Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
may prove to be problematic (as it is best to avoid watching the examiner’s face for the most valid
results). Yet it is possible to produce a video where the examiner signs and then have it viewed by
examinees. The examiner’s face in this case would be ‘locked’ and deemed as safe. The various
areas for investigation as outlined here should contribute to improving the communicative situation
for deaf people.
The researchers who conducted the current study recommend the use of the Silent Answer
Test with deaf people. While the participants in the study expressed how much they wanted to sign
as part of responding to the questions from the polygraph examiner, they seem to have managed
to remain silent. Deaf people may need special training during the pre-test session to prepare
themselves for the ‘unusual’ experience of not moving their hands or arms while still being
responsive to the questions. Recruitment of more deaf people participating in future studies will
be needed to support this recommendation further.
Perhaps the most important implication of the current study is its identification of the best
practice associated with polygraph testing with deaf people. If a polygraph examination is being
given to deaf people, the research team is recommending an ASL interpreter (i.e., legally certified
as discussed for the study) be utilized. In this sense, this study covering a sizable group of deaf
participants provides evidence for the common and universal basic human needs for effective
communication. The notion that a full natural language such as ASL must supersede
‘communication options’ represents a paradigm shift. Hopefully, the study’s findings as discussed
in this paper will produce a greater sensitivity among researchers for ASL and the concept of
linguistic accessibility. Awareness of these factors can easily be translated into additional research
work that provides direction in fulfilling deaf people’s capabilities with the polygraph examination
and in other communicative contexts.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Polygraph examiner Ken Davis for his time
and expertise. We would also like to thank Bloomsburg University student, Emily Potter for her
assistance transcribing the participant interviews.
References
Americans with Disabilities Act. (2014). Requirements: Effective communication. Retrieved
from https://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm
Andrews, J. F. (2013). Assessment and reading paradigms: A response to John Luckner.
American Annals of the Deaf, 158(4), 399. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0034
Ansley, N. (2008). Testing the physically handicapped. Polygraph, 37(3), 10-16.
Borth, D. (2011, February). Videophone. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/
technology/videophone
Cripps, J. H., & Supalla, S. J. (2012). The power of spoken language in schools and deaf students
who sign. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(16), 86-102.
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
18