one not
possessing native or native-like ASL proficiency while the other does). An investigation on the
impact of a hearing interpreter vs. a deaf interpreter (or Certified Deaf Interpreter or CDI) is also
worthwhile. Finally, it is important to investigate the impact of a deaf person or a person who is
fluent in ASL who could conduct the polygraph examinations. This type of study would include
consideration of the fact that the examinees would watch the polygraph examiner signing, which
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
17