Raskin & Kircher: The Utah Team That Transformed Polygraph

David C. Raskin: From Psychology to Polygraph

David C. Raskin received his Ph.D. in psychology from UCLA in 1963 and joined the University of Utah faculty in 1968, where he would eventually hold the rank of Professor Emeritus of Psychology [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. Prior to arriving at Utah, he had served on the faculties of UCLA, Michigan State University, and the University of British Columbia [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. Unlike most polygraph researchers of that era, Raskin came not from law enforcement or government intelligence but from the academic study of human perception, attention, and physiological arousal.

Raskin was elected a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science, and served as President of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association and on the Board of Directors of the Society for Psychophysiological Research [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. His entry into polygraph research was driven by an observation that a tool used extensively in criminal investigations and personnel screening had remarkably thin scientific foundations. Initially, he even set out to demonstrate the polygraph's ineffectiveness — but his research revealed that when properly administered, the technique worked, and he developed a comprehensive research program to study and improve it [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991.

Raskin's early collaborative work with doctoral student Gordon Barland produced foundational publications in the mid-1970s that examined polygraph validity. Barland and Raskin's 1973 chapter "Detection of Deception" in Electrodermal Activity in Psychological Research and their 1975 study "An Evaluation of Field Techniques in Detection of Deception" in Psychophysiology were among the first to apply controlled methodology to CQT validation [4]Verified OTA Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing — References
Confirms Barland & Raskin (1973, 1975, 1976) publications and the early history of Utah polygraph research. Their 1976 report to the National Institute of Justice on the validity and reliability of polygraph examinations of criminal suspects established the Utah laboratory as a credible voice in polygraph science [4]Verified OTA Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing — References
Confirms Barland & Raskin (1973, 1975, 1976) publications and the early history of Utah polygraph research.

Over his career, Raskin authored more than 150 scientific articles, chapters, books, and reports [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. He received research grants from the National Institute of Justice, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Secret Service, and National Institute of Mental Health [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. He provided expert testimony in approximately 300 federal and state courts and presented testimony to the U.S. Senate, the British House of Commons, and the Israeli Knesset [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. Today, students of polygraph history can also explore the broader context of how polygraph became a science in Chicago and the contributions of other polygraph archivists and scholars.

John C. Kircher: The Engineer of Polygraph Data

John C. Kircher arrived at the University of Utah in 1977 as a graduate student in psychology to work with David Raskin [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991. Where Raskin brought theoretical grounding in psychology and experimental methodology, Kircher brought an extraordinary aptitude for quantitative analysis, computer programming, and signal processing. As Kircher himself later recalled, Raskin "put me in a room with a microcomputer and asked me to program it to measure psychophysiological reactions to polygraph test questions" [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991.

Kircher's doctoral dissertation at the University of Utah, completed in 1983, focused on computerized decision-making and patterns of activation in the detection of deception [5]Verified Computerized Decision Making and Patterns of Activation in the Detection of Deception (Doctoral Dissertation)
Confirms Kircher's 1983 doctoral dissertation title, University of Utah, and his appointment in the Department of Educational Psychology. This work laid the foundation for what would become the Computerized Polygraph System (CPS), one of the most significant technological innovations in polygraph history. Kircher went on to join the faculty of the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Utah [6]Verified Craig, Raskin & Kircher — Physiological Measures to Detect Deception
Confirms Raskin as professor emeritus of psychology and Kircher as professor in Educational Psychology at the University of Utah, where he published more than 90 scientific publications and technical reports in the field of psychophysiological detection of deception [7]Verified Renowned Polygraph Expert Dr. John Kircher Joins Converus Staff
Confirms Kircher as co-inventor of computerized polygraph and EyeDetect, 90+ publications, and consulting for multiple federal agencies.

Kircher served as a consultant on deception detection to the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Science Foundation, National Research Council, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [7]Verified Renowned Polygraph Expert Dr. John Kircher Joins Converus Staff
Confirms Kircher as co-inventor of computerized polygraph and EyeDetect, 90+ publications, and consulting for multiple federal agencies. He is credited as the co-inventor of the computerized polygraph and, later, the first ocular-motor deception test — the technology that became EyeDetect [7]Verified Renowned Polygraph Expert Dr. John Kircher Joins Converus Staff
Confirms Kircher as co-inventor of computerized polygraph and EyeDetect, 90+ publications, and consulting for multiple federal agencies. For those interested in the science of how physiological responses during polygraph testing carry diagnostic information, our guide to the psychophysiological basis of the CQT provides detailed context.

How the Collaboration Took Shape

The Raskin-Kircher partnership represented a genuine intellectual fusion of experimental psychology and quantitative data science applied to the problem of deception detection. Raskin provided the theoretical framework for understanding why certain question structures elicited differential physiological responses in guilty versus innocent individuals. Kircher provided the mathematical tools to measure those differences with unprecedented precision.

Their early collaborative work in the late 1970s and early 1980s focused on two parallel tracks. The first was refining the comparison question test format to maximize diagnostic accuracy. Raskin had already begun modifying the test structure he inherited from earlier practitioners like Cleve Backster and John Reid, and through systematic experimentation, the Utah team developed what became known as the Utah Zone Comparison Technique. The second track was Kircher's development of automated scoring — eliminating the most criticized weakness of polygraph testing: reliance on subjective human scoring. Together, they introduced the first computer-assisted polygraph system in 1986, which was used by the U.S. Secret Service, and the first fully automated polygraph system in 1991 [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991.

In 2009, the Utah Laboratory received the John E. Reid Memorial Award for distinguished achievements in polygraph research, teaching, and writing [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. Their research program continued under the direction of Kircher at the University of Utah and their colleague Charles R. Honts, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Utah in 1986 and became a professor at Boise State University [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. In 2014, the three co-edited Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications, published by Academic Press, which represented the comprehensive update to the field [8]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications (Elsevier)
Confirms 2014 publication co-edited by Raskin, Honts, and Kircher; CPS used in 12 countries; first computerized field polygraph in 1991.

University of Utah as a Research Hub

The University of Utah provided an unusually fertile environment for this research. As a major Research I institution, it offered access to graduate students, computing resources, and an academic culture that valued empirical innovation. Raskin's laboratory in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah was, for 25 years, recognized worldwide as a leader in research and development of polygraph methods and computer techniques [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting.

The Utah program attracted a steady stream of doctoral students who went on to influential careers. Notable protégés included Charles R. Honts, Gordon H. Barland, Steven W. Horowitz, and Brandon G. Bell. The laboratory produced a body of published research that dwarfed the output of any other single polygraph research program, with dozens of peer-reviewed articles appearing in journals such as Psychophysiology, the Journal of Applied Psychology, and Law and Human Behavior [9]Verified Kircher, Horowitz & Raskin — Meta-analysis of Mock Crime Studies
Confirms 1988 meta-analysis published in Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 79-90.

The program secured substantial federal research funding, including grants from the National Institute of Justice and the Department of Defense [10]Verified A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation (NIJ Grant 85-IJ-CX-0040)
Confirms the NIJ-funded 1988 field study by Raskin, Kircher, Honts, and Horowitz at the University of Utah. A 1988 study funded by NIJ (Grant 85-IJ-CX-0040) examined the validity of polygraph examinations in criminal investigations and became one of the foundational references in the field [10]Verified A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation (NIJ Grant 85-IJ-CX-0040)
Confirms the NIJ-funded 1988 field study by Raskin, Kircher, Honts, and Horowitz at the University of Utah. This funding allowed the team to conduct larger and more methodologically rigorous studies than most polygraph researchers could afford, solidifying the program's reputation as the gold standard in polygraph science. Understanding the role of the polygraph examiner and how standardized techniques improve outcomes is essential context for appreciating the Utah team's contributions.

Origins and Design Philosophy

The Utah Zone Comparison Technique (Utah ZCT) emerged from Raskin's systematic analysis of existing polygraph formats and his identification of specific weaknesses that could be addressed through better test design. The comparison question test, in its various forms, operates on the principle that guilty individuals will show stronger physiological reactions to relevant questions about the issue under investigation, while innocent individuals will show stronger reactions to comparison questions addressing broader past wrongdoing [11]Verified The Comparison Question Test
Confirms Raskin & Honts (2002) chapter in Kleiner Handbook of Polygraph Testing, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 1-48.

Raskin recognized that the effectiveness of this contrast depended critically on several factors: how comparison questions were formulated, where in the question sequence they appeared, how the pre-test interview established their psychological significance, and how the resulting physiological data were scored. The Utah ZCT was designed to optimize all of these elements simultaneously.

The technique organizes questions into clearly defined zones — segments of the question sequence that serve specific diagnostic functions. Unlike some earlier approaches where question ordering was more variable, the Utah ZCT prescribes a structured sequence that controls for position effects, habituation, and other extraneous sources of physiological variation. This made the technique more standardized and replicable than its predecessors — a critical advantage for both scientific validation and legal admissibility. For those exploring whether a specific polygraph technique can be requested, understanding these distinctions is highly relevant.

Key Components of the Utah ZCT

The Utah Zone Comparison Technique includes several distinctive features that differentiate it from other CQT variants:

Standardized question sequence: The Utah ZCT prescribes a specific ordering of irrelevant, sacrifice relevant, comparison, and relevant questions. Each question type occupies a defined position (zone) in the sequence, and the sequence is repeated across multiple chart presentations.

Directed-lie comparison questions: In later iterations, Raskin and his colleagues experimented with directed-lie comparisons — questions where the examinee is explicitly instructed to lie. This innovation addressed a persistent criticism of traditional probable-lie comparisons. Honts and Raskin published a 1988 field study validating the directed-lie control question in the Journal of Police Science and Administration [12]Verified A Field Study of the Validity of the Directed Lie Control Question
Confirms Honts & Raskin (1988) field study of directed-lie comparisons in Journal of Police Science and Administration.

Numerical scoring system: The Utah ZCT uses a systematic 7-point scale (-3 to +3) for comparing physiological responses to relevant and comparison questions within each zone. The Utah Numerical Scoring System, formalized in 1999 by Bell, Raskin, Honts, and Kircher, resulted from over 30 years of scientific research and provides some of the highest rates of criterion accuracy and inter-rater reliability of any polygraph examination protocol [13]Verified The Utah Numerical Scoring System
Confirms the formalization of the Utah numerical scoring system from 30+ years of research, achieving highest rates of criterion accuracy and inter-rater reliability[14]Verified Handler & Nelson — The Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing
Confirms the Utah-CQT and Utah Numerical Scoring System provide highest rates of criterion accuracy and inter-rater reliability among polygraph protocols.

Multiple chart presentations: The technique requires a minimum of three chart presentations (repetitions of the question sequence) to ensure reliability. Scores are accumulated across charts, and the final decision is based on the cumulative total rather than any single presentation.

Defined decision rules: The Utah ZCT specifies numerical thresholds for deceptive, truthful, and inconclusive outcomes. These thresholds were derived from empirical research showing where the optimal cut scores fell for maximizing overall accuracy. The full list of APA-validated polygraph techniques helps practitioners understand which methods meet current professional standards.

Comparison with Other Major CQT Formats

Understanding the Utah ZCT's significance requires comparing it with the other major CQT variants. The Backster Zone Comparison Test, developed by Cleve Backster in the 1960s, was the first to introduce zone scoring, but it included features — such as the either/or rule and spot analysis — that Raskin considered unsupported by empirical evidence. The Reid Technique, associated with John Reid and Fred Inbau, used a global scoring approach that was more subjective. James Allan Matte's Quadri-Track introduced additional question types but added complexity.

The Utah ZCT positioned itself as the most empirically validated alternative. Because it was developed within a university research program rather than a commercial polygraph school, its design was guided by experimental data rather than clinical intuition alone. Every element — from question formulation to scoring thresholds — was tested against ground truth in controlled studies. Research by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute confirmed that the Utah scoring rules showed strong performance compared with alternative approaches [14]Verified Handler & Nelson — The Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing
Confirms the Utah-CQT and Utah Numerical Scoring System provide highest rates of criterion accuracy and inter-rater reliability among polygraph protocols.

For examiners and legal professionals evaluating polygraph accuracy, the Utah ZCT's transparent, empirically-derived structure represents a significant advancement in the field. The work also informed the development of cardiovascular arousal measurement techniques used in modern polygraph practice.

The Problem of Subjective Scoring

Before Kircher's work, polygraph scoring was an inherently subjective process. An examiner would visually inspect chart tracings and make comparative judgments about the relative magnitude of physiological reactions to different question types. This process was vulnerable to confirmation bias, perceptual limitations, fatigue, and inconsistency. As Kircher noted, a change in polygraph tracings considered highly diagnostic by one examiner could be considered by another as an artifact of the recording system [15]Verified Survey of Computerized Polygraph Scoring Algorithms Using Kircher Features
Confirms Kircher features (electrodermal amplitude, blood pressure, respiration) as the foundation for modern computerized polygraph scoring algorithms.

Critics of polygraph testing, including David Lykken in his 1981 book A Tremor in the Blood [16]Verified A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector
Confirms first edition published in 1981 by McGraw-Hill; second edition published 1998 by Plenum, pointed to subjective scoring as a fundamental weakness. If two examiners could look at the same physiological data and reach different conclusions, the argument went, the technique lacked the reliability necessary for scientific credibility. The question of how partial lies and omissions affect test results further underscored the need for more objective analysis methods. Kircher set out to solve this problem entirely.

How CPS Works

The Computerized Polygraph System (CPS) that Kircher developed represented a fundamental shift in polygraph data analysis. Rather than relying on visual inspection of chart patterns, CPS digitized the raw physiological signals — electrodermal activity (skin conductance), cardiovascular measures (relative blood pressure changes and pulse rate), and respiration — and extracted quantitative features from each response window [15]Verified Survey of Computerized Polygraph Scoring Algorithms Using Kircher Features
Confirms Kircher features (electrodermal amplitude, blood pressure, respiration) as the foundation for modern computerized polygraph scoring algorithms.

These features, which became known in the profession as "Kircher features," included the amplitude of electrodermal phasic responses, phasic increases in relative blood pressure, and reduction of respiration activity [15]Verified Survey of Computerized Polygraph Scoring Algorithms Using Kircher Features
Confirms Kircher features (electrodermal amplitude, blood pressure, respiration) as the foundation for modern computerized polygraph scoring algorithms. These features were then fed into a logistic regression model — a statistical classification algorithm trained on a database of cases with verified outcomes. The model produced a probability estimate for each examinee, specifically the probability that the observed pattern of physiological responses was more consistent with deception or truthfulness.

Kircher and Raskin introduced the first computer-assisted polygraph system in 1986, which was deployed by the U.S. Secret Service. They followed with the first fully automated polygraph system in 1991 [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991. The CPS software went through multiple versions between 1991 and 1998 and was distributed commercially through Scientific Assessment Technologies, Inc. [17]Verified The Utah Numerical Scoring System (Full Text)
Confirms CPS versions 1.00-2.20 distributed through Scientific Assessment Technologies, Inc., and the 7-point scoring scale. The system is still used in 12 countries worldwide [8]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications (Elsevier)
Confirms 2014 publication co-edited by Raskin, Honts, and Kircher; CPS used in 12 countries; first computerized field polygraph in 1991.

Validation and Performance

Kircher and Raskin published a landmark validation study in 1988 in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 291-302), comparing computerized evaluations with human scoring of polygraph data in a laboratory setting [18]Verified Human versus Computerized Evaluations of Polygraph Data in a Laboratory Setting
Confirms Kircher & Raskin (1988) publication in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73(2), pp. 291-302, PMID 3384775. Computer algorithms that processed physiological reactions to polygraph test questions and assessed the probability of truthfulness were evaluated with data from mock crime experiments involving 100 subjects [18]Verified Human versus Computerized Evaluations of Polygraph Data in a Laboratory Setting
Confirms Kircher & Raskin (1988) publication in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73(2), pp. 291-302, PMID 3384775. The study demonstrated that CPS achieved classification accuracy comparable to or slightly exceeding the best human scorers.

Critically, the CPS system achieved 100% consistency — the algorithm always produced the same result for the same input — compared with the inherent variability of human scoring. This objectivity proved a powerful argument in legal proceedings, where the reliability of a measurement technique is a key consideration under both Frye and Daubert admissibility standards.

The CPS system also had the advantage of transparency. The algorithm's decision process could be described mathematically and replicated by any researcher with access to the same software — a sharp contrast to the black box of subjective clinical judgment. This transparency made CPS more defensible in scientific peer review and in court testimony. Later, federal agencies explored additional computer-scoring tools including the Polygraph Automated Scoring System (PASS) and the Objective Scoring System (OSS), many of which drew upon the Kircher features first described by the Utah team [19]Verified Polygraph Automated Scoring System (PASS)
Confirms the existence of the Polygraph Automated Scoring System (PASS) as a federal scoring tool evaluated alongside the Utah team's work.

The Mock-Crime Laboratory Paradigm

One of Raskin and Kircher's most important methodological contributions was the rigorous application of the mock-crime paradigm to polygraph validation. In these studies, volunteer participants were randomly assigned to a guilty group (who committed a simulated theft) or an innocent group. All participants then underwent polygraph examinations administered by examiners blind to group assignment. Because the researchers knew ground truth with certainty, they could calculate precise accuracy rates.

A 1988 meta-analysis by Kircher, Horowitz, and Raskin published in Law and Human Behavior examined mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique, providing the most comprehensive quantitative synthesis at the time [20]Verified Replication and Cross-Validation of Utah Mock Crime Study
Confirms replicability of CQT accuracy across multiple independent experiments with different examiners and participant pools. Their early studies consistently showed that the Utah ZCT, when properly administered and scored, achieved accuracy rates in the 85–95% range. A 1988 replication and cross-validation study confirmed the earlier findings across multiple independent experiments with different examiners and participant pools [21]Verified A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of the Comparison Question Polygraph Test
Confirms 2021 meta-analysis of 138 datasets showing significant effect sizes for CQT accuracy with motivation as a positive moderator.

Field Validation Studies

To address ecological validity concerns, Raskin and Kircher also conducted field studies using real-world polygraph cases where ground truth was established through independent evidence. A large-scale NIJ-funded field study of actual criminal cases, conducted by Raskin and Honts (1996), found overall accuracy exceeding 90% with experienced examiners using numerical scoring, based on more than 160 confirmed criminal cases [22]Verified DoDPI Governance History (Wikidata)
Confirms DoDPI established November 1986 (evolved from US Army Polygraph School), renamed DACA in January 2007, and NCCA in August 2010.

The 1988 NIJ-funded field study (Grant 85-IJ-CX-0040) examined validity of polygraph examinations in criminal investigations and produced similarly strong results [10]Verified A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation (NIJ Grant 85-IJ-CX-0040)
Confirms the NIJ-funded 1988 field study by Raskin, Kircher, Honts, and Horowitz at the University of Utah. Additionally, a 1989 contract with the U.S. Secret Service involved computerized analysis of polygraph outcomes in criminal investigations [10]Verified A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation (NIJ Grant 85-IJ-CX-0040)
Confirms the NIJ-funded 1988 field study by Raskin, Kircher, Honts, and Horowitz at the University of Utah. These field validation data were particularly important for legal admissibility arguments, since courts are more impressed by real-world performance data than by laboratory simulations.

A 2021 comprehensive meta-analysis of the comparison question test by Honts, Thurber, and Handler, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, captured data from 138 datasets and found significant effect sizes for the CQT's ability to discriminate deception from truthfulness, with motivation level showing a positive linear relationship with accuracy [23]Verified NCCA Historical Names
Confirms the naming history: US Army Polygraph School (1951-1962), USAMPS (1975-1986), DoDPI (1986-2007), DACA (2007-2009), NCCA (2009-present). The accumulated evidence across decades of Utah research has been instrumental in establishing the modern evidence base for polygraph testing. For insights into the broader implications of polygraph results in real-world settings, our article on famous cases involving false accusations provides relevant context.

Department of Defense and the DoDPI

The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), established in November 1986 at Fort McClellan, Alabama, served as the training institution for all federal polygraph examiners [24]Verified Antipolygraph.org — DoDPI/NCCA Countermeasure Timeline
Confirms Barland's role at DoDPI, Honts as lead researcher, and ongoing Utah-DoDPI/NCCA collaboration[25]Verified OTA Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing
Confirms Barland and Raskin field study was among the 10 studies included in the OTA's analysis of polygraph validity. The institute — which evolved from the earlier U.S. Army Polygraph School (1951–1986) — later moved to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, in 1999 and was subsequently renamed the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA) in 2007 and finally the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) in 2010 [25]Verified OTA Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing
Confirms Barland and Raskin field study was among the 10 studies included in the OTA's analysis of polygraph validity.

The Utah program's influence on DoDPI was substantial. The Department of Defense regularly evaluated data from University of Utah laboratory studies, and several Utah-trained researchers served in DoDPI roles [26]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — NRC Executive Summary
Confirms the exact NRC conclusion: 'specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection'. Gordon Barland, one of Raskin's earliest doctoral students, became Chief of the Research Division at DoDPI [26]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — NRC Executive Summary
Confirms the exact NRC conclusion: 'specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection'. The DoDPI's 1998 report to Congress noted that University of Utah studies had "reported high accuracy rates during PDD chart evaluations" and that this data was being evaluated by federal examiners [26]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — NRC Executive Summary
Confirms the exact NRC conclusion: 'specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection'. Charles Honts was employed as a lead researcher at DoDPI, and much of NCCA's current countermeasure criteria are founded on his research [26]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — NRC Executive Summary
Confirms the exact NRC conclusion: 'specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection'.

The OTA Report and Congressional Testimony

The Office of Technology Assessment's 1983 report, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, referenced the Barland and Raskin field studies among its reviewed research [27]Verified NRC Conclusions and Recommendations on Polygraph Accuracy
Confirms the NRC estimated median accuracy index of the CQT at approximately 0.85 using ROC curve statistics. Raskin himself was called to testify before multiple U.S. Senate committees, including committees on Watergate, Iran-Contra, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Judiciary, and Labor and Human Resources [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting.

The 2003 National Research Council report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, concluded that "specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" [28]Verified United States v. Galbreth, 908 F. Supp. 877 (D.N.M. 1995)
Confirms federal Daubert hearing found Raskin's credentials 'impeccable,' admitted polygraph evidence, and noted Raskin at the University of Utah since 1968. While the report noted limitations — particularly for security screening applications — it confirmed that the CQT had demonstrated accuracy above chance, with a median accuracy index of approximately 0.85 [29]Verified Some Elementary Distinctions Among, and Comments Concerning, the 'Control' Question 'Test'
Confirms Furedy's position that the CQT should be abandoned on logico-ethical, methodological, and evidential grounds. The Raskin-Kircher body of research constituted a significant portion of the studies the NRC committee evaluated.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act

Raskin's research and testimony also played a role in the debate surrounding the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988, which restricted private-sector polygraph use. His data on CQT accuracy provided arguments both for and against the legislation, depending on how the accuracy figures were interpreted. Ultimately, the EPPA carved out exemptions for government agencies and certain security-related industries, while banning most private employers from using polygraph tests as a condition of employment. The legal landscape of polygraph testing continues to evolve, as explored in our guide to polygraph examination disqualification.

Daubert and the Utah Research

The Utah team's research proved particularly significant after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision replaced the older Frye standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. Under Daubert, courts consider whether a technique is testable, has been subjected to peer review, has known error rates, and is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

In the landmark 1995 case United States v. Galbreth, a federal district court in New Mexico conducted a thorough Daubert analysis of polygraph evidence. The court found Raskin's credentials "impeccable" and noted his "39-page curriculum vitae" consisting primarily of citations to voluminous publications in professional journals [30]Verified Polygrapher's Dilemma or Psychologist's Chimera: Reply to Furedy
Confirms Honts, Kircher & Raskin (1995) reply to Furedy published in the International Journal of Psychophysiology. The court concluded that polygraph testing using the Utah approach met the Daubert criteria, marking one of the first federal decisions to admit polygraph evidence under the new standard.

Raskin served as an expert witness in approximately 300 federal and state court proceedings in the United States, Canada, and Sweden [1]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications
Confirms Raskin's credentials, UCLA Ph.D. (1963), University of Utah Professor Emeritus, Reid Award (2009), and career details including 150+ publications and extensive federal consulting. His ability to explain the statistical foundations of CPS and the empirical basis of the Utah ZCT made him a particularly effective witness under the Daubert framework, which explicitly rewards methodological rigor.

Academic Criticism and the Utah Response

The Utah program was not without its critics. David Lykken's 1981 book A Tremor in the Blood presented a forceful critique of the CQT paradigm, arguing that the technique lacked construct validity and was essentially a fear-detection instrument rather than a lie-detection instrument [16]Verified A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector
Confirms first edition published in 1981 by McGraw-Hill; second edition published 1998 by Plenum. Lykken advocated for the Guilty Knowledge Test as an alternative approach based on sounder psychological principles.

John J. Furedy of the University of Toronto maintained that the CQT should be abandoned on logical, ethical, methodological, and evidential grounds, arguing that the technique's fundamental problems were obscured by misleading terminology [31]Verified The Role of Comparison Questions in Physiological Detection of Deception
Confirms Horowitz, Kircher, Honts & Raskin (1997) study in Psychophysiology, Vol. 34, pp. 108-115. The Raskin-Kircher team responded vigorously to these criticisms in multiple publications, including Honts, Kircher, and Raskin's 1995 reply to Furedy in the International Journal of Psychophysiology [32]Verified The Use of Physiological Measures to Detect Deception in Juveniles
Confirms extension of Utah methodology to juvenile populations by Craig, Raskin, and Kircher.

Importantly, the Utah team's response was not merely rhetorical — they continued to produce empirical data addressing each criticism. When critics argued that mock-crime studies lacked ecological validity, the team conducted field studies with confirmed criminal cases [22]Verified DoDPI Governance History (Wikidata)
Confirms DoDPI established November 1986 (evolved from US Army Polygraph School), renamed DACA in January 2007, and NCCA in August 2010. When critics pointed to subjective scoring, Kircher developed CPS [18]Verified Human versus Computerized Evaluations of Polygraph Data in a Laboratory Setting
Confirms Kircher & Raskin (1988) publication in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73(2), pp. 291-302, PMID 3384775. When critics questioned the theoretical basis of comparison questions, Horowitz, Kircher, Honts, and Raskin published a study in Psychophysiology examining the role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception [33]Verified Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection
Confirms standardization of polygraph terminology across the profession with 94 scientific references. This empirical responsiveness distinguished the Utah program from many other polygraph research efforts.

The debate illustrates the healthy scientific discourse that ultimately strengthens the field. For those concerned about potential test outcomes, understanding why polygraph 'guarantees' are a red flag and the role of non-deceptive response patterns provides essential perspective.

Building a Research Legacy

The Utah program produced a generation of researchers who extended its influence across the field. Charles R. Honts, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Utah in 1986, became a professor at Boise State University and continued as one of the most prolific polygraph researchers worldwide, co-authoring the 2021 comprehensive meta-analysis of the CQT [23]Verified NCCA Historical Names
Confirms the naming history: US Army Polygraph School (1951-1962), USAMPS (1975-1986), DoDPI (1986-2007), DACA (2007-2009), NCCA (2009-present). Steven W. Horowitz contributed foundational research on the role of comparison questions. Brandon G. Bell co-authored the formalization of the Utah Numerical Scoring System [13]Verified The Utah Numerical Scoring System
Confirms the formalization of the Utah numerical scoring system from 30+ years of research, achieving highest rates of criterion accuracy and inter-rater reliability.

Gordon H. Barland, one of Raskin's earliest students, went on to serve at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, bridging the gap between university research and federal practice [26]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection — NRC Executive Summary
Confirms the exact NRC conclusion: 'specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection'. Ronald Craig extended the Utah methodology to examine polygraph validity with juvenile populations [34]Verified What Do Polygraphers–Practitioners Expect from Science?
Confirms practitioners' strong preference for familiar validated techniques over experimental innovations. The network of Utah-trained researchers ensured that the program's emphasis on empirical rigor, standardized methodology, and computer-assisted analysis spread throughout both government and private-sector polygraph practice.

The Utah team's influence extends globally. The CPS is currently used in 12 countries [8]Verified Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications (Elsevier)
Confirms 2014 publication co-edited by Raskin, Honts, and Kircher; CPS used in 12 countries; first computerized field polygraph in 1991, and the Utah ZCT is recognized in the APA validated technique list. International practitioners from Spain to South Africa have adopted methods rooted in the Utah research tradition.

From Polygraph to Ocular-Motor Testing

In the 2000s, Kircher and his colleague Doug Hacker pioneered the ocular-motor deception test (ODT), which uses eye-tracking technology to detect deception. This technology was licensed by the University of Utah and commercialized as EyeDetect through Converus [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991. The ODT measures cognitive rather than emotional responses to deception, recording eye movements and changes in pupil size while examinees read and answer test questions on a computer. The test is faster (30–40 minutes versus 2–4 hours for a polygraph), fully automated, and does not require a trained examiner to administer [3]Verified Your Lying Eyes — University of Utah Profile of John Kircher
Confirms Kircher arrived at Utah in 1977, Raskin's initial skepticism of polygraph, introduction of first computer-assisted polygraph in 1986 and fully automated system in 1991.

Kircher's transition from polygraph to ocular-motor testing reflects the broader trajectory of the Utah program: a relentless commitment to improving deception detection through better measurement, more objective analysis, and rigorous empirical validation. The adoption of EyeDetect by African law enforcement agencies represents one example of how the Utah legacy continues to expand internationally.

The Enduring Impact on Polygraph Practice

The Raskin-Kircher program's contributions to modern polygraph science can be summarized across several dimensions. In technique design, the Utah ZCT set the standard for empirically validated comparison question test formats. In data analysis, the Kircher features and logistic regression approach became the foundation for virtually all computerized scoring algorithms used in the field today [15]Verified Survey of Computerized Polygraph Scoring Algorithms Using Kircher Features
Confirms Kircher features (electrodermal amplitude, blood pressure, respiration) as the foundation for modern computerized polygraph scoring algorithms. In research methodology, the Utah program's mock-crime paradigm and field validation approach became the template for polygraph research worldwide.

The standardization of polygraph terminology across the profession — including concepts central to the Utah approach — has facilitated communication between practitioners, researchers, and the broader scientific community. Polygraph practitioners have shown strong preferences for validated techniques with proven track records, and the Utah approach remains among the most widely adopted and scientifically supported methods available.

Modern polygraph practice, from the techniques approved by the American Polygraph Association to the computerized scoring algorithms used by federal agencies, bears the direct imprint of the Raskin-Kircher program. Their four decades of collaboration demonstrate that rigorous academic science can profoundly improve a practical forensic tool — a legacy that continues to shape how polygraph examiners evaluate credibility around the world.