A Validation and Reliability Study of the Counterintelligence Screening Test

This study validated the Counterintelligence Screening Test (CIST) format and directed lie control questions in a controlled laboratory setting. The research compared three different chart evaluation methods to determine which provided the most accurate differentiation between truthful and deceptive subjects.

Laboratory study using mock screening situations to test the CIST's ability to differentiate truthful from deceptive subjects, comparing zone comparison, greatest control, and relevant-irrelevant evaluation methods.

This landmark study validated the Counterintelligence Screening Test (CIST) developed in 1971, which controversially incorporated directed lie control questions where subjects were instructed to deliberately lie to questions both parties knew were false. Using 56 military intelligence volunteers in a mock screening scenario, researchers tested whether the CIST could differentiate truthful from deceptive subjects while comparing three chart evaluation methods. The zone comparison scoring system achieved 66% overall correct classification with 16% inconclusives and 18% errors, yielding 79% accuracy when inconclusives were excluded (p < .001). This represented the first scientific validation of directed lie control question methodology under quasi-field conditions, filling a critical gap as national security screening programs expanded rapidly.

This validation study provided crucial empirical support for the widespread operational deployment of directed lie control questions in counterintelligence screening. The research established a scientific foundation for a fundamental departure from traditional polygraph theory that had previously lacked controlled validation.

Background & Context

The Counterintelligence Screening Test (CIST) represented a pivotal innovation in polygraph screening methodology when it was developed by Military Intelligence polygraph examiners in 1971. The most controversial change was the use of the directed lie control question (DLCQ) to serve as a criterion for evaluating the subject's level of reactivity. Prior to this study, neither the validity of the directed lie control question nor the CIST format itself had been scientifically validated under controlled conditions.

This research filled a critical gap at a time when national security screening programs were expanding rapidly. Unlike traditional control questions that relied on subjects' psychological discomfort about past misdeeds, directed lie questions instructed examinees to deliberately lie to questions both parties knew were false. This represented a fundamental departure from established polygraph theory and required empirical validation before widespread operational deployment.

At the time of this report (1981), Dr. Barland was assigned to the Security Support Battalion, 902d Military Intelligence Group, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. The author wrote this report during a two-week tour of active duty as a reservist in military intelligence. The study's placement within an active military intelligence unit gave it unusual ecological validity for laboratory research.

Research Design & Methodology

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Counterintelligence Screening Test (CIST) can accurately differentiate between truthful and deceptive subjects in a mock screening situation. In addition, three different methods of evaluating the polygraph charts (zone comparison, greatest control, and relevant-irrelevant) were compared to determine which gave the most accurate results. This comparative design allowed researchers to assess not just whether the CIST worked, but which analytical approach optimized accuracy.

The study employed 56 subjects who volunteered from the military intelligence community and received CIST polygraph examinations. The deceptive subjects (n = 30) were instructed to falsify their answer to one of the five relevant questions (selected at random), but to answer the other four relevant questions truthfully. The deceptive subjects were offered $20 if they could beat the polygraph. The remaining 26 subjects served as truthful controls, answering all five relevant questions honestly.

The study incorporated several key methodological features:

• Five relevant questions per examination concerning counterintelligence issues
• Directed lie control questions integrated into the CIST format
• Three independent chart evaluation methods tested: zone comparison, greatest control, and relevant-irrelevant
• Financial incentive for deceptive subjects to employ countermeasures
• Examiners tasked with determining both overall truthfulness and identifying specific deceptive responses

Results & Key Findings

The results indicated that the CIST technique, incorporating the directed lie control questions, was able to differentiate between truthful and deceptive subjects. This represented the first empirical validation of the directed lie control question methodology under quasi-field conditions.

When examiners used the zone comparison scoring system, they achieved the following outcomes:

• 66% overall correct classification (37 of 56 subjects)
• 16% inconclusive decisions (9 of 56 cases)
• 18% errors (10 of 56 subjects: five false positives and five false negatives)
• 79% accuracy excluding inconclusives (p < .001), demonstrating statistically significant discrimination

Using the zone comparison scoring system, the examiners correctly categorized 37 (66 percent) of the 56 subjects, made no decision in 9 (16 percent) of the cases, and erroneously categorized 10 (18 percent) subjects (five false positive and five false negative errors). Excluding the nine inconclusive cases, 79 percent of the examiners' decisions were correct (p less than .001).

Critical differences emerged between chart evaluation methods. The greatest control method of chart interpretation was inferior to the zone comparison and relevant-irrelevant methods in that it was unable to identify the deceptive subjects. Overall, the zone comparison and relevant-irrelevant methods appeared about equally useful. All three chart evaluation methods were able to identify the truthful subjects, but only the zone comparison and relevant-irrelevant methods were able to identify the deceptive subjects at greater than chance levels.

Discussion & Significance

This study provided the first controlled validation of the directed lie control question, which would become a cornerstone technique in modern polygraph screening. The research demonstrated that DLCQs could generate sufficient physiological differentiation without relying on the complex psychological manipulations required by probable-lie control questions. This finding had immediate operational implications for military and intelligence screening programs.

The failure of the greatest control method represented an important theoretical insight. While this approach seemed logically sound—comparing relevant questions only to the strongest control response—it proved ineffective at detecting deception. This suggested that the zone comparison approach, which systematically compares each relevant to its adjacent controls, better captures the pattern of physiological responding that distinguishes truthful from deceptive examinees.

The balanced error rate—five false positives and five false negatives—indicated that the technique did not systematically bias results in either direction. This contrasted with some polygraph techniques that showed asymmetric error patterns. However, Barland solicited volunteers from the military intelligence community, raising questions about whether these sophisticated subjects might be more or less representative than typical screening populations.

Limitations & Considerations

Several methodological constraints limit generalizability of these findings. The mock crime paradigm, while more realistic than many laboratory studies, still differs fundamentally from actual counterintelligence screening where stakes involve careers and security clearances rather than $20 incentives. The study's 56-subject sample, while reasonable for the era, provided limited statistical power for detecting smaller effects or rare error patterns.

The research design involved subjects lying to only one of five relevant questions while answering the others truthfully. This "mixed issue" format may not fully represent operational screening where examinees might be deceptive about multiple issues or completely truthful throughout. Additional research is needed to assess the accuracy of the CIST technique relative to other polygraph screening formats.

The study did not employ blind chart evaluation, meaning examiners may have been influenced by contextual cues or pretest interview information. Subsequent research would demonstrate that blind rescoring sometimes produces different accuracy estimates than operational scoring.

Practical Applications

This research validated the use of directed lie control questions in screening contexts, enabling their widespread adoption across Department of Defense and intelligence community polygraph programs. The simplicity and transparency of instructing examinees to deliberately lie offered practical advantages: easier standardization, reduced examiner training requirements, and decreased potential for ethical concerns about manipulative control question construction.

The comparative finding that zone comparison and relevant-irrelevant methods outperformed the greatest control approach provided concrete guidance for chart interpretation protocols. Examiners could confidently employ systematic zone-by-zone comparisons knowing this approach demonstrated empirical validity. For consumers and examinees, the study's balanced error rate and statistically significant accuracy provide context for understanding screening polygraph limitations—these tests perform well above chance but are not infallible, with error rates requiring corroboration through additional investigation.