A Letter to the Editor Regarding the APA's Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception

This letter to the editor provides commentary and critique of the American Polygraph Association's Terminology Reference document for the science of psychophysiological detection of deception. The author addresses concerns about standardized terminology usage in the polygraph field.

This is a commentary piece in letter format responding to published APA terminology guidelines.

James Allan Matte authored a letter to the editor addressing concerns about the American Polygraph Association's Terminology Reference document. The letter was published as part of a broader discussion on polygraph terminology standardization, alongside similar commentary by other experts in the field. The European Polygraph editorial board noted that such letters reflect individual author views and are intended to contribute to refinement of future terminology reference editions. This represents part of ongoing professional discourse about standardizing language and concepts in psychophysiological detection of deception.

Contributes to ongoing professional dialogue about terminology standardization in polygraph practice and may influence future revisions of professional reference materials and training standards.

Background & Context

Professional terminology standardization represents a critical milestone in the maturation of any scientific discipline. The American Polygraph Association's Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception serves as the field's authoritative glossary, defining hundreds of technical terms used in polygraph research and practice. The realization that a defining characteristic of a mature science is its language dates back to the mid-19th century, making terminology standardization essential for establishing polygraph as a recognized scientific field.

This letter by James Allan Matte was published alongside Jan Widacki's "A Handful of Remarks" on the same Terminology Reference document, reflecting broader professional discourse within the polygraph community about how the field should define and describe its own concepts. Matte's own techniques and concepts, including approaches he proposed and taught, are referenced within the APA Terminology document itself, positioning him as both a contributor to and critic of the field's evolving terminology standards.

The 2022 fourth edition of the Terminology Reference, authored by Donald Krapohl, Mark Handler, and Michael Lynch, represents years of collaborative effort to create a unified professional vocabulary. Matte's letter continues a pattern of critical engagement with APA standards—he previously authored a similar critique in 2012 addressing an earlier edition of the same document, demonstrating sustained concern about terminology precision in the field.

Research Design & Methodology

This work is not an empirical research study but rather a scholarly commentary in letter format. As a genre, letters to the editor serve an important function in scientific discourse by allowing practitioners and researchers to identify potential problems, propose alternatives, and stimulate debate about professional standards. The European Polygraph editorial board explicitly frames such letters as contributions intended to refine future editions of reference materials.

Matte's methodological approach involves critical analysis of published terminology, drawing on his extensive experience as a polygraph examiner, textbook author, and former law enforcement investigator. His perspective is informed by decades of field practice and his own contributions to polygraph technique development. The letter format allows for focused critique of specific terminology issues without requiring the extensive literature review and statistical analysis characteristic of formal research articles.

Widacki's companion piece, authored by the journal's editor-in-chief, similarly offers comments for consideration regarding the Terminology Reference edition, suggesting the European Polygraph deliberately created space for international perspectives on the primarily American-authored APA document. This reflects the journal's mission to bridge European and American polygraph traditions and nomenclature.

Results & Key Findings

The letter presents specific critiques of the APA's terminology standards, though the exact nature of Matte's concerns are articulated in the full letter text. Based on context from related materials and Matte's previous commentary work, his critiques likely address issues such as definition precision, consistency across related terms, adequacy of references to supporting research, and potential bias toward certain techniques or theoretical frameworks.

Widacki's related commentary questions the inclusion of biographical notes on historical figures like Backster, Benussi, Keeler, and Larson in the Terminology Reference, arguing these don't fit within the scope defined by the title. This suggests broader concerns among international experts about whether the document maintains appropriate boundaries between terminology definition and other reference functions.

The publication of multiple critical perspectives on the Terminology Reference indicates that terminology standardization remains a contested domain within polygraph science, with practitioners and academics holding differing views on how concepts should be defined, which techniques deserve inclusion, and what constitutes appropriate citation of the scientific literature supporting various approaches.

Discussion & Significance

This commentary contributes to an essential but often overlooked aspect of scientific professionalization: achieving consensus on technical language. Language is used to record research problems, formulate hypotheses, and articulate propositions, with the key being that the same concepts are named identically, and the more developed a scientific discipline, the richer and more precise its language. Matte's critique serves the field by identifying areas where terminology may lack precision or consistency.

The letter's significance extends beyond its specific critiques. It demonstrates that professional standards documents like the Terminology Reference are living documents subject to ongoing refinement through community input. The European Polygraph's decision to publish critiques from prominent figures like Matte and Widacki creates international dialogue about terminology, potentially preventing American terminology from becoming the de facto global standard without consideration of European perspectives and practices.

For practitioners, terminology standardization affects everything from training curricula to courtroom testimony to research publication. Inconsistent or imprecise terminology can undermine the field's credibility, create confusion between examiners trained in different schools, and complicate attempts to synthesize research findings across studies. Matte's engagement with this process, drawing on his authorship of major polygraph textbooks, brings practitioner wisdom to what might otherwise be a purely academic exercise.

Limitations & Considerations

As a letter to the editor, this work necessarily has limitations compared to formal research articles. The commentary format allows for assertion without requiring the same evidentiary burden as peer-reviewed research. Readers must evaluate Matte's critiques based on his professional authority and the logical coherence of his arguments rather than on systematic data presentation.

Additionally, terminology debates inevitably involve some degree of professional politics and competing schools of thought. Matte is associated with particular polygraph techniques and theoretical perspectives, which may influence which terminology issues he prioritizes. The same limitation applies to the authors of the Terminology Reference itself. Truly neutral terminology standardization may be impossible in a field where different techniques compete for validation and acceptance.

The European Polygraph editorial board's note that such letters "reflect individual author views" serves as an appropriate caveat. These critiques contribute to dialogue but do not represent official positions or consensus views. Future terminology editions will need to weigh input from multiple sources and balance competing perspectives.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners and students, this letter serves as a reminder to think critically about terminology rather than accepting published definitions uncritically. When practitioners testify in court, prepare reports, or communicate findings, precise terminology becomes essential. Understanding ongoing debates about terminology helps examiners recognize where consensus exists and where competing definitions create potential ambiguity.

For the American Polygraph Association and future editors of the Terminology Reference, letters like Matte's provide valuable feedback for iterative improvement. The APA's willingness to have its standards documents critiqued publicly in international journals demonstrates professional maturity and commitment to evidence-based refinement of standards. Incorporating international perspectives and addressing legitimate critiques will strengthen the Terminology Reference's value as a global resource for the polygraph profession.