The Effectiveness of Polygraph Testing in the Treatment of Sex Offenders
1. The Effectiveness of the Polygraph in
the Treatment of Sex Offenders
Natalie Boling
Argosy University, PHX
2. The polygraph is often used as an integrated
approach in sex offender treatment
Promotes honesty
Higher rate of self-disclosure
Increases accountability
6. Post-Conviction Polygraph in the Community and
Court: Raising the Bar on PCSOT examiners -
Blackstone
Found that the polygraph was an effective tool in sex
offender management and reoffending
Validation is questionable
Forensic Research, Inc. study gathered 8 research
projects run since 1980 to evaluate the validity and
reliability of polygraph testing
7. Supervision and Treatment of Juveniles with Sexual
Behavior Problems – Brandes & Cheung
Research conducted on the offenders opposition,
willingness and acceptance of the polygraph
Participants opinions varies
Method used JSBP su rvey
8. The Limits of the Polygraph – Faigman,
Feinberg and Stern
High rate of accuracy
Lack of uniformity
9. Sex Offender Treatment: Reconciling Criminal
Justice Priorities and Therapeutic Goals. – Farkas &
Miller
Polygraph important tool in gathering prior history
Verify the sex offenders truthfulness in the therapeutic process
Polygraph should be used as one facet of the treatment
10. The Current Role of Post-Conviction Sex Offender
Polygraph Testing - Kokish
Significant increase in disclosure
Issues of extracting false confessions
Recent Analysis shows 40% success
Increase between 60% -196% in disclosures of victims
and risky behavior
11. Polygraph Testing Leads to Better Understanding
Adult and Juvenile Offenders – Hindman & Peters
Study conducted in Oregon in 1988, 1994, and 1999
found similar results in disclosures of polygraphed
individuals
There are marked increase in disclosures of
polygraphed sex offenders
Anticipation of the polygraph test increases disclosures.
Increased disclosure of sexual histories among
polygraphed individuals
12. The Case Against the Use of Polygraph
Examinations to Monitor Post Conviction Sex
Offenders – Ben-Shakhar
Argues the use of the polygraph on its lack of value in
detecting lies
In 2002 it estimated that sex offenders were tested at a
rate of 70% in community based programs
Lacks theoretical basis
No methodologically sound studies to test the validity
or accuracy
13. The Case for Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders -
Grubin
Self-reporting increases with the use of the polygraph
Analyzed a test that spanned over a two year period
Increase of new disclosures that would be beneficial to
treatment
14. A Preliminary Study of the Contribution of Periodic
Polygraphed Testing to the Treatment and
Supervision of Sex Offenders – Madsen, Parsons
and Grubin
Created a study using participants who were already in
a treatment program
The study was conducted on two separate occasions
with the same participants
Found that offenders reported fewer offenses at the
second testing
Sex offenders in a small study found that polygraph
testing was beneficial in reducing reoffending
15. Application of the Polygraph Examination in the
Assessment and Treatment of Internet Sex
Offenders – Robilotta, Mercado & Degue
Found that the polygraph obtains much more
disclosures than any other self-report measure
Issue of false-negative and false-positive findings
It has limitations
16. Links in the Studies
The polygraph induces greater disclosure rates
Arguments regarding validity and accuracy of the
polygraph in terms of reliability
17. Limitations to Current Research and
Recommendations
Lack of conformity and uniformity among testing
procedures
Additional research should test re-test reliability
Not enough data to prove the polygraphs effectiveness
Recommend to further examine sex offender ability to
use counter measures
Use long-term study in regards to conformity
18. References
Ben-shakhar, G. (2008). The case against the use of the polygraph examinations to monitor post -conviction sex offenders. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 13(2), 191-192. Retrieved fro ProQuest.
Blackstone, K. (2008). Post-conviction polygraph in the community and court: Raising the bar on PCSOT examiners. Forensic Examiner 17.3: 72-79.
Retrieved from ProQuest Central.
Brandes, B.J. & Cheung, M. (2009). Supervision and treatment of juveniles with sexual behavior problems. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26:
179-196. Retrieved from ProQuest Central. doi: 10.1007/s10560-009-0170-4.
English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., Patrick, D., Cooley, Towell, S. (2000). The value of polygraph testing in sex offender management. Retrieved
from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199673.pdf...
Faigman, D., Fienberg, S., & Stern, P. (2003). The limits of the polygraph. Issues in Science and Technology. 20, 1. Retrieved from ProQuest Central.
Farkas, M. & Miller, G. (2008). Sex offender treatment: Reconciling criminal justice priorities and therapeutic goals. Federal Sentencing Reporter.
21.2. Retrieved from ProQuest Central
Grubin, D. (2008). The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 13, 177-189. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hindman, J. & Peters, J.M. (2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult and juvenile offenders. Federal Probation 65(3), 8-15.
Retrieved from http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Polygraph%20and%20Better%20Understanding%20of%20Sex%20Offenders%20 -
Hindman%20and%20Peters.pdf.
Kokish, R. (2003). The current role of post-conviction sex offender polygraph testing. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12(3)(4). Retrieved from
http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Kokish%20-%20Polygraph%20&%20SOT.pdf.
Lars, M., Parson, S. & Grubin, D. (2004). A preliminary study of the contribution of periodic polygraph testing to the treatm ent and supervision of
sex offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 15(4), 682-695. Retrieved from EbscoHost.
Picttrues retreives from
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=polygraph+limit&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=1541l3612l0l4146l15l13l0l0l0l1l439l3088l0.2.7.2.1l12l0&b av=on.2,or.r
_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1600&bih=644&wrapid=tlif133022665754710&um=1&ie=UTF -
8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=5qVJT56YFM_JiQK2sITbDQ
Robilotta, S., Mercado, C. & DeGue, S. (2008). Application of the polygraph examination in the assessment and treatment of i nternet sex offenders.
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8:4, 383-393. doi: 10.1080/15228930802199333.
Editor's Notes
The polygraph is an integral part of the sex offenders overall treatment. Sex offenders often deny or minimize their crimes. When the polygraph is used in conjunction with the sex offender’s planned treatment it can promote honesty; allows for a higher rate of self-disclosure; and in turn increases accountability
The use of the polygraph examination has allowed for more truthfulness between the sex offender and their therapist (Robilotta, Mercado & DeGue, 2008). Offenders themselves agree that knowing they will be tested promotes honesty (Kokish, 2003). When the sex offenders are more honest. When honesty is induced it may prevent reoffending of these individuals by testing and interpreting for any inconsistencies. Proponents of the polygraph in sex offender treatment also agree that the increase of honesty and the ability to garner historical data allows for a more precise treatment plan which will also limit the chances of re-offending (Hindman & Peters, 2001).
The purpose of the literature review was to address the question of how effective the use of the polygraph is in the treatment of sex offenders. This was done by reviewing ten peer-reviewed articles and critical evaluating the polygraphs effectiveness as part of the treatment process of sex offenders.
Although Blackstone (2008) found the polygraph was effective in the treatment of sex offenders he also states the limitations since he reports that it is only used in 11% of probation and parole officers bases on a 1994 national survey. Blackstone (2008) also purports a study conducted by Forensic Research, Inc. which had been run since 1980 where the results of 80 research projects were gathered to evaluate the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The strength of this study was the test re-test results proved that there is a 98% accuracy rate in the use of the polygraph and sex offenders (Blackstone, 2008).
Brandes and Chung (2009) conducted their research based on the sex offenders opposition to the approach, willingness to use the approach and how well they accepted the incorporation of the approach into treatment. While many participants felt the polygraph should only be used for offenders denying their offenses the majority of participants felt that he polygraph should be incorporated into overall treatment (Brandes & Cheung, 2009). The instrument that they used in this study was the JSBP survey which consisted of a 31 item questionnaire. The study included 112 participants (61 female and 51 male). There were not any major differences by gender, experience, or years of experience of the sample surveyed. The limitations of the study were the lack of test re-test for reliability and validity (Brandes & Cheung, 2009).
Faigman, et al, (2003) found that the true validity of the polygraph in testing is dependent on the purpose for what it was used. They found there is a lack of uniformity amongst the examinations and questions asked; therefore it is difficult to determine the accuracy rates. They did purport that there is a high rate of accuracy in identifying deception in light of technological advancements Faigman, et al. (2003) found in one study that out of 5,000 subjects that polygraph correctly identifies lies in 4,000 of the guilty but gains false reports in about 800 innocent subjects (Faigman, et al. (2003).
While Farkas and Miller (2008) agree that the polygraph is important in gathering prior history and verifying the sex offenders truthfulness in the therapeutic process they also believe it should only be used as one facet of the overall treatment plan .
Kokish (2003) found a significant increase in disclosure about their history of offenses among sex offenders when using the polygraph. He also found that there are issues of extracting false confessions. Kokish (2003) notes that in a recent meta-analysis there was a 40% treatment success rate for 5-10 years following a sex offender’s discharge. He also noted that there was an increase of victim disclosure or risky behavior between 60%-196% when comparing 180 offenders prior and following polygraph testing (Kokish, 2003).
Hindman and Peters (2001) followed a study conducted in Oregon in 1988, 1994, and 1999 which revealed similar results that polygraphed individuals reported more victims and they often offended as individuals. In one case study which consisted of 173 adult men in an outpatient program they averaged reporting 1.2 victims pretreatment in 1988 and increased to 2. in 1994 and then to 2.9 in 1999. They also found just the anticipation of the polygraph test increased disclosure rates among these 173 men. In a study where 98 sex offenders’ disclosures of their sexual histories were compared along with 129 polygraphed histories of sex offenders both group average disclosure of 1.25 victims prior to treatment. This number drastically changed when the offender knew they were going to be polygraphed to an average of 9 victims which was 6 times the number disclosed by those not polygraphed (Hindman & Peters, 2001). The strengths of this study is it test re-test reliability and validity based on the three consecutive studies in 1988, 1994 and 1999. The weakness would be the lack of the sample size (Hindman & Peters, 2001).
Ben-Shakhar (2008) argues against the case of the polygraph based on its lack of value in detecting lies and gaining information that the offender does not want disclosed. In 2002 it was estimated that sex offenders were tested using the polygraph at a rate of 70% in community based programs. There is a lack of theoretical basis and it has not foundation in psychological or psychophysiological research. Ben-Shakhar (2008) believes the polygraph has a deterrent value though he does not believe the polygraph as there have been no methodologically sound studies to test the validity or accuracy of its use (Ben-Shakhar, 2008).
Grubin (2008) analyzed research in the use of the polygraph in the treatment in sex offenders and it revealed that self-reporting of those offenders increased in response of the use of the polygraph. The test spanned over a two year period and was comprised of 347 sex offenders with a comparison sample that consisted of 180 offenders with a representation of 60% of sex offenders in treatment programs. The results revealed that here was an increase of new disclosures that would be of importance to treatment in 70% in those were polygraphed, in comparison to 14% of new self-disclosures of those not polygraphed (Grubin, 2008).
Madsen, Parsons & Grubin (2004) created a study using participants who were already in a treatment program. They conducted the study on two separate occasions with the same participants. They found that between he first polygraph test and the second that the offenders reported fewer offenses at the second testing. In a study that was conducted over a two year period they found the 69% of those men who were subject to regular polygraph testing refrained from reoffending while those who were not tested the rate reduced 26% re-offense rate. During a small survey that questioned sex offenders on the benefits of the polygraph 72% of them felt that it was beneficial in the prevention of reoffending (Madsen, et al., 2004).
Robilotta, Mercado and Degue (2008) have found that the polygraph is able to obtain much more disclosures from sex offenders than any other self-report measure. They also bring up the issue of false-negative and false-positive findings with the use of the polygraph and it is assessed that 6 to 9 percent of sex offenders have mad some sort of false disclosure. The feel that the polygraph can be useful in a treatment setting of a sex offender but has its limitations.
There is a definite agreement that the polygraph induces greater disclosure of history of the offender, which in turn aids in a better treatment outcome. The studies also demonstrated an agreement as to the validity and accuracy of the polygraph in terms of reliability due to lack of standardization amongst examiners and the examination itself(Ben-Shakhar, 2008; Blackstone, 2008; Brandes & Cheung, 2009; English, et al., 2000; Faigman, et al., 2003; Farkas and Miller, 2008; Grubin, 2008; Hindman & Peters, 2001; Kokish, 2003; Lars, et al. 2004; Robilotta, et al., 2008).
There is a definite lack of conformity and uniformity amount testing procedures(Faigman, et al, 2003). Additional research should be conducted to verify test and re-test reliability. As of now there is not enough data to unequivocally say that the polygraph is an effective tool in the treatment of sex offenders. A recommendation would be to examine further the sex offender’s ability to use counter measures when being examined. Further recommendations for research would be to us a long-term study in regards to conformity among examiners and examinations using standard protocols.
