Validating Pre-Employment Screening Polygraph Examinations - Is It Possible?" - Jack Ogilvie - Associate Editor
back to article index

We know certain testing formats have been validated
for specific issue testing. That means, in broad
terms, that we can show a percentage for truthful
subjects (N.D.I.), untruthful subjects (D.I.) and
inconclusive (error rate?). Even though we may
disagree on which format is the most acceptable, I
think, for the most part, we can agree that if a
validated technique is used by an examiner trained in
the technique and proper procedures are followed, the
results should be valid.

We can't say, however, the same thing about pre-
employment testing. I may be wrong, but I do not
know of any technique or testing format that has been
researched as a pre-employment tool. I am not sure
it can be. I don't mean that they don't work, on the
contrary, I believe they do. I am just not sure if
it can be validated, and here is why.

Most of the research in polygraphy is done with
criminal specific testing. One of the methods of
doing that is to take a body of already completed
tests that used the format or technique being
researched. They have to have known outcomes and
meet other criteria as determined by the researcher.
The charts are then given to qualified examiners who
do a "blind" scoring. (ED. NOTE: the person scoring
is given a set of polygraph charts without knowing
anything about the case or questions and scores the
charts based upon the technique used which would be
identified on the charts). The examiners are trained
in the technique and scoring system used originally.
They, ideally, should come up with the same results
of the original examiners thus validating the
technique.

I understand that I over simplified and probably left
some steps out but please bear with me. The reason
this type of research works is that, at some point,
ground truth was established. Ground truth means that
the truth was obtained by other means, such as a
confession. You can't do that in pre-employment
testing.

Yes, we can say that the truth was obtained if we get
admissions after a subject fails a question then
admits to us he lied when confronted. On a pre-
employment test, we can never say with 100% certainty
that a subject was being truthful. On a specific
criminal test, if there is more than one suspect and
one is called truthful and the other is called
deceptive when a confession is obtained, hopefully
from the deceptive subject, we have also established
ground truth for the truthful person.

We can't say with any provable percentage that
subjects called truthful in pre-employment tests are
truthful. Most of us know that when running a pre-
employment test if the subject is not responding to
any of the relevant questions on the test that is a
good indicator that they are being truthful. We
can't prove it, however, with a known percentage. I
believe that percentage is high. What do you think?

I hope I haven't offended any of the researchers out
there by leaving steps out or over-simplifying the
process. That was not my intent. I would love it if
someone could show me scientific research relating to
pre-employment testing that gives a percentage of
accuracy or validity. I know pre-employment testing
works and is absolutely needed in, at the very least,
law enforcement hiring of potential officers,
deputies and agents.

If any one out there can think of a way to validate
pre-employment testing, please let us know. It might
get the EPPA (Employee Polygraph Protection
Act)repealed.

Copyright 2003 - The Polygraph Place. All Rights Reserved
You may link to this article, however, you cannot reprint this article without prior permission from the Polygraph Place.

What is a Polygraph? (FAQ)
Polygraph Associations || Polygraph Schools
Equipment & Software || Insurance || Home