Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
polygraph. In a criminal investigation, for example, it would undergo another layer of quality
control.
Context of the Study
The research study took place in two different locations in Pennsylvania (PA): northeastern
PA and in southeastern PA. For recruiting participants, the researchers distributed both a flyer and
a video in ASL. These materials were sent to agencies and organizations connected with the deaf
community. Information about the study was posted on Facebook, as well as sent through Glide
and email. The research team was aware of the socio-cultural fact that the deaf community is close-
knit and often wary. The questionnaires were very personal, engendering fear of being exposed.
Many deaf individuals expressed discomfort with not using a nationally certified interpreter during
Phase I of the study. However, they also expressed discomfort with the possibility of already
knowing the nationally certified interpreter utilized in Phase II of the study. With the deaf
community being small, and the number of interpreters even smaller, deaf people often encounter
the same interpreters in different scenarios, which can at times be embarrassing. The deaf
researcher had to assure the deaf participants that their names would not be shared, nor would any
of their personal information be published, as they all were assigned pseudonyms for the study.
The contact information of the deaf researcher was on the recruitment flyer and in the ASL
video. Individuals interested in participating in the study were directed to contact the deaf
researcher via her work videophone, which is a device that simultaneously transmits and receives
both audio and video signals over telephone lines allowing communication in ASL (Borth, 2011).
Over 23 potential participants contacted the deaf researcher. These interested individuals were
further vetted as follows: if these potential participants had seizures, were pregnant, using certain
medications, under the influence, on probation, awaiting trial, and/or had heart complications, they
could not participate in the study. Individuals who suffer from these conditions are not able to take
a polygraph examination under normal circumstances as these factors could affect the
physiological response. The researcher asked each contact about the excluding criteria. Eight of
the people who were interested could not participate based on the excluding criteria. Others
declined further involvement, being afraid that others in the deaf community would find out they
participated in a polygraph examination.
Participants
Initially, a total of 15 deaf participants met the criteria of not having any of the
disqualifying medical/legal conditions. All 15 were invited to participate in the study. One
participant had to withdraw prior to the study due to a medical emergency. The selected deaf
participants were given a schedule for Phases I and II. The within-subjects design was chosen
because the number of times taking the polygraph does not affect the result of the polygraph. For
example, when polygraphs are given to law enforcement officers during the pre-employment
testing it is possible that a candidate could take multiple polygraphs with little time in between
testing. Moreover, fewer participants are needed in the within-subject design, it is less time-
consuming, and has more statistical power (Jackson, 2012). Additionally, because we are using
the same subject for both conditions, extraneous variables that are unique to the participants will
not impact the results.
The 14 participants in the subject pool are six males and eight females, and they were from
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
10