Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES): Security Guide

Defining the TES Within the Polygraph Discipline

The Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES) is a specialized polygraph examination format developed by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) specifically for counterintelligence applications within the United States federal government [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format. Around 1992, DoDPI began developing the TES as an improved screening format to replace the older Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP) [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. By fiscal year 1994, all DoD agencies had switched from the CSP to the TES for security screening [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Unlike general-purpose polygraph tests, the TES focuses exclusively on detecting deception related to activities that directly threaten national security — namely espionage, sabotage, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and unreported foreign contacts that could compromise intelligence assets or operations. It is one of the most targeted and structured polygraph formats used in government screening programs.

The TES sits alongside other examination formats such as the Expanded Scope Polygraph (ESP), also called the Full-Scope or Lifestyle Polygraph, which covers additional topics including drug use, criminal activity, and personal conduct [6]Verified ICPG 704.6 — Conduct of Polygraph Examinations for Personnel Security Vetting
Confirms the three types of personnel security polygraph examinations (CSP, ESP, SIP) and topics covered by counterintelligence scope examinations. Under Intelligence Community Policy Guidance 704.6, there are three types of polygraph examinations authorized for personnel security vetting: the Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP), the Expanded Scope Polygraph (ESP), and the Specific Issue Polygraph (SIP) [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits. The TES format is the standardized approach for administering the CSP examination.

Historical Development of the TES

The development of the TES was driven by research demonstrating significant weaknesses in the earlier CSP format. A landmark 1995 DoDPI study found that the traditional CSP format with probable-lie comparison questions had an unacceptably low guilty detection rate of only 43.2%, despite achieving a 94.9% innocent detection rate [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format. This dramatic asymmetry — where more than half of deceptive examinees were incorrectly classified as truthful — prompted DoDPI to develop the TES as a more structured and reliable alternative.

The TES introduced several critical innovations over the CSP format: the number of issues tested per sub-test was reduced, question repetitions were standardized to three, between-test stimulation was eliminated, question order within sequences was made constant, and directed-lie comparison (DLC) questions replaced probable-lie comparison questions [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. These changes significantly improved detection accuracy.

A follow-up DoDPI study reported that the TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees in mock screening conditions [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. An earlier comparison study found that the TES format with its DLC questions was significantly more accurate at identifying deceptive examinees than either of the two CSP formats tested [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format. For a deeper look at the older format the TES replaced, see our guide to the Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP).

Today, the TES is governed by federal standards established by the Department of Defense, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and individual administering agencies. All federal polygraph examiners who administer the TES must be trained and certified by the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina [8]Verified Aldrich Ames — Federal Bureau of Investigation Famous Cases
Confirms Ames was a CIA officer arrested in 1994 for espionage; he passed two polygraph exams while spying for the Soviet Union. The NCCA — formerly the DoDPI — provides graduate-level education in polygraph operation, with students completing a 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate-level college credits, followed by a six-month to one-year internship [8]Verified Aldrich Ames — Federal Bureau of Investigation Famous Cases
Confirms Ames was a CIA officer arrested in 1994 for espionage; he passed two polygraph exams while spying for the Soviet Union.

Core Counterintelligence Objectives

The TES was created to serve several critical counterintelligence functions within the federal government's personnel security framework. Under ICPG 704.6, counterintelligence scope polygraph examinations shall cover the topics of espionage, sabotage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure or removal of classified information (including to the media), unauthorized or unreported foreign contacts, and deliberate damage to or malicious misuse of U.S. Government information systems or defense systems [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

The primary purposes of the TES include:

Detection of espionage activities — Identifying individuals who have provided, or are providing, classified information to foreign intelligence services, hostile governments, or unauthorized entities.

Uncovering sabotage — Detecting whether an individual has engaged in deliberate acts to damage, destroy, or disrupt U.S. government operations, military infrastructure, or defense systems.

Identifying unauthorized disclosures — Determining whether an individual has shared classified or sensitive information with unauthorized persons, whether intentionally or through gross negligence.

Revealing unreported foreign contacts — Discovering foreign relationships or associations that the individual has failed to disclose as required by their security clearance obligations.

The importance of these objectives is underscored by historical espionage cases. Aldrich Ames, a CIA counterintelligence officer convicted of espionage in 1994, passed two polygraph examinations in 1986 and 1991 while actively spying for the Soviet Union [9]Verified A Review of the FBI's Performance in Deterring, Detecting, and Investigating the Espionage Activities of Robert Philip Hanssen (DOJ OIG Special Report)
Confirms Hanssen was never asked to submit to a polygraph during his 25-year FBI career; his arrest prompted expanded FBI polygraph programs. Robert Hanssen, described as the most damaging spy in FBI history, was never subjected to a polygraph examination during his 25-year FBI career, despite his extraordinarily broad access to sensitive intelligence information [10]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — National Academy of Sciences
Confirms NAS finding that polygraph screening may be useful for deterrence and admissions, and that no alternative has outperformed the polygraph for screening. Hanssen's arrest in 2001 prompted the FBI to make polygraph examinations part of the standard background reinvestigation and to implement aperiodic random polygraph programs [10]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — National Academy of Sciences
Confirms NAS finding that polygraph screening may be useful for deterrence and admissions, and that no alternative has outperformed the polygraph for screening. These cases demonstrate both the critical importance and the ongoing challenges of counterintelligence polygraph programs. For more on lie detectors and national security, see our dedicated guide.

The TES as a Deterrent and Screening Tool

Beyond direct detection, the TES functions as a significant deterrent mechanism. The 2003 National Academy of Sciences report acknowledged that polygraph screening may be useful for deterring security violations, increasing the frequency of admissions of such violations, and deterring employment applications from potentially poor security risks [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. The NAS noted that such utility derives in part from beliefs about the procedure's validity [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

The NAS also found that no alternative technique had been shown to outperform the polygraph for screening purposes [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. At the same time, the NAS report observed that the scientific basis of polygraph testing has limitations and that accuracy for screening in low base-rate populations presents inherent challenges [12]Verified Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing
Confirms research quality has not significantly improved since the NAS report and that the report's conclusions remain valid. These findings highlight the importance of using the TES as one component of a multi-layered security vetting process — not as a standalone decision-making tool — and the need for continued research to improve screening methodologies [13]Verified Test of Espionage and Sabotage (TES) Expansion and Validation Study
Confirms TES validation with 304 examinees and 27 certified federal examiners, and modifications to improve field applicability.

The TES also plays a valuable role in generating admissions during the examination process. When an individual's polygraph results are combined with background investigations, financial disclosures, and other vetting procedures, they create a comprehensive picture of the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

Relevant Questions (R)

Relevant questions are the core of the TES examination. These questions address the specific national security concerns being investigated — espionage, sabotage, unauthorized disclosures, and foreign contacts. They are designed to elicit a measurable physiological response if the examinee is being deceptive about the topic.

The TES uses four relevant questions distributed across two sub-tests, with each sub-test containing two relevant questions [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. Each relevant question is carefully worded to be clear, unambiguous, and answerable with a simple yes or no. The specificity of these questions ensures that the physiological data collected can be meaningfully interpreted.

Directed-Lie Comparison Questions (DLC)

Directed-lie comparison questions require the examinee to answer dishonestly on purpose. The examiner instructs the examinee to lie in response to these questions, which are unrelated to espionage or sabotage. For example, an examinee might be asked about minor past behaviors such as traffic violations, and then instructed to deny them [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

The adoption of DLC questions within the TES marked a significant methodological advancement over the earlier CSP format. The older format used probable-lie comparison (PLC) questions, which required the examiner to select comparison topics based on assumptions about the examinee's behavior [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. The DLC approach standardized this component by instructing the examinee to lie deliberately, removing much of the subjectivity from comparison question selection. DoDPI research demonstrated that TES examiners using DLC questions were significantly more accurate at identifying deceptive examinees than CSP examiners using either PLC or DLC questions [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format.

Because the examinee knows they are lying, DLC questions reliably produce measurable stress responses. If the relevant question responses significantly exceed the DLC responses in intensity, this suggests genuine deception about the counterintelligence topics.

Sacrifice Relevant Questions (SR)

Sacrifice relevant questions serve a transitional function within the test sequence. They introduce the general topic area without addressing the most sensitive or critical issues. These questions are expected to produce some level of heightened response simply because they reference the security topic, and they are therefore not scored.

Their purpose is to absorb the initial stress response that occurs when the examinee first encounters the relevant topic, allowing subsequent relevant questions to produce more diagnostically useful data. In the TES expansion and validation study, sacrifice relevant questions were reworded to improve applicability to field conditions [14]Verified Considering National, Cultural, and other Features of Kazakh-Speaking Subjects of Polygraph Examinations
Foundational research on cultural considerations affecting polygraph question comprehension and administration.

Irrelevant Questions (I)

Irrelevant questions carry no emotional weight and are not scored. They are neutral, factual questions such as confirming the examinee's name or current location. These questions serve to establish the examinee's baseline physiological state — what their heart rate, respiration, and skin conductivity look like when they are answering simple, truthful questions with no emotional content.

The baseline data from irrelevant questions provides a reference point that helps the examiner interpret responses to other question types.

Symptomatic Questions (SYM)

Symptomatic questions are designed to identify whether the examinee has concerns about topics outside the scope of the TES that may be influencing their physiological responses. If an examinee shows strong responses to symptomatic questions, it may indicate that unrelated anxieties are contaminating the test data. The examiner can then address these concerns before proceeding, ensuring that the TES data reflects responses specifically to espionage and sabotage topics.

Cultural and individual factors can also affect how examinees respond to different question types. Research by Boranbay Baisakhalov has highlighted the importance of considering cultural features when administering polygraph examinations, including language variations and trust-building practices that can affect question comprehension [15]Verified SEAD 4 — National Security Adjudicative Guidelines
Confirms that adverse action may not be taken solely on the basis of polygraph technical calls absent adjudicatively significant information.

Why the Pretest Phase Is Critical

The pretest interview is one of the most important phases of the TES examination, often taking longer than the actual data collection phase. The 2003 NAS report noted that the pretest interview shapes the expectations and emotional state of the examinee during the test, and that shared understanding between examiner and examinee is especially important for screening polygraphs that ask about general categories of behavior [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

During the pretest, the examiner reviews every question that will be asked during the examination. The examinee hears the exact wording of each question and has the opportunity to discuss any concerns, clarify ambiguities, or provide context. This ensures there are no surprises during the in-test phase and that every question is understood the same way by both the examiner and the examinee.

The DoDPI TES Administration Manual specifies that interviews must be conducted in a manner that conveys respect for the examinee and is in no way degrading [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. Only the examiner and examinee are authorized to be present in the examination room during the pretest, data collection, and analysis phases.

Establishing Rapport and Addressing Potential Issues

A critical function of the pretest is establishing rapport between the examiner and the examinee. The examiner explains the polygraph process, discusses how the instruments work, and answers questions about the examination procedure. This rapport-building serves a scientific purpose by reducing generalized anxiety that could produce false positive results.

The pretest also gives the examiner an opportunity to identify and address potential issues that could affect the examination, including medical conditions that can affect physiological baselines, medications that might influence polygraph readings, sleep deprivation or fatigue that can produce unreliable physiological data, and misunderstandings about question wording.

As part of the TES protocol, the examiner administers an acquaintance test (ACQT), a standard known-solution numbers test designed to demonstrate the examination process to the examinee and allow both parties to become accustomed to the components and procedures [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

The Directed-Lie Instruction

During the pretest, the examiner provides explicit instructions for the directed-lie comparison questions. The examinee is told which questions they must answer dishonestly. This instruction is a defining feature of the TES format and distinguishes it from formats that use probable-lie comparison questions, where the examinee is not told to lie but is expected to do so based on the question's design.

Under ICPG 704.6, pre-examination explanations must contain sufficient detail to ensure a thorough review of the topic, ensuring that the examinee understands the full meaning and scope of the questions [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

How the TES Is Divided Into Sub-Tests

The TES examination is divided into two primary sub-tests, each targeting specific counterintelligence concerns [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. According to the DoDPI TES Administration Manual, Sub-test A utilizes relevant questions related to sabotage and espionage, while Sub-test B utilizes relevant questions related to unauthorized disclosure and unauthorized contact [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

This modular two-sub-test design allows the examiner to focus on distinct threat areas within the broader espionage and sabotage domain, producing more diagnostically precise results than a single comprehensive test. Each sub-test contains a pair of relevant questions along with the corresponding comparison, irrelevant, and symptomatic questions.

By isolating specific topics into separate sub-tests, the examiner can determine whether physiological responses are associated with one particular concern versus another, rather than producing a single undifferentiated result. The sub-test score is the sum of the six relevant question scores on that sub-test [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Sub-Test A: Espionage and Sabotage

Sub-test A investigates the most critical counterintelligence concerns: whether the examinee has engaged in espionage activities on behalf of a foreign power or has participated in acts of sabotage against U.S. government operations, military assets, defense infrastructure, or critical national security systems. Relevant questions probe topics such as whether the examinee has provided intelligence to foreign entities or intentionally damaged government operations or property.

Sub-Test B: Unauthorized Disclosure and Foreign Contacts

Sub-test B examines whether the examinee has disclosed classified or sensitive information to unauthorized individuals, organizations, or media outlets, and whether they have had unauthorized or unreported contact with foreign nationals. This sub-test has become increasingly important in the context of growing concerns about insider threats and unauthorized information disclosures. ICPG 704.6 specifically directs that CSP examinations shall include the issue of unauthorized disclosures, incorporating a definition that explicitly addresses unauthorized communication of classified information to unauthorized recipients [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

Question Sequencing Within Sub-Tests

Within each sub-test, questions follow a carefully prescribed sequence. Four relevant questions are repeated three times during the TES examination, but the sequence of questions differs substantially from that used during the older CSP examination [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. A typical sub-test question sequence includes:

Irrelevant Question (I) — Establishes baseline Sacrifice Relevant Question (SR) — Absorbs initial topic-related stress Symptomatic Question (SYM) — Checks for outside concerns Directed-Lie Comparison Question (DLC) — Creates deception baseline Relevant Question 1 (R1) — First critical question Directed-Lie Comparison Question (DLC) — Second comparison point Relevant Question 2 (R2) — Second critical question Symptomatic Question (SYM) — Final outside concern check

This alternating pattern ensures that comparison data is collected in close temporal proximity to relevant question data, making physiological comparisons more valid. In the TES format, each relevant question is compared to the same comparison questions, and the first repetition of the first comparison question is not used when scoring [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Physiological Channels Recorded During the TES

The TES polygraph examination records multiple channels of physiological data simultaneously using sensors attached to the examinee's body. According to the TES administration guidelines, the primary components include pneumograph tubes for respiratory measurement, GSR finger plates for electrodermal activity, and a cardiovascular auscultatory cuff for blood pressure and heart rate monitoring [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Respiratory rate and pattern (pneumograph) — Two pneumograph tubes are placed around the examinee's chest and abdomen, measuring the depth, rate, and regularity of breathing. Changes such as breath holding, suppressed breathing, or irregular patterns can indicate stress responses.

Electrodermal activity / skin conductivity (galvanograph) — Electrodes placed on the fingertips measure the electrical conductance of the skin, which changes with sweat gland activity. The TES administration manual specifies that the GSR channel must be set to automatic mode during data collection [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. Electrodermal activity is one of the most sensitive indicators of sympathetic nervous system arousal.

Cardiovascular activity (cardiograph) — A blood pressure cuff placed on the upper arm records changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and pulse amplitude.

Movement sensors (activity sensors) — Modern polygraph instruments include motion sensors to detect deliberate physical movements that might be used to manipulate physiological responses. For a closer look at modern polygraph instrument technology, see our guide to Stoelting CPS Pro Software.

The Three-Chart Standard

The TES requires a minimum of three charts — that is, the complete question sequence is administered at least three separate times [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. The number of repetitions of the questions used to calculate question scores is restricted to three in the TES format [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. This three-chart requirement serves several important purposes:

Reliability — Multiple data collection periods reduce the impact of transient physiological events such as a cough, an involuntary movement, or an environmental disturbance that could distort a single chart's data.

Consistency — By examining physiological responses across three presentations of the same questions, the examiner can identify consistent patterns of response that are more likely to reflect genuine deception rather than random physiological variation.

Statistical validity — The scoring methodology requires multiple data points to calculate meaningful scores. Three charts provide sufficient data to produce reliable numerical scores for each relevant question.

Many government agencies currently use computerized polygraph systems to collect digitized data during TES examinations, enabling the potential development and application of computer scoring algorithms such as PolyScore and CPS [14]Verified Considering National, Cultural, and other Features of Kazakh-Speaking Subjects of Polygraph Examinations
Foundational research on cultural considerations affecting polygraph question comprehension and administration.

How TES Responses Are Numerically Scored

Tests are scored using the 7-point scoring criteria taught at DoDPI (now NCCA), in which the relative strength of the physiological responses to a relevant question is compared to the relative strength of the physiological responses to a comparison question [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. The scoring system works as follows:

A positive score is assigned if the physiological responses to the comparison question are greater than those to the relevant questions — suggesting truthfulness on the relevant topic. A negative score is assigned if the physiological responses to the relevant question are greater than those to the comparison questions — suggesting possible deception [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

In most security screening tests, each relevant question is compared to the stronger of the two comparison questions that bracket it. However, based on research by Dr. Sheila D. Reed, the first repetition of the first comparison question is not used when scoring a TES examination [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Each physiological channel is scored independently, and the scores from all three channels are combined to produce a composite score for each relevant question. The sub-test score is the sum of the six relevant question scores on that sub-test [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Three Possible Examination Outcomes

After completing the scoring process, the examiner renders one of three possible decisions for each sub-test and for the overall examination [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues:

No Significant Response (NSR) — The examination data does not indicate deception. This is the outcome commonly associated with passing the test. For a detailed explanation, see our guide to No Deception Indicated (NDI) results.

Significant Response (SR) — The examination data indicates possible deception on one or more relevant questions. This triggers additional evaluation and potentially further investigation.

No Opinion (NO) — There were insufficient evaluation criteria to render a decision of SR or NSR [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. This inconclusive result may lead to additional testing or extended question review.

Importantly, federal policy states that the government may not take adverse action solely on the basis of polygraph examination technical calls in the absence of adjudicatively significant information [16]Verified TS/SCI Clearance: What It Is, Who Needs It, and How to Get Access
Confirms agency-specific polygraph requirements: CIA/NSA/NRO require Full Scope; DIA/NGA typically require CI polygraph. Polygraph results must be considered alongside other investigative and adjudicative information.

The Role of Global Evaluation

Beyond numerical scoring, some examiners employ a holistic assessment approach known as global evaluation, which considers the totality of physiological data, behavioral observations, and interview information. While the TES emphasizes standardized numerical scoring to minimize examiner subjectivity, the overall examination process incorporates multiple sources of information to support the final determination.

Security Clearance Screening and Vetting

The TES is primarily used for personnel security screening of individuals who hold or seek access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) or Special Access Programs (SAP). Federal clearances for SCI and SAP typically require a polygraph screening examination in addition to a Single Scope Background Investigation [6]Verified ICPG 704.6 — Conduct of Polygraph Examinations for Personnel Security Vetting
Confirms the three types of personnel security polygraph examinations (CSP, ESP, SIP) and topics covered by counterintelligence scope examinations. The TES was designated as the initial format for all DOE counterintelligence scope polygraph examinations [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment and has been adopted across the broader intelligence community.

Polygraph requirements vary by agency and specific program. CIA, NSA, and NRO typically require Full-Scope (Expanded Scope) polygraphs, while DIA and NGA generally require Counterintelligence Scope Polygraphs [17]Verified OIG Special Report: FBI Progress on Hanssen Recommendations
Confirms FBI polygraph program expansion from 550 to over 18,000 personnel subject to testing between 2001-2005. Many DoD contractor positions with TS/SCI access do not require any polygraph [17]Verified OIG Special Report: FBI Progress on Hanssen Recommendations
Confirms FBI polygraph program expansion from 550 to over 18,000 personnel subject to testing between 2001-2005. For more details on agency-specific polygraph requirements, see our NSA Polygraph Exam guide and our National Security Polygraph guide.

Continuous Vetting and the Transition from Periodic Reinvestigations

The U.S. government has undergone a significant shift in how it monitors cleared personnel. Under the Trusted Workforce 2.0 framework, the traditional model of periodic reinvestigations — historically conducted every five years for Top Secret clearances and every ten years for Secret clearances — has been replaced by Continuous Vetting (CV) [4]Verified Continuous Vetting — Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency and OPM Implementation
Confirms CV has replaced periodic reinvestigations and that 3.7 million clearance holders are enrolled in continuous vetting. As of 2023, 3.7 million clearance holders were enrolled in continuous vetting, representing the full enrollment of the entire cleared population [4]Verified Continuous Vetting — Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency and OPM Implementation
Confirms CV has replaced periodic reinvestigations and that 3.7 million clearance holders are enrolled in continuous vetting.

Continuous vetting involves automated, ongoing checks of security-relevant information from criminal, financial, terrorism, and other databases [4]Verified Continuous Vetting — Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency and OPM Implementation
Confirms CV has replaced periodic reinvestigations and that 3.7 million clearance holders are enrolled in continuous vetting. While CV replaces the fixed periodic reinvestigation schedule, polygraph examinations remain an authorized component of personnel security vetting and may be administered at periodic or aperiodic intervals in support of reinvestigations or continuous evaluation [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

This transition reflects an evolution from date-driven to risk-based security evaluation, allowing agencies to identify and address potential security concerns as they arise rather than waiting years between reinvestigation cycles [4]Verified Continuous Vetting — Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency and OPM Implementation
Confirms CV has replaced periodic reinvestigations and that 3.7 million clearance holders are enrolled in continuous vetting.

Counterintelligence Investigations

Beyond routine screening, the TES and related polygraph formats play a role in active counterintelligence investigations. The Hanssen case illustrates what can happen when polygraph programs are insufficient. The DOJ Inspector General found that Hanssen was never asked to submit to a polygraph examination during his entire 25-year FBI career, despite his broad access to extremely sensitive intelligence [10]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — National Academy of Sciences
Confirms NAS finding that polygraph screening may be useful for deterrence and admissions, and that no alternative has outperformed the polygraph for screening. After Ames's 1994 arrest, FBI National Security Division managers advocated for an aperiodic random polygraph program, but senior FBI management initially rejected that proposal due to concerns about false positives [10]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — National Academy of Sciences
Confirms NAS finding that polygraph screening may be useful for deterrence and admissions, and that no alternative has outperformed the polygraph for screening.

The lesson drawn from these cases has been to expand and strengthen polygraph programs. By June 2003, the FBI had expanded its polygraph program, increasing the number of personnel subject to mandatory random and periodic testing from 550 in 2001 to over 18,000 by 2005 [18]Verified Polygraph Use by the Department of Energy: Issues for Congress (CRS Report)
Confirms NAS found polygraph screening is 'particularly problematic' with generic questions and that DOE revamped its program in response. The FBI's random polygraph component is viewed as a critical tool for deterring future espionage [18]Verified Polygraph Use by the Department of Energy: Issues for Congress (CRS Report)
Confirms NAS found polygraph screening is 'particularly problematic' with generic questions and that DOE revamped its program in response.

For more on the FBI's historical relationship with polygraph testing, see our article on J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's early skepticism of polygraphs.

TES vs. Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP)

The TES was developed as a direct replacement for the CSP format after DoDPI research revealed critical accuracy problems with the older format. The 1995 DoDPI comparison study found the traditional CSP format with probable-lie comparison questions correctly identified only 43.2% of guilty examinees, compared to a 94.9% innocent detection rate [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format. This meant that more than half of deceptive examinees were incorrectly classified as truthful — an unacceptable asymmetry for a national security screening tool.

The TES addressed these problems through several structural innovations: reducing the number of issues per sub-test, standardizing question repetitions to three, eliminating between-test stimulation, using a constant question order within sequences, and adopting directed-lie comparison questions [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. These changes collectively produced a more standardized, less examiner-dependent format with significantly better detection accuracy.

TES vs. Full-Scope (Expanded Scope) Polygraph

The TES covers only counterintelligence topics — espionage, sabotage, unauthorized disclosure, and foreign contacts. The Expanded Scope Polygraph (ESP), also known as the Full-Scope or Lifestyle Polygraph, covers all CSP topics plus criminal conduct, drug involvement, and falsification of security questionnaires and forms [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

Agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and NRO typically require the more comprehensive Full-Scope polygraph, while agencies like the DIA and NGA may use only the Counterintelligence Scope examination [17]Verified OIG Special Report: FBI Progress on Hanssen Recommendations
Confirms FBI polygraph program expansion from 550 to over 18,000 personnel subject to testing between 2001-2005. The choice depends on the agency's mission, the sensitivity of the position, and the level of access involved.

TES vs. Specific Issue Polygraph (SIP)

The Specific Issue Polygraph focuses on a particular issue of adjudicative concern, such as a specific allegation of espionage, sabotage, unauthorized disclosure, or criminal conduct [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits. Unlike the TES, which is a screening tool covering multiple counterintelligence topics, the SIP zeroes in on one defined concern. The SIP may be used in conjunction with CSP or ESP examinations [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

Intelligence Community Agencies

The TES and related counterintelligence polygraph formats are administered across a wide range of federal agencies. Key agencies with polygraph programs include the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, NGA, NRO, DOE, DEA, DHS, and the Secret Service [6]Verified ICPG 704.6 — Conduct of Polygraph Examinations for Personnel Security Vetting
Confirms the three types of personnel security polygraph examinations (CSP, ESP, SIP) and topics covered by counterintelligence scope examinations. When CBP revised its polygraph examination process, it further demonstrated the important role that polygraph testing plays in federal workforce integrity — learn more in our article on how CBP's revised polygraph exam ensures the best candidates.

The NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, with only nine of those being defense organizations [8]Verified Aldrich Ames — Federal Bureau of Investigation Famous Cases
Confirms Ames was a CIA officer arrested in 1994 for espionage; he passed two polygraph exams while spying for the Soviet Union. This broad reach underscores the TES's importance across the full spectrum of national security operations. All polygraph examiners conducting federal examinations must be certified by the NCCA [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

Department of Energy Applications

The DOE uses the TES as the initial format for all its counterintelligence scope polygraph examinations [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. All DOE examiners are trained at the NCCA and each has completed basic, advanced, and specialized training [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. DOE polygraph examiners have the authority to determine and use the best technique for the examination based on circumstances encountered during the pretest interview [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. DOE's polygraph program has been a focal point of policy debate, particularly following the Wen Ho Lee case and subsequent Congressional oversight [19]Verified Executive Order 10450 — Security Requirements for Government Employment
Confirms EO 10450 was signed by Eisenhower on April 27, 1953 and established personnel security requirements for federal employment.

Key Directives and Policies

Several overlapping authorities govern the use of polygraph examinations in the federal government:

Executive Order 10450 — Signed by President Eisenhower on April 27, 1953, this order established the personnel security system for federal government employment, requiring that all persons employed be reliable, trustworthy, and of complete loyalty to the United States [20]Verified Intelligence Community Directive 704 — Personnel Security Standards
Confirms ICD 704 establishes DNI personnel security policy governing eligibility for access to SCI. While EO 10450 does not specifically mandate polygraph examinations, it established the framework for personnel security investigations under which polygraph authority later developed. Its provisions have been supplemented by subsequent executive orders, including EO 12968 (1995) which provided for uniform standards for access to classified information [20]Verified Intelligence Community Directive 704 — Personnel Security Standards
Confirms ICD 704 establishes DNI personnel security policy governing eligibility for access to SCI.

Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 704 — Establishes DNI personnel security policy governing eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and information protected within other controlled access programs [21]Verified DoD Directive 5210.48 — Credibility Assessment (CA) Program
Confirms DoDD 5210.48 was reissued in 2015 as the Credibility Assessment Program directive, establishing DoD polygraph policy. Polygraph-specific requirements are more directly addressed under ICPG 704.6, a policy guidance document under ICD 704 that establishes policy for the conduct of polygraph examinations supporting personnel security vetting within the IC [7]Verified National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) — Fort Jackson
Confirms NCCA provides graduate-level education to 25 federal agencies, students complete 3.5-month course earning 15 graduate credits.

DoD Directive 5210.48 — Originally issued in 1975 and reissued in 1984, this directive has been updated multiple times. The 2015 version, titled 'Credibility Assessment (CA) Program,' established policy for the DoD's polygraph and credibility assessment program [22]Verified Functional MRI Detection of Deception After Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime
Found accuracy dropped between deception scenarios, raising concerns about alternative deception detection reliability. The implementing instruction, DoDI 5210.91, establishes detailed procedures governing the use of polygraph and other credibility assessment tools [22]Verified Functional MRI Detection of Deception After Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime
Found accuracy dropped between deception scenarios, raising concerns about alternative deception detection reliability.

Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4 — Establishes national security adjudicative guidelines, including the provision that the government may not take adverse action solely on the basis of polygraph examination technical calls [16]Verified TS/SCI Clearance: What It Is, Who Needs It, and How to Get Access
Confirms agency-specific polygraph requirements: CIA/NSA/NRO require Full Scope; DIA/NGA typically require CI polygraph.

For professionals interested in the regulatory framework affecting polygraph instruments themselves, our guide to export control regulations for U.S. polygraph instruments provides additional context.

DoDPI Research Findings

The primary research base for the TES consists of studies conducted by the DoDPI Research Division. The foundational 1995 study compared three formats — CSP with probable-lie comparison questions, CSP with directed-lie comparison questions, and the TES — and found that the TES produced significantly better accuracy for identifying deceptive examinees [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format. The follow-up replication study found that 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of programmed guilty examinees were correctly identified using the TES format [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues.

Across the two DoDPI simulation studies, 90.7% of innocent participants were correctly identified [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. The TES expansion and validation study recruited 304 examinees and used 27 certified federal examiners who did not know which examinees were deceptive, enhancing the study's ecological validity [14]Verified Considering National, Cultural, and other Features of Kazakh-Speaking Subjects of Polygraph Examinations
Foundational research on cultural considerations affecting polygraph question comprehension and administration.

Research into detection of deception has also explored alternative technologies. A study by Frank Kozel (2009) examined functional MRI for detecting deception after mock sabotage crimes, but found accuracy dropped between scenarios, raising concerns about reliability across different deception contexts [23]Verified Theories and applications in the detection of deception: A psychophysiological and international perspective
Foundational cognitive theoretical framework for understanding psychophysiological deception detection. This underscores the complexity of deception detection and the continued importance of validated polygraph methods like the TES.

Ben-Shakhar and Furedy (1990) developed a cognitive theoretical framework for understanding psychophysiological deception detection that has profoundly influenced subsequent polygraph research and policy debates [24]Verified The use of voice in security evaluations
Confirms voice stress analyzer technologies performed at chance levels in detecting deception, supporting the polygraph's role as primary credibility assessment tool. Their work provides important theoretical context for understanding how the TES works at a psychophysiological level.

The 2003 National Academy of Sciences Report

The most comprehensive independent assessment of polygraph testing was the 2003 NAS report, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. The NAS found that specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance in populations untrained in countermeasures, though well below perfection [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. However, the report cautioned that polygraph accuracy for screening purposes is almost certainly lower than what can be achieved by specific-incident testing [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

The NAS concluded that the evidence was insufficient to justify reliance on polygraph testing alone for employee security screening, and that screening in populations with very low base rates of target transgressions requires extremely high diagnostic accuracy, well beyond what can be expected from polygraph testing [12]Verified Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing
Confirms research quality has not significantly improved since the NAS report and that the report's conclusions remain valid. At the same time, the NAS acknowledged that polygraph screening may have utility for deterring security violations and increasing the frequency of admissions [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

A 2018 update by Iacono and Ben-Shakhar found that the quality of polygraph research had not significantly improved in the 15 years since the NAS report, and that the report's landmark conclusions still stand [13]Verified Test of Espionage and Sabotage (TES) Expansion and Validation Study
Confirms TES validation with 304 examinees and 27 certified federal examiners, and modifications to improve field applicability. However, the NAS report also noted that no alternative technique had been shown to outperform the polygraph for screening purposes [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment, and the polygraph's role in generating critical admissions and serving as a deterrent continues to make it a valuable component of the national security vetting process.

For a discussion of how voice analysis compares to polygraph testing, Harry Hollien's (2006) research found that commercial voice stress analyzer technologies consistently performed at chance levels in detecting deception [25]Verified Studies of the accuracy of security screening polygraph examinations
Confirmed the asymmetry in CSP accuracy rates (94.9% innocent, 43.2% guilty) that prompted TES development, further supporting the polygraph's position as the primary credibility assessment tool.

Key Advantages of the TES Format

The TES offers several important advantages as a counterintelligence screening tool:

Improved detection over older formats — DoDPI research demonstrated that the TES significantly outperformed the older CSP format, particularly in identifying deceptive examinees [1]Verified A comparison of psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the counterintelligence scope polygraph and the test for espionage and sabotage question formats
Confirms the CSP format had only a 43.2% guilty detection rate vs 94.9% innocent detection rate, demonstrating the need for the TES format. The structured design and use of directed-lie comparison questions reduced examiner subjectivity.

Standardized administration — The TES format is more standardized than previous methods, with prescribed question sequences, consistent scoring criteria, and reduced reliance on individual examiner judgment [5]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Obtained Using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
Confirms TES correctly identified 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of guilty examinees; also confirms TES structural features including DLC questions and reduced issues. This standardization supports consistency across the intelligence community.

Deterrent value — The existence of a mandatory polygraph program creates a persistent psychological barrier to espionage and other security violations [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment. The FBI's experience after the Hanssen case demonstrated the value of expanding polygraph programs [18]Verified Polygraph Use by the Department of Energy: Issues for Congress (CRS Report)
Confirms NAS found polygraph screening is 'particularly problematic' with generic questions and that DOE revamped its program in response.

Admissions generation — The polygraph examination process, including the extensive pretest interview, frequently generates significant admissions that would not be obtained through other investigative methods.

No superior alternative identified — Despite ongoing research into alternative deception detection technologies, the NAS found that none had been shown to outperform the polygraph for screening purposes [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

For professionals seeking career opportunities in polygraph examination, the field continues to grow across federal agencies. Our guide to CIA polygraph examiner careers provides detailed information on salary, training, and career paths.

Important Considerations

Like all assessment tools, the TES has boundaries that users should understand:

The TES is designed as a screening tool, not a diagnostic instrument for specific criminal cases. Its accuracy characteristics differ from those of specific-incident polygraph examinations [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

Base rate effects mean that in populations where the target behavior is extremely rare, even a highly accurate test will produce a significant number of false positive results [12]Verified Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing
Confirms research quality has not significantly improved since the NAS report and that the report's conclusions remain valid.

The scientific community continues to debate the theoretical foundations of polygraph testing, and the NAS called for continued research to strengthen the scientific underpinnings of the field [13]Verified Test of Espionage and Sabotage (TES) Expansion and Validation Study
Confirms TES validation with 304 examinees and 27 certified federal examiners, and modifications to improve field applicability.

Countermeasure vulnerability remains a concern for all polygraph formats, though the extent of this vulnerability in real-world conditions is not well-established in the unclassified literature [11]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)
Confirms NAS conclusions about screening limitations in low base-rate populations and challenges to accuracy assessment.

These considerations reinforce the importance of using the TES as one element of a comprehensive security vetting program rather than as a standalone decision-making tool.