Deceptive Polygraph Result: What It Means & Next Steps

Defining the Deceptive Indicated (DI) Result

A deceptive polygraph result — formally called "Deceptive Indicated" (DI) or "Significant Response" (SR) — is the examiner's professional opinion that the examinee's physiological data during the in-test phase showed patterns consistent with deception on one or more relevant questions. This is not a casual determination. It is the product of validated scoring procedures applied to physiological data recorded during the examination.

When you sit for a polygraph examination, the instrument records several physiological channels simultaneously: thoracic and abdominal respiration, electrodermal activity (EDA/GSR), cardiovascular activity (blood pressure and pulse rate), and in many modern systems, finger pulse amplitude via photoplethysmography [2]Verified Complete Guide to Polygraph Testing: How Lie Detectors Work
Confirms physiological channels recorded during polygraph examination including respiration, EDA, cardiovascular, and photoplethysmography. The examiner then compares your responses to relevant questions (the questions directly tied to the matter under investigation) against your responses to comparison questions (questions designed to provoke a physiological reaction in truthful individuals). To learn more about these psychological and physiological foundations of polygraph testing, see our dedicated guide.

If your reactions to the relevant questions are consistently and significantly stronger than your reactions to comparison questions across multiple chart collections, the data supports a finding of deception. The examiner uses either numerical scoring or computerized scoring algorithms to make this determination — not subjective observation or personal judgment alone.

What a Deceptive Result Does NOT Mean

It is critically important to understand what a deceptive finding does not establish:

It is not proof of guilt. A polygraph measures physiological reactions, not truth or deception directly. As research on polygraph results as evidence has shown, polygraph results are classified as circumstantial evidence requiring logical inference rather than direct evidence [3]Verified Results of Polygraph Examinations: Direct or Circumstantial Evidence?
Confirms polygraph results are classified as circumstantial evidence requiring logical inference rather than direct evidence.

It is not a legal conviction. In most jurisdictions, polygraph results are inadmissible in court unless both parties agree to admissibility beforehand. About half of U.S. states allow polygraph evidence when both parties consent, and one state (New Mexico) allows it without mutual agreement [14]Verified Do 'Lie Detectors' Work? What Psychological Science Says About Polygraphs
Confirms about half of U.S. states allow polygraph evidence when both parties agree, and one state (New Mexico) allows it without mutual agreement.

It is not infallible. The APA's 2011 meta-analytic survey of validated polygraph techniques found that event-specific diagnostic testing produces an aggregated decision accuracy of 89% (95% confidence interval: 83%–95%), and the combination of all validated techniques produces 87% accuracy (CI: 80%–94%) [1]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% accuracy for event-specific diagnostic testing and 87% combined accuracy across all validated PDD techniques, with 11–13% inconclusive rates. This means false positives can occur, though they are uncommon with properly conducted examinations.

It does not mean the examiner "caught" you lying. The test records involuntary physiological arousal patterns. Various factors beyond deception — anxiety, misunderstanding of questions, medical conditions — can contribute to reaction patterns. For those concerned about how anxiety disorders affect polygraph testing, our clinical guide covers this in detail. Research has confirmed that the examiner's approach itself can significantly affect results, with interrogative approaches aimed at extracting confessions rather than diagnostic truth assessment potentially compromising validity [5]Verified Examiner Approach and its Impact on Polygraph Results
Confirms that interrogative examiner approaches aimed at extracting confessions rather than diagnostic truth assessment significantly compromise polygraph validity and can lead to false positives.

That said, the deceptive finding is significant. It carries real consequences depending on the testing context, and it should not be dismissed without understanding the full picture of what occurred during the examination.

The Four Phases of a Polygraph Examination

To understand how a deceptive determination is made, you need to understand the complete polygraph testing procedure. Every professional examination follows a structured four-phase protocol.

Phase 1 — Pre-Test Interview: The examiner reviews your rights, explains the process, discusses the questions that will be asked, establishes comparison questions, and ensures you fully understand every question before testing begins. APA standards require that examinations be scheduled for not less than 90 minutes [6]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Adopted August 23, 2019)
Confirms APA requirements for validated techniques, examination scheduling minimum 90 minutes, and evidence-based test data analysis. This phase typically lasts 30–90 minutes and is crucial for test validity.

Phase 2 — In-Test (Chart Collection): The examiner attaches sensors and collects 3–5 charts (repetitions of the question sequence). Each chart typically lasts 3–5 minutes. The examinee sits still and answers each question with a simple "yes" or "no" while the instrument records physiological data across all channels simultaneously. Modern instruments from manufacturers such as Lafayette Instrument Company, Stoelting, and Limestone Technologies record data digitally for precise analysis [7]Verified Polygraph Instruments & Equipment: Complete Technical Guide
Confirms modern digital polygraph instruments from Lafayette, Stoelting, and Limestone Technologies. For more on how to understand a polygraph chart, see our chart interpretation guide.

Phase 3 — Data Analysis & Scoring: The examiner analyzes the chart data using validated scoring methods — either manual numerical scoring (comparing relevant vs. comparison question reactions for each channel) or computerized algorithms (such as PolyScore, OSS-3, or CPS). Scores are tallied to reach a determination.

Phase 4 — Post-Test Interview: The examiner shares the preliminary result with the examinee and conducts a post-test discussion. If the result is deceptive, the examiner provides the examinee an opportunity to explain the physiological reactions, provide additional context, or clarify misunderstandings about the questions. If you're waiting for your polygraph results, the timeline and process are covered in our dedicated guide.

The Role of Comparison Questions

The cornerstone of the most widely used polygraph technique — the Comparison Question Test (CQT) — is the comparison between two types of questions:

Relevant questions address the specific issue being investigated (e.g., "Did you steal the missing deposit?").

Comparison questions (sometimes called "probable lie" or "directed lie" questions) are broader questions about past behavior designed to provoke some physiological arousal in truthful individuals (e.g., "In the first 25 years of your life, did you ever take something that didn't belong to you?").

The underlying theory is that a truthful person will be more concerned about the comparison questions (because they are uncomfortable but not directly related to the investigation), while a deceptive person will react more strongly to the relevant questions (because those questions represent the real threat). Event-specific diagnostic polygraphs have been shown to provide mean accuracy of.89 with a 95% confidence range from.83 to.95 [4]Verified Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing
Confirms event-specific diagnostic polygraphs achieve mean accuracy of.89 (CI.83–.95) and multi-issue screening polygraphs achieve mean accuracy of.85 (CI.77–.93). Also reviews the Utah Approach to CQT testing..

When relevant question reactions consistently exceed comparison question reactions across multiple charts and multiple physiological channels, the data supports a deceptive finding. The Utah Approach to comparison question testing, developed by David Raskin and colleagues at the University of Utah, systematized this method and has been extensively validated [4]Verified Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing
Confirms event-specific diagnostic polygraphs achieve mean accuracy of.89 (CI.83–.95) and multi-issue screening polygraphs achieve mean accuracy of.85 (CI.77–.93). Also reviews the Utah Approach to CQT testing.. For more on the specific test formats examiners use, see our complete guide to the Zone Comparison Test (ZCT).

Manual Numerical Scoring

Manual scoring is the traditional method where the examiner visually evaluates each chart and assigns numerical scores to each relevant question based on the magnitude of the reaction compared to the adjacent comparison question. The two most common manual scoring scales are:

7-Position Scale: Scores range from -3 (strong relevant reaction) through 0 (no difference) to +3 (strong comparison reaction). Each physiological channel (respiration, EDA, cardio, and where available, vasomotor) is scored independently for each relevant question on each chart run. The scores are then summed across all channels and charts. The Utah Numerical Scoring System, developed by Bell, Raskin, Honts, and Kircher (1999), is a highly reliable method based on this scale [4]Verified Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing
Confirms event-specific diagnostic polygraphs achieve mean accuracy of.89 (CI.83–.95) and multi-issue screening polygraphs achieve mean accuracy of.85 (CI.77–.93). Also reviews the Utah Approach to CQT testing..

3-Position Scale: A simplified version where scores are limited to -1, 0, or +1. While easier to apply consistently, it captures less nuance in the data.

The total numerical score is compared against established cutoff thresholds. If the grand total score falls below the negative cutoff (for example, -6 or lower, depending on the technique), the result is classified as Deceptive Indicated (DI). If the total is above the positive cutoff, the result is No Deception Indicated (NDI). If it falls between the cutoffs, the result is Inconclusive.

Computerized Algorithm Scoring

Modern polygraph systems include automated scoring algorithms that process the physiological data mathematically. The most widely used algorithms include:

PolyScore: Developed by Dr. Dale E. Olsen and John C. Harris at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU-APL), this algorithm uses statistical modeling to assign a probability of deception [8]Verified Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data — The Polygraph and Lie Detection
Confirms PolyScore was developed by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU-APL) and used with Axciton and Lafayette instruments. Version 5.1 analyzed data from 1,411 real criminal cases.. PolyScore has been validated on over 1,400 real criminal cases and is currently used with Axciton and Lafayette polygraph instruments [8]Verified Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data — The Polygraph and Lie Detection
Confirms PolyScore was developed by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU-APL) and used with Axciton and Lafayette instruments. Version 5.1 analyzed data from 1,411 real criminal cases.. It employs logistic regression to estimate the probability of deception based on multiple physiological features [9]Verified Development of a Deep-Learning-Based Computerized Scoring Algorithm
Confirms PolyScore uses logistic regression and CPS uses linear discriminant analysis for deception detection, and both were developed by JHU-APL and University of Utah respectively.

OSS-3 (Objective Scoring System, Version 3): Developed by Raymond Nelson, Donald Krapohl, and Mark Handler, OSS-3 is a measurement-based scoring system that derives numerical values from ratios of physiological feature measurements known as "Kircher features" [10]Verified Objective Scoring System – Version 3
Confirms OSS-3 was developed by Raymond Nelson, Mark Handler, and Donald Krapohl as a computerized scoring algorithm with demonstrated validity across multiple validation samples. Because scores come from objective measurements rather than subjective visual assessment, OSS-3 virtually eliminates subjectivity in chart interpretation [10]Verified Objective Scoring System – Version 3
Confirms OSS-3 was developed by Raymond Nelson, Mark Handler, and Donald Krapohl as a computerized scoring algorithm with demonstrated validity across multiple validation samples. It functions as a probabilistic classifier for both diagnostic and screening polygraphs and is integrated into Lafayette LXSoftware [11]Verified Tech Talk: Introduction to the Lafayette OSS-3 Test of Proportions
Confirms OSS-3 is a probabilistic classifier for both diagnostic and screening polygraphs integrated into Lafayette LXSoftware. Importantly, the developers have no financial interest in the OSS-3, as it is an open-source algorithm available to all PDD manufacturers, field examiners, and researchers.

CPS (Computerized Polygraph System): Developed by Dr. John Kircher and Dr. David Raskin at the University of Utah, CPS uses multivariate linear discriminant function analysis to produce an estimate of the probability of deception [12]Verified CPS — Computerized Polygraph System Development and Validation
Confirms CPS was developed by Kircher and Raskin at the University of Utah using linear discriminant function analysis, uses three key physiological features, and is used with Stoelting instruments. The system was originally distributed by Scientific Assessment Technologies and is used with Stoelting polygraph instruments [12]Verified CPS — Computerized Polygraph System Development and Validation
Confirms CPS was developed by Kircher and Raskin at the University of Utah using linear discriminant function analysis, uses three key physiological features, and is used with Stoelting instruments. The most recent version utilizes three key features: skin conductance amplitude, cardiograph baseline increases, and combined respiration line-length measurements [12]Verified CPS — Computerized Polygraph System Development and Validation
Confirms CPS was developed by Kircher and Raskin at the University of Utah using linear discriminant function analysis, uses three key physiological features, and is used with Stoelting instruments. Dr. Kircher introduced the first computer-assisted polygraph system in 1986 and the first fully automated system in 1991.

Most qualified examiners use both manual scoring and algorithm scoring and compare the results. When both methods agree on a deceptive finding, confidence in the determination is significantly higher. When they disagree, the examiner must carefully evaluate the data and may classify the result as inconclusive. For the latest developments in polygraph software updates, see our guide on keeping systems current.

Understanding NDI, DI, and Inconclusive

Every polygraph examination ends with one of three possible determinations. Understanding the distinction between them is essential for anyone awaiting or interpreting results.

No Deception Indicated (NDI): The physiological data showed stronger reactions to comparison questions than to relevant questions. The numerical score exceeded the positive cutoff threshold. This result means the data is consistent with truthfulness on the relevant questions. Sometimes called "Not Deceptive" or simply "Passed."

Deceptive Indicated (DI): The physiological data showed consistently stronger reactions to relevant questions than to comparison questions. The numerical score fell below the negative cutoff threshold. This result means the data is consistent with deception on the relevant questions. Sometimes called "Significant Response" or informally "Failed."

Inconclusive (INC): The physiological data did not produce a clear pattern in either direction. The numerical score fell between the positive and negative cutoff thresholds. The examiner cannot render a definitive opinion. This is neither a pass nor a fail — it simply means the data was ambiguous.

The APA's 2011 meta-analysis found inconclusive rates of approximately 11% for event-specific diagnostic techniques and 13% for multi-issue screening techniques [1]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% accuracy for event-specific diagnostic testing and 87% combined accuracy across all validated PDD techniques, with 11–13% inconclusive rates. An inconclusive result is a legitimate and scientifically valid outcome. It reflects the examiner's commitment to accuracy rather than forcing a determination when the data doesn't support one.

The Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) has been shown to successfully resolve conflicted polygraph results in all 51 cases tested, offering an additional tool when initial results are unclear [13]Verified Using the Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) in Solving Conflicted Polygraph Results and Confirming Deliberate Distortions by Examinees
Confirms the PVT successfully resolved all 51 cases of conflicted polygraph results and confirmed suspected deliberate distortions. A qualified examiner will never pressure you into treating an inconclusive result as deceptive. If your examiner does, that is a significant red flag about their professionalism.

The Post-Test Interview

When the examiner's scoring analysis indicates deception, the post-test interview is the next critical phase. During this conversation, the examiner will:

Inform you of the result. A professional examiner will state clearly that the data indicates significant reactions to the relevant questions consistent with deception.

Ask if there is anything you would like to share. This is your opportunity to provide context, explain why you might have reacted strongly to certain questions, or address any concerns.

Allow you to make voluntary statements. Some examinees choose to make admissions during the post-test phase. It is critical to understand that you are never required to do so. Anything you say during a post-test interview may be documented in the examiner's report.

Answer your questions. You have every right to ask the examiner to explain the process, the scoring, and the result.

A qualified, ethical examiner will not use intimidation, coercion, or high-pressure interrogation tactics during the post-test phase. The standards of practice set by the American Polygraph Association (APA) explicitly require that examiners treat examinees professionally and display an objective attitude [6]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Adopted August 23, 2019)
Confirms APA requirements for validated techniques, examination scheduling minimum 90 minutes, and evidence-based test data analysis. Research has demonstrated that interrogative examiner approaches aimed at extracting confessions rather than diagnostic truth assessment significantly compromise polygraph validity [5]Verified Examiner Approach and its Impact on Polygraph Results
Confirms that interrogative examiner approaches aimed at extracting confessions rather than diagnostic truth assessment significantly compromise polygraph validity and can lead to false positives. If you feel an examiner is pressuring you to confess, you have the right to end the conversation and leave.

Report Distribution by Context

The distribution of your polygraph report depends entirely on the testing context. In pre-employment testing, the report is sent to the requesting agency or employer. In PCSOT testing, the report goes to the supervising probation or parole officer and the treatment provider. In private testing for matters such as infidelity or theft, the report is provided to the party who requested and paid for the examination — whether that's you, your spouse, or an attorney.

In all cases, the examiner is required to retain the examination files, data, reports, and recordings for a minimum of one year [6]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Adopted August 23, 2019)
Confirms APA requirements for validated techniques, examination scheduling minimum 90 minutes, and evidence-based test data analysis. Many agencies and jurisdictions require longer retention periods. You generally have the right to request a copy of your own report, though the specific process varies by jurisdiction and testing context. For real-world examples of how polygraph results are used in different contexts, see our coverage of EFCC polygraph results and what happens after testing.

Pre-Employment Screening

In federal law enforcement and intelligence agency pre-employment testing, a DI result typically results in disqualification from the hiring process. Agencies such as the FBI, CBP, DEA, and Secret Service use polygraph testing as part of their suitability assessments. Government agencies are exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988 [15]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
Confirms EPPA prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests, with exemptions for government agencies and specific security-related industries, which means they can legally require polygraph testing as a condition of employment.

For private-sector employment, the EPPA prohibits most private employers from requiring polygraph tests for pre-employment screening [15]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
Confirms EPPA prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests, with exemptions for government agencies and specific security-related industries. However, limited exemptions exist for security firms, pharmaceutical companies, and ongoing investigations involving economic loss.

Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT)

In PCSOT programs, a DI result triggers a review of the offender's supervision conditions. It does not automatically result in revocation of probation or parole. The polygraph result is used as one tool among several in the supervision and treatment process. Treatment providers and supervising officers use the information to adjust treatment plans, increase monitoring, or explore the relevant issues further through therapy.

For examiners working in this specialized field, our PCSOT instant offense polygraph guide provides comprehensive protocols and best practices.

Private Lie Detector Testing

In private testing for infidelity, theft, false accusations, or other personal matters, the requesting party decides the next steps based on the results. A deceptive result may lead to further conversations, relationship decisions, or additional investigation. Private polygraph results do not carry legal penalties on their own. For real-world examples of how private testing has helped resolve personal disputes, see our story on family theft and the lie detector or our guide on whether a lie detector can prove emotional cheating.

Criminal Defense and Legal Proceedings

In criminal defense contexts, polygraph results are generally inadmissible in court unless both parties stipulate to admissibility beforehand. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer (1998) upheld the military's ban on polygraph evidence but left room for individual jurisdictions to decide their own admissibility standards. About half of U.S. states conditionally allow polygraph evidence with mutual consent [14]Verified Do 'Lie Detectors' Work? What Psychological Science Says About Polygraphs
Confirms about half of U.S. states allow polygraph evidence when both parties agree, and one state (New Mexico) allows it without mutual agreement.

Defense attorneys may use a favorable polygraph result strategically during plea negotiations or to convince prosecutors to drop charges, even when the result would not be admissible at trial. A deceptive result in a defense exam is typically privileged attorney-client information and would not be disclosed to the prosecution. For more on how high-stakes polygraph examinations are conducted under APA standards, see our examiner guide.

Understanding Why False Positives Occur

A false positive occurs when a truthful person receives a Deceptive Indicated result. While the APA's 2011 meta-analysis demonstrates strong overall accuracy at 89% for event-specific testing [1]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% accuracy for event-specific diagnostic testing and 87% combined accuracy across all validated PDD techniques, with 11–13% inconclusive rates, no diagnostic test achieves perfect accuracy, and false positives do occur.

Several factors can contribute to false positive results:

Anxiety and nervousness about the relevant questions, even when answering truthfully. Our clinical guide to anxiety disorders and polygraph testing addresses this in depth.

Misunderstanding of questions during the pre-test phase, leading to conflicting physiological responses.

Medical conditions that affect autonomic nervous system responses, including cardiovascular conditions, respiratory disorders, or neurological conditions.

Examiner approach — research has shown that an interrogative approach aimed at extracting confessions rather than diagnostic truth assessment can significantly compromise validity and increase false positives. The Deskovic case is a well-documented example of how a discredited polygraph examination led to a wrongful conviction [5]Verified Examiner Approach and its Impact on Polygraph Results
Confirms that interrogative examiner approaches aimed at extracting confessions rather than diagnostic truth assessment significantly compromise polygraph validity and can lead to false positives.

Notably, research has found that sleep deprivation of 24 hours did not significantly reduce polygraph detection accuracy, and energy drink consumption did not alter test outcomes [16]Verified On the Influence of Sleep Deprivation on the Results of Polygraph Testing
Confirms sleep deprivation of 24 hours did not significantly reduce polygraph detection accuracy and energy drink consumption did not alter test outcomes. This suggests that some commonly feared factors may have less impact than expected.

It is also important to note that research has identified potential demographic disparities in polygraph outcomes. A Department of Defense Polygraph Institute study found that truthful African American examinees had substantially different pass rates compared to truthful Caucasian examinees, indicating potential areas for continued research and improvement in testing protocols [17]Verified DoDPI Racial Bias Study: Polygraph Examination Results by Race
Confirms disparities in polygraph outcomes by race, with truthful African American examinees showing different pass rates compared to truthful Caucasian examinees.

Options for Disputing a Finding

Yes, there are several avenues for challenging a deceptive result:

Request a quality control review. APA standards allow for examination files to be reviewed by another qualified examiner. An independent review of the chart data, scoring, and methodology may reveal procedural issues or scoring disagreements.

File a complaint. If you believe the examiner violated professional standards, you can file a complaint with the American Polygraph Association, the examiner's state licensing board, or both. The APA requires its members to use evidence-based validated testing techniques [6]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Adopted August 23, 2019)
Confirms APA requirements for validated techniques, examination scheduling minimum 90 minutes, and evidence-based test data analysis.

Obtain an independent second examination. In many contexts, you have the right to take a second polygraph examination with a different examiner. This is particularly common in PCSOT and private testing contexts.

Seek legal advice. An attorney familiar with polygraph law can advise you on your options, particularly if a deceptive result has affected your employment, legal case, or civil rights.

Review for ASTM compliance. ASTM International has published multiple standard guides for PDD examinations, including standards for instrumentation (E2439), interpretation of data (E2229), calibration (E2063), quality control (E2031), and screening examinations (E2386) [18]Verified ASTM International — Forensic Science Standards for PDD Examinations
Confirms ASTM has published multiple standard guides for PDD examinations including E2439 (instrumentation), E2229 (data interpretation), E2063 (calibration), E2031 (quality control), and E2386 (screening). Examinations that deviate from these standards may be subject to valid challenge.

When and How to Request a Retest

Retesting is available in most contexts, though the specific policies vary:

In pre-employment testing for federal agencies, some agencies allow retesting after a waiting period (often 6–12 months), while others treat a deceptive result as a permanent disqualification for that particular application cycle.

In PCSOT, retesting is common and may be recommended by the treatment team to address specific concerns or to resolve inconclusive results from an initial test.

In private testing, you can request a retest at any time, ideally with a different examiner who uses validated techniques recognized by the APA — such as the Utah ZCT, Federal ZCT, DLST, or LEPET [19]Verified Frequently Asked Questions about Validated Techniques and the Meta-Analysis
Confirms DLST, LEPET, Utah ZCT, Federal ZCT, and other techniques as APA-validated polygraph techniques with published research supporting their accuracy. The APA's FAQ on validated techniques confirms that these techniques are supported by published and replicated research indicating accuracy rates significantly greater than chance [19]Verified Frequently Asked Questions about Validated Techniques and the Meta-Analysis
Confirms DLST, LEPET, Utah ZCT, Federal ZCT, and other techniques as APA-validated polygraph techniques with published research supporting their accuracy.

When seeking a retest, ensure that the new examiner is properly credentialed, uses validated techniques, and employs evidence-based test data analysis methods. The Integrated Zone Comparison Technique (IZCT) has demonstrated particularly strong accuracy, achieving 95% overall accuracy including inconclusives and 98% accuracy excluding inconclusives in field utility studies [20]Verified The Integrated Zone Comparison Technique: A Field Utility Study in a Deceptive Population
Confirms the IZCT achieved 95% overall accuracy including inconclusives and 98% accuracy excluding inconclusives, with zero false negatives.

The Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) offers an additional resolution pathway when results are conflicted. Research has demonstrated that the PVT resolved all 51 cases of conflicted results tested, with classic physiological patterns confirming when examinees had improperly focused attention on comparison questions [13]Verified Using the Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) in Solving Conflicted Polygraph Results and Confirming Deliberate Distortions by Examinees
Confirms the PVT successfully resolved all 51 cases of conflicted polygraph results and confirmed suspected deliberate distortions.

Legal Protections and Professional Standards

Your rights following a deceptive polygraph result depend on the testing context, but several protections apply broadly:

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988 prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment [15]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
Confirms EPPA prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests, with exemptions for government agencies and specific security-related industries. Where private-sector polygraph testing is permitted under EPPA exemptions, an employee cannot be discharged or disciplined solely on the basis of polygraph results without additional supporting evidence [15]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
Confirms EPPA prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests, with exemptions for government agencies and specific security-related industries. There is a $10,000 penalty for each violation of the law.

Under EPPA, examinees have the right to: receive written notice of the test at least 48 hours in advance; be informed of the questions before the test; terminate the test at any time; have the test last at least 90 minutes; and be informed of the results and given an opportunity to explain reactions [15]Verified Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
Confirms EPPA prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests, with exemptions for government agencies and specific security-related industries.

APA Standards of Practice require examiners to use validated techniques supported by published research [6]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Adopted August 23, 2019)
Confirms APA requirements for validated techniques, examination scheduling minimum 90 minutes, and evidence-based test data analysis. APA standards also require a minimum 90-minute examination, use of validated test data analysis, and professional conduct throughout all phases of the examination [6]Verified APA Standards of Practice (Adopted August 23, 2019)
Confirms APA requirements for validated techniques, examination scheduling minimum 90 minutes, and evidence-based test data analysis.

In all testing contexts, you have the right to: know what questions will be asked before the test begins; decline to answer any question; terminate the examination at any point; receive a copy of any written report (subject to jurisdiction-specific rules); and seek an independent second opinion from another qualified examiner.

For more on how polygraph testing intersects with legal systems internationally, see our guide on polygraph testing in Egypt or learn about Bruce Bongar's forensic psychology research bridging law and psychology.