Can You Request a Specific Polygraph Technique? Rights

The Blueprint for Every Examination

A polygraph technique is a structured, standardized protocol that governs every aspect of how a lie detector examination is conducted. It dictates the specific types of questions asked, the order in which they appear, the number of chart collections (presentations), and the mathematical or observational method used to score the physiological data. Think of it as the recipe for the examination: two examiners using the same validated technique on the same person should arrive at nearly identical conclusions.

Technique selection is one of the most consequential decisions in any polygraph engagement, directly affecting accuracy, legal admissibility, and applicability to the case at hand. Different techniques have different published accuracy rates based on peer-reviewed research. The APA's landmark 2011 meta-analytic survey examined 38 studies involving 3,723 examinations and found that event-specific diagnostic tests produced an aggregated decision accuracy of 89% (confidence interval: 83–95%), while multi-issue screening techniques achieved 85% accuracy (CI: 77–93%) [2]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests (CI: 83–95%) and 85% for multi-issue screening across 38 studies and 3,723 examinations. These findings were confirmed in the 2015 update conducted by Raymond Nelson [3]Verified 2015 Update to the APA 2011 Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms mean accuracy of.89 for event-specific diagnostic polygraphs (95% CI:.83–.95) and.85 for multi-issue screening (95% CI:.77–.93). Combined, all validated techniques produced a decision accuracy of 87% (CI: 80–94%) with an inconclusive rate of 13% [2]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests (CI: 83–95%) and 85% for multi-issue screening across 38 studies and 3,723 examinations.

For a deeper understanding of the different types of examinations and how they relate to technique, see our guide on evidentiary, investigative, and screening exams.

How Technique Affects Admissibility and Scoring

Courts that accept polygraph evidence under Daubert or Frye standards scrutinize the specific technique used [4]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms 2014 publication by Academic Press (Elsevier) edited by Raskin, Honts, and Kircher covering polygraph techniques, validity, and modern credibility assessment methods. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), the court required that the underlying methodology be scientifically valid and properly applicable to the facts at issue. Evidentiary techniques carry more weight than screening formats. Some techniques are designed for single-issue testing ("Did you steal the $5,000?"), while others are built for multi-faceted screening ("Have you committed any serious crimes in the past ten years?").

The technique also determines the scoring methodology — whether the data is scored manually using a 7-position or 3-position numerical scale, or via computer algorithms such as the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) developed by Raymond Nelson, Mark Handler, and Donald Krapohl [5]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms ESS/OSS scoring system performance across validated formats and mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific tests, or the Computerized Polygraph System (CPS) developed by Drs. John Kircher and David Raskin at the University of Utah [6]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Confirms polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards. The OSS-3 is a free, open-source, cross-platform algorithm available to all polygraph manufacturers and examiners [5]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms ESS/OSS scoring system performance across validated formats and mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific tests, while the CPS was developed by Scientific Assessment Technologies and uses discriminant analysis to estimate the probability of deception [6]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Confirms polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards. Learn more about how scoring works in our guide to numerical scores in polygraph testing.

Your Right to Ask — and the Examiner's Professional Obligation

The short answer is: yes, you can ask, and a professional examiner should welcome that conversation. The longer answer involves understanding the hierarchy of professional obligations that constrain technique selection.

The American Polygraph Association (APA) Standards of Practice — most recently amended August 23, 2024 [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations — establish that member polygraph examiners shall use evidence-based validated testing techniques. For a testing technique to be considered valid, it must be supported by research conducted in accordance with the APA's research standards [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations. This means that even if you have a strong preference for a particular method, the examiner cannot simply accommodate any arbitrary request.

The technique must be recognized as validated through published research, appropriate for the type of examination being conducted, within the examiner's training and demonstrated competence, and suitable for the specific circumstances of the case.

In practice, the interaction between client preference and examiner judgment works like a medical consultation. A patient can express a preference for a specific type of treatment, but the physician must exercise professional judgment about whether that treatment is appropriate. Similarly, a polygraph examiner will consider your request alongside the scientific and procedural requirements. The quality of examiner training plays a significant role in this decision-making process.

Maximum Flexibility for Private Testing

If you are a private individual booking a polygraph test for personal reasons — infidelity, theft, family disputes, or to prove your innocence — you have the most flexibility of any consumer group when it comes to technique discussion.

What you can do: Ask the examiner which technique they plan to use and request an explanation of why it was selected for your situation. Express a preference for a specific technique if you have done your research, especially if you or your attorney believe a particular method is more appropriate. Request an evidentiary-quality technique if you anticipate the results may be used in legal proceedings, such as family court, civil litigation, or criminal defense. Decline the examination if the examiner uses a technique you believe is inappropriate or non-validated. Seek a second opinion from another qualified examiner if you disagree with the technique selection.

What you cannot do: Compel an examiner to use a technique outside their training — if an examiner is not trained in the technique you prefer, asking them to use it anyway would compromise both quality and ethics. Demand a non-validated technique — if you have heard about a method online that sounds appealing but is not recognized through published research, no responsible examiner will use it. Override professional judgment on question format — you can discuss question content, but the format is dictated by the technique.

Always verify that your examiner is properly licensed in your state and review what you are agreeing to in the polygraph consent form. For guidance on what questions you can include, see our guide on what questions can you ask in a private lie detector test.

Why Attorneys Have the Strongest Leverage

Defense attorneys represent the group with the most informed interest — and often the most leverage — in negotiating technique selection. When an attorney commissions a private polygraph examination as part of their defense strategy, the technique choice becomes a strategic decision that can affect admissibility, evidentiary weight, and the persuasiveness of results.

In jurisdictions that admit polygraph evidence — typically by stipulation between prosecution and defense [4]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms 2014 publication by Academic Press (Elsevier) edited by Raskin, Honts, and Kircher covering polygraph techniques, validity, and modern credibility assessment methods — the specific technique used will be scrutinized. In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The opposing side may call their own polygraph expert to evaluate whether the chosen technique was appropriate. Attorneys who understand this dynamic will often request techniques with the strongest research base.

Commonly Requested Evidentiary Techniques

Attorneys frequently request the Utah Zone Comparison Test (UZCT), one of the most extensively researched specific-incident techniques developed at the University of Utah, which uses directed-lie comparison questions. Research from Dr. David Raskin's laboratory demonstrated polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format [6]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Confirms polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards, providing a strong evidence base for courtroom presentation.

The Federal Zone Comparison Test (FZCT), the standard technique used in federal government examinations, is another common request. The Matte Quadri-Track ZCT (MQTZCT), created by James Allan Matte, adds an inside track of questions designed to identify examinees who fear the test process itself rather than the relevant questions [7]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification — Lie Detection
Confirms 1996 publication by J.A.M. Publications, Williamsville, NY. 773 pages covering history, validation research, and test techniques including the Matte Quadri-Track ZCT. The Air Force Modified General Question Test (AFMGQT) is a polygraph technique widely used across the United States Federal Government for both criminal investigation and counterintelligence screening purposes [13]Verified Air Force Modified General Question Test Validation Study
Confirms AFMGQT is widely used across U.S. Federal Government and produced accuracy rates significantly exceeding chance levels.

Field studies have provided evidence for the practical effectiveness of different comparison question types in operational settings [8]Verified Examining Different Types of Comparison Questions in a Field Study of CQT Polygraph Technique
Provides field evidence for practical effectiveness of both exclusive and non-exclusive comparison questions in operational settings. Research has also shown that the directed lie test is at least as accurate as the CQT with fewer false positive errors and is simpler to construct [9]Verified Recent Laboratory and Field Research on Polygraph Techniques
Confirms DLT research showing it is at least as accurate as the CQT with fewer false positive errors, simpler to construct, and a good substitute. The 1988 meta-analysis of 14 CQT laboratory studies by Kircher, Horowitz, and Raskin found accuracy exceeded 85% across studies [10]Verified Meta-Analysis of Mock Crime Studies of the Control Question Polygraph Technique
Early meta-analysis of 14 CQT laboratory studies finding accuracy exceeded 85% across studies with significant moderator effects.

The Attorney-Examiner Collaboration Process

The most effective defense polygraphs result from close collaboration between the attorney and examiner. This typically involves: Case Review — the attorney shares relevant case facts so the examiner understands the allegations and can formulate appropriate relevant questions. Technique Discussion — the attorney and examiner discuss which technique best serves the case goals, prioritizing evidentiary-quality techniques if results may be offered in court. Question Formulation — the attorney reviews proposed relevant questions to ensure they align with the legal issues at stake. Execution and Reporting — the examination is conducted and the examiner produces a comprehensive report identifying the technique used, scoring methodology, and diagnostic opinion.

Attorneys should verify examiner training credentials and which techniques they are competent to administer. Understanding the ethical responsibilities of a polygraph examiner is essential for evaluating the professionalism of any potential engagement.

What EPPA Covers and Who Is Exempt

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) is the federal law that governs workplace polygraph testing in the United States [11]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 — 29 CFR Part 801
Confirms EPPA provisions prohibiting most private employers from using lie detector tests, with narrow exemptions, effective December 27, 1988. Effective December 27, 1988, EPPA prohibits most private employers from requiring, requesting, or suggesting that employees take lie detector tests [11]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 — 29 CFR Part 801
Confirms EPPA provisions prohibiting most private employers from using lie detector tests, with narrow exemptions, effective December 27, 1988. Federal, state, and local government employers are exempt from EPPA [11]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 — 29 CFR Part 801
Confirms EPPA provisions prohibiting most private employers from using lie detector tests, with narrow exemptions, effective December 27, 1988.

Narrow exceptions allow polygraph testing for ongoing economic loss investigations where the employer has reasonable suspicion and the employee had access; security service firms providing armored car, alarm, and guard services; pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors handling controlled substances; and businesses under contract with the federal government for specified activities such as counterintelligence work [11]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 — 29 CFR Part 801
Confirms EPPA provisions prohibiting most private employers from using lie detector tests, with narrow exemptions, effective December 27, 1988.

Employee Technique Rights Under EPPA

EPPA establishes several procedural rights for employees but does not explicitly address technique selection. However, the law provides rights that indirectly affect the testing process: the right to receive advance written notice of the test, including the specific incident being investigated and the basis for testing; the right to review all questions that will be asked during the examination before the test begins; the right to refuse to answer questions the employee considers degrading or intrusive; the right to terminate the examination at any time; and the right to be tested by a licensed examiner in states requiring licensure [11]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 — 29 CFR Part 801
Confirms EPPA provisions prohibiting most private employers from using lie detector tests, with narrow exemptions, effective December 27, 1988.

While EPPA does not grant employees the right to choose a specific technique, it does require that the examination be conducted according to professional standards. An employee or their attorney can raise objections if an examiner uses a non-validated technique or one inappropriate for the investigation. Understanding what you are signing in a polygraph consent form is critical in these workplace situations.

Why PCSOT Examinees Have the Least Discretion

Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT) represents the most regulated polygraph environment. Examinees in PCSOT programs — sex offenders under probation, parole, or supervised release — have the least discretion over technique selection for several reasons.

Jurisdictional protocols dictate which techniques and question formats are acceptable. The state's containment team — consisting of the probation officer, treatment provider, and polygraph examiner — operates within published standards. The APA publishes specific PCSOT Standards of Practice that dictate acceptable techniques, question formulation rules, and scoring methods. Different PCSOT examination types — sexual history disclosure, instant offense, maintenance, and monitoring — require different question formats and, by extension, different techniques.

A PCSOT examinee can express concerns about the testing process and consult with their attorney or treatment provider, but they generally cannot request a specific technique. Understanding PCSOT informed consent and what offenders must know is essential for anyone navigating this process. For information on becoming certified in this specialty, see our guide on how to become a certified PCSOT polygraph examiner.

Purpose, Scope, and Legal Context

The fundamental distinction in polygraph testing is between specific-incident (diagnostic/evidentiary) examinations and screening examinations. Specific-incident tests investigate a known event, while screening tests assess broader patterns of behavior. This distinction directly determines which techniques are available.

Specific-incident techniques include the Utah ZCT, Federal ZCT, Backster ZCT, Matte Quadri-Track ZCT, AFMGQT, and Event-Specific formats. These focus on narrow, defined issues and produce the most legally defensible results. Krapohl and Shaw (2015) documented that event-specific testing demonstrates aggregated accuracy rates near 89–90% with inconclusive rates around 10–11% when evidence-based protocols are properly followed [12]Verified Specific-Issue Testing Techniques
Describes three validated comparison question techniques with event-specific testing demonstrating aggregated accuracy rates near 89–90% and inconclusive rates around 10–11%.

Screening techniques include the Directed Lie Screening Test (DLST), Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET), and Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES). These are designed for multi-issue assessments and are used primarily in pre-employment and security contexts.

If the results may be presented in court, the examiner will favor techniques with the strongest research validation. The Frye and Daubert standards both evaluate whether the methodology used is generally accepted in the scientific community [4]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms 2014 publication by Academic Press (Elsevier) edited by Raskin, Honts, and Kircher covering polygraph techniques, validity, and modern credibility assessment methods.

Examiner Training, Examinee Characteristics, and Organizational Policy

APA standards require examiners to use only techniques in which they have been trained [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations. A highly experienced examiner may be proficient in many validated techniques, while a newer examiner may be competent in fewer. If you request a technique the examiner has not been trained in, they are ethically obligated to decline and refer you to a colleague who can accommodate the request.

Certain examinee factors influence technique selection. Language barriers may favor techniques with simpler question structures. Mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, PTSD, or cognitive impairments may benefit from techniques that use directed-lie comparison questions rather than probable-lie comparisons, as directed lies reduce ambiguity [9]Verified Recent Laboratory and Field Research on Polygraph Techniques
Confirms DLT research showing it is at least as accurate as the CQT with fewer false positive errors, simpler to construct, and a good substitute. Understanding the ideal conditions for a lie detector test can help ensure the best possible outcome regardless of the technique chosen.

In government and law enforcement settings, the employing agency may mandate specific techniques. Many federal agencies use the Federal ZCT, AFMGQT, or TES for various purposes [13]Verified Air Force Modified General Question Test Validation Study
Confirms AFMGQT is widely used across U.S. Federal Government and produced accuracy rates significantly exceeding chance levels, and the examiner typically has no discretion to deviate from agency policy regardless of the examinee's preferences.

Specific-Incident (Diagnostic/Evidentiary) Techniques

Utah Zone Comparison Test (UZCT): Developed at the University of Utah by Dr. David Raskin and colleagues, the UZCT is one of the most extensively researched polygraph techniques. It uses a directed-lie comparison question format and a 7-position numerical scoring system. Research has demonstrated accuracy exceeding.90 for this format [6]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Confirms polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards.

Federal Zone Comparison Test (FZCT): The standard technique used across federal government agencies in the United States. It follows a structured format with probable-lie comparison questions and is scored using both manual and automated methods.

Matte Quadri-Track ZCT (MQTZCT): Created by James Allan Matte, this technique adds a unique "inside track" of questions designed to identify examinees who respond primarily out of fear of the polygraph process itself rather than guilt regarding the relevant issues. The foundational text for this technique is Matte's comprehensive work published in 1996 [7]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification — Lie Detection
Confirms 1996 publication by J.A.M. Publications, Williamsville, NY. 773 pages covering history, validation research, and test techniques including the Matte Quadri-Track ZCT.

Air Force Modified General Question Test (AFMGQT): A widely used technique across the U.S. Federal Government for both criminal specific-issue and counterintelligence screening purposes [13]Verified Air Force Modified General Question Test Validation Study
Confirms AFMGQT is widely used across U.S. Federal Government and produced accuracy rates significantly exceeding chance levels. The AFMGQT can be used in single-issue, multiple-facet, and mixed-issue examinations. It uses relevant, probable-lie, sacrifice-relevant, and irrelevant questions, with some versions permitting directed-lie comparison questions.

Backster Zone Comparison Technique: Originally developed by Cleve Backster in 1963, this technique established many principles that remain foundational to modern polygraph practice, including zone comparison scoring.

Screening Techniques

Directed Lie Screening Test (DLST): A multi-issue screening technique that uses directed-lie comparison questions. Research has confirmed its utility in screening contexts with accuracy rates validated through Monte Carlo analysis [5]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms ESS/OSS scoring system performance across validated formats and mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific tests.

Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES): A screening technique developed for counterintelligence purposes, using directed-lie comparison questions. Widely used by federal agencies for security screening.

Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET): Designed specifically for pre-employment screening in law enforcement agencies, addressing areas such as criminal history, drug use, and integrity.

The Professional Decision-Making Process

When a client requests a specific technique, the examiner evaluates several factors before agreeing. First, the examiner considers whether the technique is appropriate for the type of examination — a screening technique cannot be used for an evidentiary single-issue examination. Second, the examiner verifies that the technique has been validated through published research meeting APA standards [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations. Third, the examiner confirms they have received proper training in the requested technique.

If all three conditions are met, most examiners will accommodate the request. If any condition is unmet, the examiner should explain why and suggest an alternative. This transparent communication is a hallmark of ethical practice. Understanding the ethical responsibilities of a polygraph examiner helps clients know what to expect.

APA-accredited training programs ensure examiners are proficient in multiple validated techniques. The APA requires that practicing examiners complete a minimum of 30 continuing education hours every two years to stay current with advances in the field [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations. This ongoing education requirement helps ensure that examiners remain competent in a range of validated techniques.

APA Standards of Practice

The APA Standards of Practice, most recently amended August 23, 2024 [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations, provide the primary framework governing technique selection. Section 1.7.1 states that member examiners shall use evidence-based validated testing techniques [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations. The standards define different accuracy thresholds for different examination types: evidentiary examinations require techniques demonstrating at least 90% unweighted average accuracy excluding inconclusive results; investigative examinations require at least 80% accuracy with inconclusive rates not exceeding 20%; and screening examinations require accuracy significantly greater than chance [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations.

The APA does not "approve" specific techniques in a formal sense. Instead, the APA has published a meta-analytic survey summarizing existing research, and examiners who use techniques not included in the meta-analysis should be prepared to provide published research supporting their validity [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations. This evidence-based approach encourages continued research and technique development while maintaining quality standards.

ASTM International Standards

ASTM International Committee E52 on Forensic Psychophysiology has developed a comprehensive series of standards covering multiple aspects of polygraph practice. Key standards include E2062 — Standard Guide for PDD Examination Standards of Practice, which addresses testing format and procedures; E2031 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examinations, which ensures QC criteria are met; E2229 — Standard Practices for Interpretation of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Data, which establishes global and numerical procedures for data analysis; E1954 — Standard Practice for Conduct of Research in PDD; and E2063 — Standard Practice for Calibration and Functionality Checks for Polygraph Examinations.

These ASTM standards complement APA requirements and are referenced by professional organizations such as the International Society of Polygraph Examiners (ISOPE) and the American Association of Police Polygraphists (AAPP). Together, these standards create a robust framework for professional polygraph practice.

State Licensing Requirements

Approximately 25 states currently have specific licensing requirements for polygraph examiners, according to data from the APA and professional licensing boards. Requirements vary significantly — some states like Texas and Virginia mandate comprehensive licensing through state regulatory agencies, while states like California, Florida, and New York do not require state-specific licensing. Licensing requirements typically include completion of an APA-accredited training program, passing a state examination, background checks, and ongoing continuing education.

The APA maintains an updated list of state licensing boards and associations. Whether or not your state requires licensing, always insist on working with an APA-qualified examiner to ensure adherence to validated techniques and professional standards. For state-specific details, see our guide on accredited polygraph training in Florida.

Major Automated Scoring Algorithms

Modern polygraph practice increasingly relies on computerized scoring algorithms to complement manual evaluation. The two most significant systems are:

The Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3), developed by Raymond Nelson, Donald Krapohl, and Mark Handler, is a free, open-source algorithm available to all polygraph manufacturers, field examiners, and researchers [5]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms ESS/OSS scoring system performance across validated formats and mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific tests. The OSS-3 uses ratio transformations of Kircher features — standardized physiological response measurements first described by researchers at the University of Utah during the 1980s — to produce objective numerical scores. The algorithm provides perfect reliability, eliminating subjectivity in chart interpretation [5]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms ESS/OSS scoring system performance across validated formats and mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific tests.

The Computerized Polygraph System (CPS), developed by Drs. David Raskin and John Kircher at the University of Utah, was the world's first fully automated polygraph system, introduced in 1991 [6]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Confirms polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards. The CPS uses multivariate linear discriminant function analysis to calculate the probability of truthfulness or deception. It was developed by Scientific Assessment Technologies and has been distributed through Stoelting polygraph hardware [6]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Confirms polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards.

Both systems have been validated across multiple studies and are compatible with standard validated techniques. The Empirical Scoring System (ESS) is another evidence-based normative scoring model that has been validated with both experienced and inexperienced examiners, achieving decision accuracy of approximately 88% [5]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms ESS/OSS scoring system performance across validated formats and mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific tests.

Essential Pre-Booking Questions

Before committing to a polygraph examination, ask your examiner the following questions to ensure transparency and professionalism:

1. Which specific technique do you plan to use, and why is it appropriate for my case? 2. Is this technique validated through published research meeting APA standards? 3. What scoring methodology will you use — manual numerical scoring, OSS-3, ESS, CPS, or a combination? 4. How many chart collections (presentations) does this technique require? 5. What are the possible outcomes — Deception Indicated (DI), No Deception Indicated (NDI), Inconclusive (INC), or No Opinion (NO)? 6. Are you currently licensed in this state (if applicable), and are you a member of the APA or another recognized professional organization? 7. Will the examination be audio or video recorded in its entirety, as required by APA Standards [1]Verified APA Standards of Practice
Confirms APA requires evidence-based validated testing techniques, amended August 23, 2024, with tiered accuracy requirements for evidentiary, investigative, and screening examinations? 8. If I am having the test for legal purposes, is this technique suitable for evidentiary presentation?

A reputable examiner will answer all of these questions openly and without hesitation. Transparency about technique is a hallmark of professional practice. Understanding the ideal conditions for your test will also help you prepare effectively.

Be aware that there are important reasons to consider carefully before taking a polygraph exam — understanding your rights around technique selection is one way to ensure you are making an informed decision. In-person testing is essential, as the APA prohibits remote polygraph testing under its best practices guidelines.