Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing

In 1970, David Raskin, a psychologist and researcher at the University of Utah, began a study of the probable lie comparison question polygraph technique. Raskin and his colleagues systematically refined the elements of polygraphy by determining what aspects of the technique could be scientifically proven to increase validity and reliability (Raskin & Honts 2002). Their efforts culminated in the creation of what is known today as the Utah approach to the Comparison Question Test (CQT), an empirically consistent and unified approach to polygraphy. The Utah-CQT, was traditionally employed as a single issue Zone Comparison Test (ZCT). It is amenable to other uses including multi-facet testing of a single crime issue, as a Modified General Question Technique (MGQT) format, or as a multiple-issue (mixed-issue) General Question Technique (GQT). The Utah-CQT and the corresponding Utah Numerical Scoring System (Bell, Raskin, Honts & Kircher, 1999; Handler, 2006) resulted from over 30 years of scientific research and scientific peerreview. The resulting technique provides some of the highest rates of criterion accuracy and interrater reliability of any polygraph examination protocol (Senter, Dollins & Krapohl, 2004; Krapohl, 2006) when applied in an event-specific testing situation. The authors discuss the UtahCQT using the Probable Lie Test (PLT) as well as the lesser known Directed Lie Test (DLT) and review some of the possible benefits offered by each method. Test Structure and Administration The Utah-CQT begins as other testing procedures do, with the pre-test interview, accomplished in a non-accusatory manner. The examiner should obtain the necessary test release that includes a brief statement of allegations or issues to be resolved, and if applicable, a statutory rights waiver and then collects general biographical and medical information from the test subject. Rapportbuilding discussion gives the examiner a chance to evaluate the test subject’s suitability for the examination. Interaction with the test subject also gives the examiner the chance to do a rough assessment of the test subject’s verbal and mental abilities that will later be used to help word the examination questions. In the PLT version, the examiner uses this period of conversation to develop material for comparison questions to be used during the testing phase of the examination, although the nature of the issues to be resolved usually dictates the general content of the comparison questions. The examiner does not, however, lecture the test subject regarding past transgressions during this comparison question material review. This portion of the interview is conducted with open-ended questions and the careful use of suggestions as opposed to an interrogation of past deeds. The version of this paper originally published in Polygraph was rewritten with greater detail for the journal European Polygraph, and the authors recommended the more detailed article for republication in Polygraph for this special edition. It appears here with the kind permission of the authors and the Editor of European Polygraph. The citation is: Handler, M. & Nelson, R., (2008). Utah approach to comparison question polygraph testing. European Polygraph, 2(2), 83-110. The authors thank David Raskin, Charles Honts, Don Krapohl, John Kircher and Frank Horvath for their thoughtful reviews and comments to an earlier drafts of and revisions to this paper. 15 Polygraph, 2009, 38(1) Utah Approach to CQT The examiner points out any monitoring or recording devices in the examination room and explains the purpose for having the exam monitored and/or recorded. In the Utah-CQT approach all examinations should be recorded in their entirety. In an age in which video and audio recording technology is easily available and fully integrated into all modern field polygraph systems, there is no reason to forgo the advantages of a complete video and audio recording of all polygraph examinations. It is only through complete recordings that meaningful quality assurance is possible. Frankness regarding monitoring devices helps assure the test subject the test will be conducted in a professional manner and may assist in convincing the test subject that the examiner is being open and truthful. Brief explanation of any quality assurance program also assists in establishing a professional and trustworthy atmosphere. The examiner advises the test subject of the general nature of the allegations and the specific issues to be resolved by the examination. The test subject is then given the opportunity to provide a “free narrative” to discuss his or her knowledge of and/or role in the incident. The goal of the free narrative discussion is to obtain information from the test subject without confrontation or undue stress. In general the examiner should allow the test subject to tell his or her story without interruption. The examiner informs the test subject of the case facts in a low-key approach and should advise the test subject that these are allegations and ensure the test subject understands the difference between allegations and facts known to be true. The examiner should note inconsistencies or other matters to which he or she may wish to return once the test subject finishes the narrative. The examiner does not argue with the test subject nor does the examiner challenge the test subject’s version of the case facts. The examiner encourages the test subject to be candid in order to formulate the test questions in a succinct and clear manner. In polygraph screening or monitoring programs (i.e., LEPET, security, PCSOT), the Utah-CQT may be used as a mixed-issue (multiple-issue) examination, similar to the AFMGQT, in the absence of a known allegation or known incident. In these programs discussion of the known allegation or known incident will be replaced with a structured interview protocol, which addresses content areas pertinent to the risk or compliance issues under investigation. It should be noted that these applications of polygraph testing have not been investigated as thoroughly as other uses, and scientific investigation and verification of such uses are more limited. This low key, non-accusatory approach presents the examiner as a neutral seeker of the truth and helps to allay fears of preconceived guilt. If there are inconsistencies or other matters that require follow-up or clarification before the examination, they are discussed at this time in a nonconfrontational fashion. After the narrative and the discussion of any other issues, the components are placed on the test subject. During this process, the functions of various polygraph component sensors are discussed, and a general explanation of the psychophysiology that underlies the polygraph test is provided. This may be done through a general discussion of the anecdotes that illustrate psychophysiological responding and various possible causes of arousal (Handler & Honts, 2007). The goal of this portion of the interview is to ensure in the test subject an understanding that lying will inevitably be associated with physiological response. Once the components are placed on the test subject, the examiner conducts an acquaintance test. The acquaintance test is generally a known solution peak of tension test that is used to demonstrate the efficacy of the polygraph examination. Other approaches to the acquaintance test are not prohibited and would not invalidate an examination. In the known-solution acquaintance test, the test subject is told to select a number such that there will be some additional or padding questions before and after the selected number. This can be accomplished by directing the test subject to select a number between 3 and 6 and write that number on a piece of paper. The paper may then be Polygraph, 2009, 38(1) 16