Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
this approach was productive; therefore, they concluded that they were successful in utilizing the
SAT with deaf people.
For this paper, the use of only a single deaf individual in the two studies subject to review
suggests a problem of its own. It is possible that the participants have outstanding talent and serve
as an exception to the rule by being ‘fully functioning lipreaders’. If this is the case, the studies do
not represent the deaf population in the United States and Canada. The avoidance of ASL for
polygraph testing research must also be questioned. If deaf people are known for being signers, it
should have been embraced as an alternative linguistic and communicative behavior as part of the
diversity and differences that prevail throughout society. The lack of knowledge regarding ASL
interpreters by the researchers seems to have set them on a course of formulating unnecessary
measures, including having deaf individuals engage in speechreading.
Up to now, the practice of using speechreading for deaf people to undergo a polygraph
examination has not been challenged, at least explicitly. Ansley (2008) raised the concern about
how deaf examinees must physically face the polygraph examiner for speechreading purposes.
This allows the examinees to see the examiner’s reactions to the chart and to the examinee’s
replies. This experience for the deaf examinees could skew the results. The fact that hearing
examinees are not allowed to watch the examiner’s face suggests the importance of this practice.
The bigger problem pertains to linguistic accessibility. ASL is known to be deaf people’s language
and the fact that ASL is a signed language seems to have been overlooked.
Polygraph Testing of Deaf Individuals with an Interpreter
The first known scholarly publication on the use of an ASL interpreter for polygraph testing
is Wagner (1979). This researcher utilized an interpreter for his polygraph examination study, and
he noted that this “method of testing can be efficient, complete and most of all, conclusive” (p.
256). Wagner also made the effort to state the importance of employing a competent interpreter,
such as a certified legal interpreter. A certified legal interpreter is bound by confidentiality, and
the examinee should be made aware of the interpreter’s requirement to maintain confidentiality.
The researcher added that when an interpreter is utilized, the examinee will not be facing the
polygraph examiner (thus avoiding the potential problems associated with reading the examiner’s
facial expression). The fact that Wagner recommended that the interpreter does not have a prior
relationship with the examinee is appropriate.
Ansley’s later 2008 study provides substantial information on the value of an ASL
interpreter for conducting polygraph examinations with deaf people. Specifically, the Vermont
State Police successfully polygraphed a 23-year-old deaf sexual assault victim. The person
interpreting was not a trained interpreter, but a principal at a school for the deaf who knew how to
sign. The deaf examinee in this case was allowed to answer yes or no by either slightly nodding or
shaking the head. Ansley noted that the Vermont State Police “took adequate time for preparation,
obtained assistance, and completed the examination” (p. 13).
The fact that the Vermont polygraph scenario did not have a trained interpreter must be
noted as a problem. In this case, however, the principal was likely fluent in ASL and may have
had a significant amount of informal interpreting experiences. Not all hearing signers are fluent or
have the skills associated with interpreting. Once again, Ansley as the researcher of the study
emphasized that it is crucial that an interpreter has the proper training in the skill of interpretation
and decision making processes (such as the Demand Control Schema: see Dean, 2014), and in the
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
7