Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integration of Pre-Employment Polygraph Screening into the Police Selection Process

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors provide a polygraph primer for police psychologists involved in law enforcement personnel selection. Law-enforcement pre-employment polygraph examinations are a decision-support tool intended to add incremental validity to the personnel selection process. Problems stemming from the use of the polygraph may be related to misunderstanding of the polygraph test and to field practices surrounding the use of polygraphy in the police selection process. Potential problems can result from ineffective selection of test issues, poorly constructed test questions and misguided policies surrounding the use of the polygraph. The authors review the history of polygraph screening, research, and field practices, and suggest that using polygraph results alone to disqualify a candidate from employment is a misguided field practice. Suggestions are offered for maximizing the decision-support value of the polygraph. Polygraph examination targets are discussed, with emphasis on selecting actuarially derived predictors associated with increased success in law enforcement training and job performance. The authors provide recommendations for field practice, and propose that police psychologists may be most suited to effectively integrate the polygraph results and information into the hiring recommendation process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aamodt MG (2004) Research in law enforcement selection. BrownWalker Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Aamodt MG, Custer H (2006) Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Exam 15(1):6–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Alder K (2007) The lie detectors, the history of an American obsession. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Testing and Materials International (2008). Committee E52 on Forensic Psychophysiology, http://www.astm.org

  • American Polygraph Association (2008). American Polygraph Association Download Policies and Acts, accessed 11/20/2008 at; http://www.polygraph.org/downloads

  • ASTM (2002). Standard Practices for Interpretation of Psychophsysiological Detection of Deception (Polygraph) Data (E 2229-02). ASTM International

  • Barland GH (1981) A validation and reliability study of counterintelligence screening test. Unpublished manuscript, Security Support Battalion, 902nd Military Intelligence Group, Fort Meade, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Barland GH (1999) Am Polygraph Assoc Newsletter 32(3):16–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Barland GH, Honts CR, Barger SD (1989) Studies of the accuracy of security screening polygraph examinations. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort McClellan, Alabama

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock B, Nelson R, Handler M (2008) A focused polygraph technique for PCSOT and law enforcement screening programs. The Police Polygraph Digest 2009:16–31, January

    Google Scholar 

  • Capps MH, Ansley N (1992) Comparison of two scoring scales. Polygraph 21(1):39–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa EJ, Adams HE (1981) The validity of the pre-employment polygraph examination and the effects of motivation. Polygraph 10(3):143–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina JM, Goldstein NB, Payne SC, Davison HK, Gilliland SW (2000) The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Pers Psychol 53(2):325–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels CW (2002) Legal aspects of polygraph admissibility in the United States. In: Kleiner M (ed) Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 327–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Handler M, Nelson R, Blalock B (2008) A focused polygraph technique for PCSOT and law enforcement screening programs. Polygraph 37(2):100–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris JC, Horner A, McQuarrie DR (2000) An evaluation of the criteria taught by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute for interpreting polygraph examinations. Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory. SSD-POR-POR-00-7272

  • Harwell EM (2000) A comparison of 3- and 7-position scoring scales with field examinations. Polygraph 29(2):195–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Honts CR (1991) The emperor′s new clothes: Application of polygraph tests in the American workplace. Forensic Rep 4:91–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Honts CR (1992) Counterintelligence scope polygraph (CSP) test found to be a poor discriminator. Forensic Rep 5:215–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Honts CR (2004) The psychophysiological detection of deception. In: Granhag P, Strömwall L (eds) Detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Honts CR (2005) Information gain for the psychophysiological detection of deception. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Conference in La Jolla, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Honts CR, Raskin DC (1988) A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. J Police Sci Adm 16:56–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Honts, CR, Amato SL (1999) The automated polygraph examination: Final report. Final report of U. S. Government Contract No. 110224-1998-MO. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University

  • Honts CR, Amato S (2007) Automation of a screening polygraph test increases accuracy. Psychol, Crime Law 13:187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz SW, Kircher JC, Honts CR, Raskin DC (1997) The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology 34:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher JC, Raskin DC (2002) Computer methods for the psychophysiological detection of deception. In: Kleiner M (ed) Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 287–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Kircher JC, Horowitz SW, Raskin DC (1988) Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law Hum Behav 12:79–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher JC, Woltz DJ, Bell BG, Bernhardt PC (1998) Final report: Effects of audiovisual presentations of test questions during relevant irrelevant polygraph examinations and new measures, unpublished manuscript available from the first author

  • Kircher JC, Kristjansson SD, Gardner MG, Webb A (2005) Human and Computer decision-making in psychophysiological detection of deception. Submitted to the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, unpublished manuscript available from the first author

  • Krapohl DJ (1998) A comparison of 3- and 7-position scoring scales with laboratory data. Polygraph 27(3):210–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapohl DJ (2002) The polygraph in personnel screening. In: Kleiner M (ed) Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 217–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapohl DJ (2006) Validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph 35(3):149–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapohl DJ, Cushman B (2006) Comparison of evidentiary and investigative decision rules: a replication. Polygraph 35(1):55–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapohl DJ, Stern BA (2003a) Principles of multiple-issue polygraph screening: a model for applicant, post conviction offender, and counterintelligence screening. Polygraph 32(4):201–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapohl DJ, Stern BA (2003b) The infamous James Alphonso Frye. Polygraph 32(3):188–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapohl DJ, Senter SM, Stern BA (2005) An exploration of methods for analysis of multiple-issue relevant/irrelevant screening data. Polygraph 34(1):47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Linehan JG (1978) An aspect of World War II use of the polygraph. Polygraph 7(3):233–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Linehan JG (1990) The Oak Ridge polygraph program 1946–1953. Polygraph 19(2):131–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykken DT (1998) A tremor in the blood: uses and abuses of the lie detector. Plenum Trade, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel MA, Whetzel DL, Schmidt FL, Maurer SD (1994) The validity of employment interviews: a comprehensive review and metaanalysis. J Appl Psychol 79(4):599–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl PE, Rosen A (1955) Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychol Bull 52(3):194–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menges PM (2004) Directed lie comparison questions in polygraph examinations: history and methodology. Polygraph 33(3):131–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Messig R, Horvath F (1995) A national survey of practices, policies and evaluative comments on the use of pre-employment polygraph screening in police agencies in the United States. Polygraph 24(2):57–131

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2003) The polygraph and lie detection. Committee to review the scientific evidence on the polygraph. Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R, Handler M, Krapohl D (2008) Brute force comparison: a Monte Carlo study of the objective scoring system version 3 (OSS-3) and human polygraph scorers. Polygraph 37(3):185–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Offe H, Offe S (2007) The comparison question test: does it work and if so how? Law Hum Behav 31:291–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podlesny JA, Truslow CM (1993) Validity of an expanded-issue (Modified General Question) polygraph technique in a simulated distributed-crime-roles context. J Appl Psychol 78(5):788–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinsey VL, Harris GT, Rice ME, Cormier CA (1998) Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin DC, Honts CR (2002) The comparison question test. In: Kleiner M (ed) Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskin DC, Barland GH, Podlesny JA (1978) Validity and reliability of detection of deception, contract 75-NI-99-0OOI, U. S. Government Printing Office, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U. S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed S (1994) Briefing on the Test of Espionage and Sabotage (TES), expansion and validation study: Retrieved on 03/13/2008 from; http://antipolygraph.org/documents/tes-expansion-validation.shtml

  • Research Division Staff (1997) A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats. Polygraph 26:79–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Division Staff (1998) Psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the test for espionage and sabotage. Polygraph 27:68–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Division Staff (2006). Federal psychophysiological detection of deception examiner handbook. Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (formerly the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute). Ft Jackson, SC. Retrieved 1-10-2007 from http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook-02-10-2006.pdf

  • Senter SM, Dollins AB (2003) New decision rule development: Exploration of a two-stage approach. (DoDPI01-P-0006). Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort Jackson, SC

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Herk M (1991) Numerical evaluation: Seven point scale +/- 6 and possivle alternatives; A discussion. Polygraph 20(2):70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2008) Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn. Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Lindsay RCL (1980) On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychol Bull 88:776–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Olson EA (2002) Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incrimination and exonerating behaviors. J Experimental Psychol: Appl 8:155–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American Association of Police Polygraphists, Waynesville, OH, USA

    Mark Handler

  2. Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Charles R. Honts

  3. Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, Fort Jackson, SC, USA

    Donald J. Krapohl

  4. Private Practice, Denver, CO, USA

    Raymond Nelson

  5. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA

    Stephen Griffin

Authors
  1. Mark Handler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles R. Honts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald J. Krapohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raymond Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephen Griffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Handler.

Additional information

Authors′ Note: The authors are grateful to Dr. Michael G. Aamodt, Dr. Stuart Senter, and Ben Blalock, for their thoughtful reviews and comments to earlier drafts of this paper. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Defense, the American Association of Police Polygraphists, or the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc. Questions and comments are welcome at polygraphmark@gmail.com.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Handler, M., Honts, C.R., Krapohl, D.J. et al. Integration of Pre-Employment Polygraph Screening into the Police Selection Process. J Police Crim Psych 24, 69–86 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-009-9050-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-009-9050-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation