Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
criminal behavior (Orr, 2015). During the administration of the polygraph test, the examiner will
ask a number of questions. Hearing these questions is an important asset, but, obviously, deaf
people will not be able to do so. The consequences can be serious. Polygraph examinations not
conducted in the proper manner with deaf individuals may unjustly disqualify them from holding
high security jobs or clearances, or may bring the individual to face unjust criminal sanctions, for
example.
Employing a certified legal ASL interpreter to help ensure that deaf individuals participate
in the polygraph testing process effectively may be the most sensible action to undertake. Some
researchers felt it valuable to consider using interpreters and others did not. More than one
researcher suggested that that deaf individuals could participate in the polygraph testing process
without the use of any interpreter. As part of better understanding the issues associated with the
polygraph testing and deaf people, it is necessary to become familiar with the Silent Answer Test
(SAT) method. The SAT requires the examinee to silently answer the question to him/herself when
undergoing a polygraph examination (Horvath & Reid, 1972). The polygraph examination
measures the body’s response to questions, not the answer itself. The examinee will need to sit on
a sensor pad, which is designed to detect the use of countermeasures to defeat the polygraph
examination by changing their physiological reactions. This method has been examined in over
4,000 specific issue cases concerning hearing people (Horvath & Reid, 1972).
Polygraph Testing of Deaf Individuals without an Interpreter
The presumption of effective function of speechreading can be identified as a flaw in the
work of researchers who examined the use of polygraphs with deaf people without any
consideration for ASL. This coincides with a negative attitude of these researchers towards
interpreting. For example, Matte (1980; 1996) cited interpreters as being biased, yielding to
bribes/blackmail, and being loyal to the deaf polygraph test participants, thus skewing their
responses. This assessment may be true when a co-worker or a family member is asked to help
facilitate communication between the polygraph examiner and the examinee. The potential level
of bias with a professional interpreter is likely to be different, however.
Matte’s 1980 and 1996 research studies investigated the particular approach that the
researcher himself developed in 1974 for working with deaf people. A 3x5 card was placed next
to the examinee’s right hand so that his/her arm would not move. The examinee could then tap the
card, which had various colored plus symbols to represent yes and various negative symbols to
answer no. The color of the symbol would be worked into the question so that the examinee would
know which color plus or negative symbol to touch. One deaf individual who participated in
Matte’s studies was instructed to read the polygraph examiner’s lips. Matte explained that his
approach was found to be “effective in eliminating countermeasure attempts by the subject, and
the need for an interpreter” (1980, p. 149).
Shurany and Chaves (2013) had similar reservations about the use of interpreters for deaf
individuals. These researchers, like Matte, asked one deaf individual who participated in the study
to read the polygraph examiner’s lips. Shurany and Chaves’ approach to administering the
polygraph is different from Matte’s. The deaf examinee performed absolutely silent responses (i.e.,
just thinking about whether to say yes or no). Shurany and Chaves cited research with the SAT
method where testing utilized a positive control technique where, in an exam, the examinee was
to “first answer with a subjective lie and then with a subjective truth” (p. 71). To the researchers,
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
6