Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
understanding of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) Code of Professional Conduct
(RID, 2004).
In another study, Roberson, Russell, & Shaw (2011) conducted a study on legal interpreters
in North America and noted that interpreters who have taken specialized legal interpreter training
and who have “appropriate qualifications” are “better equipped and prepared to handle the
complexities of language and dynamics of the courtroom” (p. 67). If an interpreter is inadequate
to interpret in the legal setting, perhaps due to lack of training, there could be “dire consequences
for the [d]eaf litigants and defendants” (p. 67). The lack of training and understanding of legal
terminology, courtroom dynamics, processes and protocols can lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations. What has been described for the legal setting in general is similar to the
polygraph examination in terms of gravity and seriousness. Interpreters with specific qualifications
must be used concerning deaf people.
For the polygraph testing research with deaf people as a whole, researchers have conflicting
opinions about how to conduct the examinations. This remains a serious problem. There are
researchers advocating speechreading alongside those who advocate ASL and interpreting,
without any conversations between the two groups. It appears that this lack of communication
across the field is preventing researchers from investigating what is best for deaf people in regard
to taking the polygraph test. For the best results, communication options must be made available
for deaf people. At first glance, providing deaf individuals a choice between speechreading and
ASL may seem appropriate, but we need to proceed thoughtfully. The research community needs
to take one step back and think about how hearing individuals do not have a choice when it comes
to spoken language modality use for the polygraph examination. Moreover, the test is given in
English with English speakers. The same holds true for Spanish or any other spoken language.
With deaf people, ASL should be used in administration, like any other language.
In addition, the research community needs to think carefully about the impact of its work
on society at large. With the current research, if someone were to look up literature on how best to
administer a polygraph examination to a deaf individual, they would likely uncover confusion
surrounding the topic. This is not a good outcome of research. The appropriate and much needed
question for research is thus: What constitutes the best practice concerning the polygraph testing
procedure for deaf people?
Methods
The study undertaken in this paper represents a new direction for polygraph testing research
with deaf people. The investigation attempts to address the question of best practice and provide
evidence on the effectiveness of ASL and interpreting as compared to speechreading with English.
The design of having members of the deaf community undergo the polygraph examination with
and without an ASL interpreter is unprecedented and should produce insightful results. For Phase
I of the study, deaf participants were expected to read the polygraph examiner’s lips for most of
the time, along with notetaking with the polygraph examiner, if needed, for example. For Phase II
of the study, the same group of participants took the exam again, this time, with the provision of
an interpreter. The participants could watch ASL in use. The participation of multiple deaf people
in the study helps contribute to the credibility of the findings and conclusions on linguistic
accessibility as compared to the use of one participant, for example.
This research project was approved through the Bloomsburg University Institutional
Review Board, serial number 2016-46. The research team consisted of three faculty members from
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
8