In the field of polygraphy, the questions posed during an examination are crucial for determining the veracity of a subject’s responses. This article addresses fourteen different techniques for polygraphic questioning, aiming to provide examiners with a clear and practical guide on how to select and structure relevant and comparative questions.
- Context and Techniques Used
A recent meta-analytic study has validated fourteen different polygraphic techniques, each of which meets specific inclusion criteria. It is important to highlight that some of these techniques go by multiple names. For example, the Test of Espionage and Sabotage (TES) is also known as the Directed Lie Screening Test (DLST). Similarly, the YouPhase technique is often referred to as BiZone.
In the context of comparative questions, there exists a family of techniques known as Comparative Zone Techniques (ZCT), which includes the Federal ZCT and the three-question format from Utah. Additionally, there are two versions of the AFMGQT, one of which is structurally similar to the four-question format from Utah, although it is used differently.
- Structure of Questions and Associated Rules
Different test formats have associated rules that guide the selection of comparative questions when scoring each relevant question numerically. For instance, in the Federal YouPhase/BiZone format, relevant questions are commonly placed in positions 5 and 7 within the sequence of questions. They are evaluated by comparing each relevant question with the adjacent comparison question that produced the greatest change in physiological activity.
In contrast, the Federal ZCT format, which includes three relevant questions in positions 5, 7, and 10, is scored by comparing question 5 with the adjacent comparison questions in positions 4 and 6. Questions 7 and 10 are evaluated solely against the preceding comparison questions.
- Diagnosis vs. Exploration
A crucial distinction in the use of polygraphic techniques is the difference between diagnostic and exploratory tests. Diagnostic tests are conducted in response to a known incident or allegation, aiming to determine the subject’s involvement in that incident. Since the results of these tests may influence critical decisions, it is essential to use techniques that offer high precision.
In contrast, exploratory tests are performed in the absence of a specific problem and aim to identify potential issues before they escalate into more complex situations. This type of testing benefits from increased sensitivity and focuses on assessing a variety of possible problems.
- Relevant and Comparative Questions
4.1 Relevant Questions
Relevant questions are directly related to the topic at hand and should be formulated clearly and specifically. For example, a relevant question might be: “On March 12, did you steal the cash register from the store?”
4.2 Comparative Questions
Comparative questions are used to establish an emotional context and should be formulated to allow for the evaluation of the subject’s reaction. An example might be: “Have you ever taken something that did not belong to you in the past?”
- Evaluation and Selection of Questions
5.1 Selection Process
The process of selecting questions should follow a systematic approach. This involves identifying the examination’s objective, formulating relevant questions, reviewing and adjusting the questions as necessary, and finally selecting the appropriate comparative questions.
5.2 Heuristics for Selecting Comparative Questions
When selecting comparative questions, the following heuristics should be considered:
- Do not evaluate a relevant stimulus against a comparison question if there are artifacts in the data.
- Whenever possible, evaluate each relevant stimulus against the two adjacent comparison questions, choosing the one that produces the greatest physiological change.
- Paired relevant questions may be evaluated against preceding or subsequent comparison questions.
- Conclusions
The effectiveness of relevant and comparative questions in polygraphy depends on their formulation and the context in which they are used. Understanding the techniques and their application can help examiners make more precise and effective assessments. By following the established heuristics and principles, examiners can improve the quality of their examinations and contribute to a deeper understanding of the subject’s credibility.
Recent Comments