ASTM E2031-99 Polygraph Quality Control Standard Guide

The Role of ASTM International in Setting Forensic Standards

ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, is one of the world's largest voluntary standards development organizations [1]Verified ASTM International Fact Sheet
Confirms ASTM International was formed in 1898, has 35,000 members from 150+ countries, and publishes 12,800+ standards. Formed in 1898 by chemist Charles Dudley and a group of scientists and engineers to address frequent rail breaks in the expanding railroad industry, ASTM has grown into a global body with over 35,000 members from more than 150 countries [1]Verified ASTM International Fact Sheet
Confirms ASTM International was formed in 1898, has 35,000 members from 150+ countries, and publishes 12,800+ standards [2]Verified ASTM International
Confirms ASTM founding in 1898, name changes, 12,575 standards, global membership, and voluntary nature of standards. The organization publishes more than 12,800 voluntary consensus technical standards that are used across virtually every industry worldwide [2]Verified ASTM International
Confirms ASTM founding in 1898, name changes, 12,575 standards, global membership, and voluntary nature of standards.

ASTM standards are developed through a transparent, consensus-based process involving committees of volunteers from industry, academia, government, and consumer groups [2]Verified ASTM International
Confirms ASTM founding in 1898, name changes, 12,575 standards, global membership, and voluntary nature of standards. The organization has no role in requiring or enforcing compliance with its standards — they become mandatory only when referenced by external contracts, corporations, regulations, or laws [2]Verified ASTM International
Confirms ASTM founding in 1898, name changes, 12,575 standards, global membership, and voluntary nature of standards. In the United States, ASTM standards have been adopted by incorporation or reference in many federal, state, and municipal government regulations, giving them significant practical authority [2]Verified ASTM International
Confirms ASTM founding in 1898, name changes, 12,575 standards, global membership, and voluntary nature of standards.

For the polygraph profession, ASTM's involvement provided something that had been conspicuously absent: an independent, cross-disciplinary body creating consensus standards that no single professional organization could provide on its own. This mattered because courts, agencies, and legal professionals recognized ASTM's established credibility and rigorous development process.

How Committee E52 Brought Standards to Polygraph Testing

ASTM Committee E52 on Forensic Psychophysiology was formed in 1996 [3]Verified Committee E52 on Forensic Psychophysiology
Confirms Committee E52 was formed in 1996, meets twice annually, has approximately 22 members and jurisdiction over 7 standards. The committee held its organizational meeting in 1997 and was officially recognized by ASTM the following year [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. As of its most recent listings, E52 meets twice a year with about 25 members attending two days of technical meetings, with a current membership of 22 members and jurisdiction over 7 standards [3]Verified Committee E52 on Forensic Psychophysiology
Confirms Committee E52 was formed in 1996, meets twice annually, has approximately 22 members and jurisdiction over 7 standards.

The creation of Committee E52 was prompted by a U.S. district court decision in which a polygraph test was excluded because there were no controlling standards to ensure proper protocol by which a defendant's examination could be measured [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. As George Baranowski, an E52 member, noted, prior to the committee's formation there were no real standards maintained throughout the polygraphy profession [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. Richard Widup (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and John Schwartz (U.S. Department of Justice) determined that ASTM would be an ideal venue for developing polygraphy standards and became the first chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of E52 [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski.

E52 established a series of subcommittees covering all aspects of polygraph practice: E52.01 on Research, E52.02 on Instrumentation, E52.03 on Quality Control (which created E2031), E52.04 on Examiner Education and Training, E52.05 on Psychophysiological Detection of Deception, and E52.07 on Ethics in Administration of PDD Tests [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. This comprehensive approach meant that the polygraphy profession could reference a unified, independent body of standards rather than relying solely on individual organizations' guidelines.

What the Standard Covers

ASTM E2031-99(2016), the Standard Practice for Quality Control of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (Polygraph) Examinations, was the definitive quality control framework for polygraph testing [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal. Originally published in July 1999 [6]Verified ASTM E2031-99(2016) — Accuris Tech Store
Confirms July 1999 original publication date, 2010 and 2016 reapprovals, and 2025 withdrawal of E2031-99(2016), it was reapproved in 2010 and again in 2016 [6]Verified ASTM E2031-99(2016) — Accuris Tech Store
Confirms July 1999 original publication date, 2010 and 2016 reapprovals, and 2025 withdrawal of E2031-99(2016). The standard established essential and recommended procedures for the conduct of quality control for PDD examinations [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal.

At its core, E2031 stated that all PDD examinations may be subjected to a quality control review, and that experienced examiners trained in the PDD format utilized by the original examiner are qualified to conduct such reviews [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal. The quality control review covers test data analysis of all charts collected, questions and answers utilized, and the PDD report. The reviewing examiner must attest in writing whether the test data supports the conclusion rendered by the original examiner [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal.

The standard fell under Volume 14.02 of ASTM's Annual Book of Standards, alongside other forensic science standards [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal. It operated in conjunction with companion E52 standards including E2000 (Guide for Minimum Basic Education and Training), E2063 (Calibration and Functionality Checks), E2439 (Instrumentation, Sensors and Operating Software), E2229 (Interpretation of PDD Data), and E2065 (Ethical Requirements for PDD Examiners) [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

Current Status: Withdrawal in 2025

ASTM E2031-99(2016) was withdrawn in 2025 [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal [6]Verified ASTM E2031-99(2016) — Accuris Tech Store
Confirms July 1999 original publication date, 2010 and 2016 reapprovals, and 2025 withdrawal of E2031-99(2016). Several other E52 standards were also withdrawn around the same period, including E2439 (Instrumentation, Sensors and Operating Software, withdrawn 2025) and E1954 (Conduct of Research, withdrawn) [8]Verified Forensic Science Standards — ASTM International
Confirms E2031-99(2016) was listed among ASTM forensic science standards and was withdrawn in 2025, along with E2439 and other E52 standards. ASTM E2063 on Calibration and Functionality Checks was marked for withdrawal in 2026 [8]Verified Forensic Science Standards — ASTM International
Confirms E2031-99(2016) was listed among ASTM forensic science standards and was withdrawn in 2025, along with E2439 and other E52 standards.

The withdrawal of these standards does not diminish their impact. ASTM makes withdrawn standards available for informational purposes, and the quality control principles established in E2031 continue to influence professional practice. Organizations like the International Society of Polygraph Examiners (ISOPE) and the American Association of Police Polygraphists (AAPP) still explicitly reference ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards in their own standards of practice [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. The APA Standards of Practice, most recently amended in August 2024, incorporate many of the same quality control principles [9]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Amended 8-23-24)
Confirms APA requires 30 continuing education hours every two years and compliance with governing regulations for all examinations. For professionals and agencies, the standard's framework remains the most comprehensive quality benchmark available.

APA-Accredited Training Programs

The foundation of polygraph quality control begins with examiner education. APA-accredited polygraph training programs require a minimum of 400 hours of in-residence instruction [10]Verified Polygraph Licensing: How to Become Certified
Confirms training programs require minimum 400 hours, typically lasting 10-13 weeks, and APA requires 30 CE hours every two years [11]Verified PEAK Credibility Assessment Training Center — Basic Training Course
Confirms APA-accredited basic polygraph examiner course requires minimum of 400 hours with immersive learning methods. These programs typically last between 10 to 13 weeks and must be completed at a qualified education and training facility [10]Verified Polygraph Licensing: How to Become Certified
Confirms training programs require minimum 400 hours, typically lasting 10-13 weeks, and APA requires 30 CE hours every two years. At least 95 percent of all instruction within an APA-accredited academy must be conducted by a recognized faculty member [10]Verified Polygraph Licensing: How to Become Certified
Confirms training programs require minimum 400 hours, typically lasting 10-13 weeks, and APA requires 30 CE hours every two years.

The curriculum covers a comprehensive range of subjects essential to competent polygraph practice, including the history and development of detection of deception, relevant physiology, psychology, question formulation, chart analysis, instrumentation, and professional ethics [10]Verified Polygraph Licensing: How to Become Certified
Confirms training programs require minimum 400 hours, typically lasting 10-13 weeks, and APA requires 30 CE hours every two years [11]Verified PEAK Credibility Assessment Training Center — Basic Training Course
Confirms APA-accredited basic polygraph examiner course requires minimum of 400 hours with immersive learning methods. Programs such as the PEAK Credibility Assessment Training Center, accredited by the APA and recognized by the AAPP, integrate role-playing, hands-on activities, scenario-based practicum, and mock examinations into their curriculum [11]Verified PEAK Credibility Assessment Training Center — Basic Training Course
Confirms APA-accredited basic polygraph examiner course requires minimum of 400 hours with immersive learning methods. This immersive approach ensures graduates gain practical experience conducting examinations under realistic field conditions. For more details on ensuring agreement on question meaning in polygraph examinations, see our dedicated guide.

Following completion of basic training, graduates typically enter a supervised internship phase where they conduct examinations under the guidance of experienced examiners. For example, some programs require graduates to submit ten actual polygraph examinations that meet professional standards following graduation [12]Verified The Polygraph Institute — Basic Training Course Catalog
Confirms 400-hour in-residence basic polygraph examiner course curriculum with supervised field requirements. ASTM separately published E2000, the Standard Guide for Minimum Basic Education and Training for PDD examiners, which formalized baseline educational requirements [13]Verified ASTM E2000-05 — Standard Guide for Minimum Basic Education and Training
Confirms ASTM published separate standard for minimum PDD examiner education and training requirements. Those considering this career path can learn more about who suits a career as a polygraph examiner.

Continuing Education Requirements

Maintaining professional competency requires ongoing education. The APA requires practicing examiners to complete a minimum of 30 continuing education hours every two years in coursework related to the field of polygraphy [9]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Amended 8-23-24)
Confirms APA requires 30 continuing education hours every two years and compliance with governing regulations for all examinations [14]Verified Policy for APA Continuing Education Hours
Confirms APA requires practicing examiners to complete minimum 30 continuing education hours every two years. A practicing examiner is defined as any member who has conducted polygraph training, quality assurance, or examinations in the previous two years [14]Verified Policy for APA Continuing Education Hours
Confirms APA requires practicing examiners to complete minimum 30 continuing education hours every two years. Examiners are responsible for maintaining their own records to document that they have met the continuing education requirement [9]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Amended 8-23-24)
Confirms APA requires 30 continuing education hours every two years and compliance with governing regulations for all examinations.

Continuing education may include attending conferences, workshops, advanced training courses, and specialized seminars. Topics cover advances in research, technique refinement, new scoring methods, legal developments, and ethical considerations. This ongoing professional development ensures examiners remain current with the latest evidence-based practices and can apply them to their examinations.

Creating an Optimal Testing Environment

ASTM E2031 and the ISOPE Standards of Practice both specify that the testing environment shall be free from distractions that would interfere with the examinee's ability to appropriately focus on the issues being addressed [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. The ISOPE standards elaborate that the examination site should be reasonably free from distractions that would interfere with the conductance of a proper examination [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

In practical terms, this means a private, quiet room with appropriate sound insulation, comfortable temperature, and suitable lighting. The examinee should be seated comfortably where they cannot observe the recording equipment, allowing them to concentrate fully on the questions being asked. The examiner should have full access to instrumentation during the in-test phase. For guidance on travelling safely with polygraph equipment to testing locations, see our equipment guide.

Additionally, the ISOPE standards recommend that an examiner should not conduct more than five polygraph examinations on a calendar day [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice, recognizing that examiner fatigue can compromise quality. This practical limit supports the overall quality control objective of ensuring each examination receives adequate attention and professional diligence.

Instrument Requirements and Functionality Checks

Quality polygraph examinations depend on properly functioning instruments. The ISOPE Standards of Practice, referencing ASTM requirements, state that no examination shall be conducted unless the instrument meets the manufacturer's specifications [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. ASTM E2063-12(2017), the Standard Practice for Calibration and Functionality Checks Used in Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examinations, sets forth the minimum requirements for calibration and functionality checks when conducting PDD examinations [15]Verified ASTM E2063-12(2017) — Calibration and Functionality Checks for PDD Examinations
Confirms minimum requirements for calibration and functionality checks when conducting PDD examinations.

Modern polygraph instruments must consist of a minimum of two separate respiratory components to record patterns in thoracic and abdominal activity, an electrodermal component to record relative changes in conductance or resistance of current by the epidermal tissue, a cardiovascular component capable of recording changes in relative blood pressure, pulse rate and pulse amplitude, and a separate data channel specifically designed to record physical body movements that could cause distortions [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. Other physiological data may also be recorded during testing, but may not be used to formulate decisions of truthfulness or deception unless validated in replicated and published research [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

Examiners must verify all instruments meet manufacturer specifications before each examination and maintain calibration documentation. Regular calibration checks ensure the accuracy and reliability of physiological data collection — a critical foundation for sound analytical conclusions.

Pretest Practices and Question Formulation

The ISOPE Standards of Practice, aligned with ASTM E2031 principles, establish detailed pretest requirements. The examiner shall properly verify the correct identity of the examinee to the extent possible [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. If at any time the examiner believes that the examinee is not suitable for testing, the examination must be immediately terminated [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. All examinations shall be conducted in compliance with governing local, state, and federal regulations and laws [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

The examiner shall treat the examinee in a professional manner and display an objective attitude [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. Sufficient time shall be spent with the examinee to allow them to discuss the issues to be tested and to fully explain their position [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. The examiner shall formulate all test questions and allow sufficient time to introduce each question in a manner that complies with the technique being used and recognized best practices [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. Crucially, sufficient time must be spent to ensure the examinee recognizes and understands each question as well as the polygraph process [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. Our guide to ensuring agreement on question meaning covers this critical aspect in detail.

John E. Reid's invention of the Control Question Test (CQT) in 1947 [16]Verified The Control Question Test
Confirms John E. Reid invented the Control Question Test (CQT) in 1947, the most widely used polygraph method worldwide established the most widely used testing format, which forms the basis for many validated techniques referenced in quality control standards. Understanding the role of baseline responses and their proper establishment is fundamental to accurate testing.

Recording, Documentation, and Data Retention

Quality control extends to thorough documentation. The ISOPE standards specify that where permitted by law, evidentiary examinations and sex offender examinations should be recorded by audio or audio/visual means in their entirety, with any stops or pauses fully explained on the recording [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. All polygraph files, data, reports, and recordings shall be retained and maintained for a minimum of one year, or longer if required by applicable regulations [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

This documentation requirement ensures that examinations can be subjected to quality control review at a later date. Complete records enable independent reviewers to assess whether the examination was conducted properly, whether the data supports the conclusions rendered, and whether professional standards were followed. For more on maintaining confidentiality and security when handling examination records, see our examiner guide.

Manual Scoring Systems

The Utah Numerical Scoring System, described by Bell, Raskin, Honts, and Kircher in 1999, uses a +3 to -3 scale across respiration, electrodermal, blood pressure, and vasomotor channels [17]Verified The Utah Numerical Scoring System
Describes the Utah numerical scoring system using +3 to -3 scale across respiration, electrodermal, blood pressure, and vasomotor channels. This 7-position numerical scoring approach provides structured criteria for evaluating physiological responses, reducing the variability inherent in purely subjective assessment. The Empirical Scoring System (ESS) further refined manual scoring by providing evidence-based normative data and structured rules for test data analysis [18]Verified Brute-Force Comparison: A Monte Carlo Study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and Human Polygraph Scorers
Confirms OSS-3 accuracy exceeded 9 of 10 human scorers, interrater reliability kappa =.58 for experienced human scorers.

Research has shown that structured scoring methods improve inter-rater reliability — the extent to which different examiners draw the same conclusions from the same examination data. When inexperienced examiners used the empirically based scoring system, they achieved average decision accuracy of 88% with balanced sensitivity and specificity levels comparable to experienced scorers [18]Verified Brute-Force Comparison: A Monte Carlo Study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and Human Polygraph Scorers
Confirms OSS-3 accuracy exceeded 9 of 10 human scorers, interrater reliability kappa =.58 for experienced human scorers. For a deeper exploration of scoring approaches, see our guide on how to analyze and interpret polygraph data according to APA standards.

Computerized Scoring Algorithms

Computer-assisted scoring algorithms represent a significant advancement in polygraph quality control, serving as decision-support tools that complement manual analysis. The major algorithms include:

The Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3), developed by Raymond Nelson, Donald Krapohl, and Mark Handler, is a free, open-source algorithm that uses physiological response features first introduced by University of Utah researchers — known as Kircher features — including electrodermal amplitude, cardiovascular changes, respiration reduction, and vasomotor pulse amplitude constriction [18]Verified Brute-Force Comparison: A Monte Carlo Study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and Human Polygraph Scorers
Confirms OSS-3 accuracy exceeded 9 of 10 human scorers, interrater reliability kappa =.58 for experienced human scorers [19]Verified Practice for Quality Control of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (Polygraph) Examinations
Confirms the standard established that all PDD examinations may be subjected to quality control review by experienced examiners, with reviews required to be independent and objective. OSS-3 is a 7-position scoring system where individually assigned values are derived from ratios of Kircher feature measurements, effectively eliminating subjectivity in chart interpretation [20]Verified Objective Scoring System (OSS) — British Polygraph Society Glossary
Confirms OSS is a 7-position scoring system derived from Kircher features that eliminates subjectivity in chart interpretation. Research found that OSS-3 accuracy exceeded that of 9 of 10 human scorers in a Monte Carlo comparison study, with interrater reliability for human scorers measured at kappa =.58 for experienced examiners [18]Verified Brute-Force Comparison: A Monte Carlo Study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and Human Polygraph Scorers
Confirms OSS-3 accuracy exceeded 9 of 10 human scorers, interrater reliability kappa =.58 for experienced human scorers.

PolyScore was developed at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU-APL) and employs logistic regression methods to analyze polygraph data [21]Verified Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data — National Academies Press
Confirms PolyScore developed at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and CPS developed based on University of Utah research [22]Verified PolyScore for Windows
Confirms PolyScore was developed by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. CPS (Computerized Polygraph System) was developed based on University of Utah research by John Kircher and David Raskin [21]Verified Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data — National Academies Press
Confirms PolyScore developed at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and CPS developed based on University of Utah research. These algorithms analyze physiological data using statistical methods and serve as objective decision-support tools. For more on the role of automated scoring in modern polygraph analysis, see our comprehensive guide.

The advantage of computerized scoring is perfect reliability — the computer algorithm produces the same result every time given the same data [18]Verified Brute-Force Comparison: A Monte Carlo Study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and Human Polygraph Scorers
Confirms OSS-3 accuracy exceeded 9 of 10 human scorers, interrater reliability kappa =.58 for experienced human scorers. This consistency is essential for quality assurance and supports the objective, evidence-based approach that ASTM E2031 promoted.

Professional Ethics Framework

ASTM Committee E52.07 on Ethics in Administration of PDD Tests developed E2065, the Guide for Ethical Requirements for Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD) Examiners, which presents the ethical parameters of polygraph testing [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. These ethical standards work in conjunction with E2031's quality control requirements to ensure examinations are conducted with integrity.

The ethical framework requires examiners to maintain objectivity, protect examinee confidentiality, and conduct examinations only when appropriate. The APA's Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice further reinforce these principles, requiring members to maintain the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct and to discharge their duties with complete impartiality, dignity, and respect [23]Verified APA Member Benefits — American Polygraph Association
Confirms APA established in 1966 with approximately 2,800 members maintaining highest ethical and professional standards. Members recognize that their primary responsibility is to the person being examined, and are forbidden to allow considerations of race, religion, politics, union activity, or economic status to play any part in their examinations [23]Verified APA Member Benefits — American Polygraph Association
Confirms APA established in 1966 with approximately 2,800 members maintaining highest ethical and professional standards.

Research has demonstrated that polygraph testing can serve valuable therapeutic and investigative functions when conducted ethically. A 2020 study of 52 sex offenders found that the polygraph group disclosed more deviant sexual behaviors and paraphilic interests than the comparison group, supporting the effectiveness of structured polygraph-facilitated disclosure interviews [24]Verified Improving the Quality of Sexual History Disclosure: Emphasis on a Polygraph Examination
Confirmed polygraph group disclosed more deviant sexual behaviors than comparison group, supporting SHDE interview effectiveness with polygraph [25]Verified Improving the Quality of Sexual History Disclosure on Sex Offenders: Emphasis on a Polygraph Examination
Study of 52 sex offenders confirming polygraph group disclosed more deviant behaviors and paraphilic interests. This application underscores the importance of ethical standards that protect examinees while enabling legitimate use of the technology. For more on testing the limits of admission in polygraph exams, see our detailed guide.

Research-Supported Accuracy Rates

The adherence to quality standards significantly contributes to achieving high accuracy rates in polygraph examinations. The APA's meta-analytic survey found that validated PDD techniques produce an aggregated decision accuracy of 89% for event-specific (single issue) diagnostic testing, with a confidence interval of 83% to 95% and an estimated inconclusive rate of 11% [26]Verified Polygraph Validity Research — American Polygraph Association
Confirms aggregated decision accuracy of 89% for event-specific testing, 85% for multi-issue, and 87% overall for validated PDD techniques. Multi-issue screening techniques produced an aggregated decision accuracy of 85%, and the combination of all validated PDD techniques, excluding outlier results, produced a decision accuracy of 87% [26]Verified Polygraph Validity Research — American Polygraph Association
Confirms aggregated decision accuracy of 89% for event-specific testing, 85% for multi-issue, and 87% overall for validated PDD techniques.

The meta-analysis included 38 studies satisfying qualitative and quantitative requirements, involving 32 different samples and 45 experiments, with 295 scorers providing 11,737 scored results of 3,723 examinations [26]Verified Polygraph Validity Research — American Polygraph Association
Confirms aggregated decision accuracy of 89% for event-specific testing, 85% for multi-issue, and 87% overall for validated PDD techniques. Research compiled by the Department of Justice found that 12 field validity studies averaging 2,174 examinations showed 98% accuracy [27]Verified Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing — Office of Justice Programs
Confirms 12 field validity studies showed 98% average accuracy from 2,174 field examinations. A separate NIJ-funded study of U.S. Secret Service examinations found that the accuracy of human and computer interpretations ranged from 91% to 96% correct on confirmed truthful answers, and 85% to 95% correct on confirmed deceptive answers [28]Verified Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation
Confirms accuracy of human and computer interpretations ranged from 91% to 96% for truthful and 85% to 95% for deceptive subjects.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of the Comparison Question Test by Honts (2021) captured data from 138 datasets and found that motivation had a positive linear relationship with accuracy outcomes, and that no publication bias was detected [29]Verified A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of the Comparison Question Polygraph Test
Meta-analysis of 138 CQT datasets finding motivation positively related to accuracy and no publication bias detected. Earlier research by Kircher, Horowitz, and Raskin (1988) found accuracy exceeded 85% across 14 CQT laboratory studies, with significant moderator effects including participant type and motivation levels [30]Verified Meta-Analysis of Mock Crime Studies of the Control Question Polygraph Technique
Meta-analysis of 14 CQT laboratory studies finding accuracy exceeded 85% across studies with significant moderator effects. Honts and Raskin's (1988) field study demonstrated that the directed-lie comparison question was at least as accurate as the probable-lie CQT with fewer false positive errors [31]Verified A Field Study of the Validity of the Directed Lie Control Question
First field validation showing directed-lie comparison question was at least as accurate as probable-lie CQT with fewer false positive errors.

The Role of Global Evaluation and Professional Judgment

While standardized scoring and computerized algorithms are essential tools, professional polygraph examiners also apply global evaluation — the integration of all available information including chart data, behavioral observations, case context, and professional expertise. The quality control framework of E2031 supports both structured numerical analysis and expert judgment, recognizing that no automated procedure can substitute for the need for a competent interview and test data acquisition phase.

Barland (1985) proposed an innovative method for estimating individual test accuracy from physiological response magnitudes, laying the groundwork for confidence-based polygraph decision reporting [32]Verified A Method of Estimating the Accuracy of Individual Control Question Polygraph Tests
Proposed innovative method for estimating individual test accuracy from physiological response magnitudes, laying groundwork for confidence-based reporting. This concept of quantifying uncertainty — knowing how confident an examiner can be in a specific result — represents an important evolution in quality control thinking. Saxe and Ben-Shakhar (1999) further advanced the conversation by applying behavioral science concepts of reliability and validity to polygraph admissibility and calling for mutual language between scientists and courts [33]Verified Admissibility of Polygraph Tests: The Application of Scientific Standards Post-Daubert
Applied behavioral science concepts of reliability and validity to polygraph admissibility, calling for mutual language between scientists and courts.

Understanding artifacts in polygraph testing and their management is another critical component of quality-controlled examinations, ensuring that physiological data is accurately interpreted.

Cross-Organizational Influence

The influence of ASTM E2031 extends well beyond its formal status. The International Society of Polygraph Examiners (ISOPE) explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards — including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 — in its own standards of practice [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. The AAPP holds that polygraph testing and credibility assessment are evolving fields of science intended to be used as decision support tools, with decisions about truthfulness and deception most effective when based on empirical knowledge [34]Verified AAPP Standards and Principles
Confirms AAPP's commitment to evidence-based, scientific approach to credibility assessment as decision support tools.

The American Polygraph Association, established in 1966, promotes the highest standards of professional, ethical, and scientific practices for its 2,800+ members [23]Verified APA Member Benefits — American Polygraph Association
Confirms APA established in 1966 with approximately 2,800 members maintaining highest ethical and professional standards [35]Verified American Polygraph Association — Home
Confirms APA was established in 1966 with 2,700+ members dedicated to evidence-based credibility assessment standards. The APA's Standards of Practice, most recently amended in August 2024, incorporate quality control principles consistent with E2031, including continuing education requirements, compliance with governing regulations, and proper documentation practices [9]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Amended 8-23-24)
Confirms APA requires 30 continuing education hours every two years and compliance with governing regulations for all examinations. The European polygraph community, represented by organizations such as the European Polygraph Association (EuroPolygraph), has similarly adopted standards influenced by ASTM's framework.

As Baranowski noted, ASTM standards are now often cited by professional organizations and are well known in the courts [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. The establishment of Committee E52 has been described as one of the most valuable developments in the history of polygraph examinations [4]Verified Would I Lie To You? — ASTM Standardization News
Confirms Committee E52 organizational meeting in 1997, formation of subcommittees, and key figures including Widup, Schwartz, and Baranowski. Even with the formal withdrawal of E2031 in 2025, the quality control principles it codified continue to serve as the profession's benchmark.

Ensuring Quality Through Independent Review

One of E2031's most significant contributions was establishing the principle that all PDD examinations may be subjected to quality control review by experienced examiners, with reviews required to be independent and objective [5]Verified ASTM E2031-99R16 — Standard Practice for Quality Control of PDD Examinations
Confirms the full title, designation E2031-99R16, Committee E52 jurisdiction, quality control review procedures, and 2025 withdrawal. This independent review process — where a qualified reviewer evaluates the test data, questions, and conclusions without knowledge of the original examiner's decision — is a cornerstone of professional accountability.

Blind chart review, peer evaluation, and inter-rater reliability studies all serve to calibrate examiners against established standards and identify areas for improvement. These quality assurance activities help maintain consistency across the profession and provide confidence that examination results are reliable. Consumers seeking to verify the quality of their polygraph test should ensure their examiner participates in such quality assurance programs. To guard against fraudulent results, review our guide on fake polygraph results: hidden costs, legal risks, and how to verify.

Implementing Quality Control in Practice

For examiners seeking to align their practice with the quality control principles established by ASTM E2031 and reinforced by current professional standards, the following checklist provides a practical framework:

Complete accredited training at an APA-accredited program requiring a minimum of 400 hours of instruction covering psychophysiology, psychology, instrumentation, question formulation, chart analysis, and professional ethics [10]Verified Polygraph Licensing: How to Become Certified
Confirms training programs require minimum 400 hours, typically lasting 10-13 weeks, and APA requires 30 CE hours every two years [11]Verified PEAK Credibility Assessment Training Center — Basic Training Course
Confirms APA-accredited basic polygraph examiner course requires minimum of 400 hours with immersive learning methods. Maintain a minimum of 30 continuing education hours every two years as required by the APA [14]Verified Policy for APA Continuing Education Hours
Confirms APA requires practicing examiners to complete minimum 30 continuing education hours every two years. Ensure the examination environment is free from distractions and maintains appropriate temperature, lighting, and sound insulation [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

Verify all instruments meet manufacturer specifications before each examination and maintain calibration documentation [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice [15]Verified ASTM E2063-12(2017) — Calibration and Functionality Checks for PDD Examinations
Confirms minimum requirements for calibration and functionality checks when conducting PDD examinations. Follow validated testing techniques with standardized question formulation, adequate chart presentations, and proper artifact management. Conduct examinations in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice.

Maintain complete examination records including all charts, questions, reports, and recordings for a minimum of one year [7]Verified ISOPE Standards of Practice
Confirms ISOPE explicitly references ASTM E2031 and related E52 standards including E1954, E2000, E2063, E2439, and E2229 in its own standards of practice. Participate in quality assurance activities including blind chart review and peer evaluation. Engage with professional organizations such as the APA or AAPP to demonstrate adherence to established standards of practice and ethical codes.

Those seeking qualified examiners for testing can review our polygraph test locations or book a polygraph test directly through our platform. For current polygraph test pricing information, visit our dedicated pricing page.