Relevant-Irrelevant (RI) Format: Consumer Guide

The Foundation of Modern Polygraph Testing

The Relevant-Irrelevant (RI) test is the earliest structured questioning technique developed for polygraph examinations. At its core, the RI format operates on a straightforward principle: the examiner presents two categories of questions — relevant questions that directly address the topic under investigation, and irrelevant questions that are completely unrelated and emotionally neutral. The examiner then compares the physiological responses to each category to determine whether the examinee shows stronger reactions to the relevant questions, which could indicate deception Verified History of Polygraph
Confirms Marston's 1915 blood pressure test, Larson's 1921 polygraph, Reid's 1947 CQT, and Backster's 1960 ZCT.

Larson's approach was influenced by the earlier systolic blood pressure work of William Moulton Marston, who in 1915 developed the discontinuous systolic blood pressure test for detection of deception Verified History of Polygraph
Confirms Marston's 1915 blood pressure test, Larson's 1921 polygraph, Reid's 1947 CQT, and Backster's 1960 ZCT, continued refining the RI format throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Keeler made the polygraph apparatus portable and was the first to add the galvanic skin response (GSR) channel in 1938 [8]Verified The First Polygraph: Inventor, History, Timeline
Confirms Larson's 1921 invention and Keeler's development of portable polygraph instruments. In 1926, his improved polygraph came on the market, and by 1935 he was using it to help secure convictions in Portage, Wisconsin [10]Verified The Reid Technique — Theory of the Control Question
Confirms Reid developed the Control Question technique in the 1940s to overcome difficulties with RI format.

Keeler's work at Northwestern University's Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory established polygraph as a mainstream investigative tool, and the RI format was central to that era. He later founded the world's first polygraph school — the Keeler Polygraph Institute — in Chicago in 1948 [8]Verified The First Polygraph: Inventor, History, Timeline
Confirms Larson's 1921 invention and Keeler's development of portable polygraph instruments. The RI procedure remained the standard format in the field until about 1950 [9]Verified A Revised Questioning Technique in Lie-Detection Tests
Confirms Reid published the original CQT paper in 1947 in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

The Introduction of the Control Question

It was not until 1947 that a serious alternative to the RI format emerged. John E. Reid published "A Revised Questioning Technique in Lie-Detection Tests" in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology [11]Verified Examining Different Types of Comparison Questions in a CQT Field Study
Confirms the comparison question was first integrated by John Reid into the test format in 1947 [12]Verified Zone Comparison Technique — Cleve Backster 1960
Confirms Backster developed the Zone Comparison Technique and numerical scoring system circa 1960, introducing the comparison question (then called the "control question") into the polygraph test format. Reid, who worked at the Chicago Police Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, recognized that the RI format's inability to account for the natural anxiety produced by accusatory relevant questions was a fundamental limitation [13]Verified Evolution of Numerical Scoring in Polygraph Chart Analysis
Confirms Backster introduced the Zone Comparison Technique in 1960 and pioneered numerical chart analysis.

Reid developed the Control Question Technique to overcome difficulties inherent in the RI format — specifically, that a truthful subject may exhibit arousal to a relevant question as a result of recognizing the importance of the question, while a deceptive subject may not exhibit arousal due to fatigue or other psychological factors [13]Verified Evolution of Numerical Scoring in Polygraph Chart Analysis
Confirms Backster introduced the Zone Comparison Technique in 1960 and pioneered numerical chart analysis. Since 1947, the comparison question has become the key element distinguishing modern polygraph formats from the original RI approach [14]Verified Forensic Lie Detection: Procedures Without Scientific Basis
Confirms the RI format is widely believed to be strongly biased against innocent persons.

Later, around 1960, Cleve Backster developed the Backster Zone Comparison Technique (ZCT), which introduced numerical scoring of polygraph charts and further refined the comparison question model [15]Verified The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case for Polygraph Tests
Confirms Honts, Raskin, and Kircher published this chapter in Modern Scientific Evidence (2002), pp. 446-483 [16]Verified Comparison of PDD Accuracy Rates: CSP vs. TES Question Formats
Confirms TES was significantly more accurate at identifying deceptive examinees than CSP formats. These innovations didn't eliminate the RI format entirely — but they did relegate it to a more limited role, primarily in large-scale screening contexts.

Evolution Through the Decades

By the 1960s and 1970s, the polygraph profession increasingly recognized the RI format's limitations. Academic researchers began publishing studies showing that the RI format's inability to account for general nervousness — as opposed to deception-specific arousal — made it particularly prone to false positives [3]Verified John Augustus Larson — Polygraph Pioneer
Confirms Larson invented the modern polygraph in 1921 at Berkeley under Vollmer. The RIT was found to be strongly biased against innocent persons because the relevant question is inherently more physiologically arousing than the irrelevant question even for truthful examinees [17]Verified Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Accuracy Rates Using TES
Confirms TES replication study showed 98% innocent identification and 83.3% guilty identification.

Despite these scientific concerns, the RI format persisted in certain institutional contexts, especially within the U.S. intelligence community, where large-scale screening requirements demanded a faster, more streamlined approach. The National Security Agency, for example, conducted a Validation Study of the Relevant/Irrelevant Screening Format in 1998 [2]Verified Effective Policing: Understanding How Polygraph Tests Work and Are Used
Confirms RI format limitations and that CQT was developed to address its flaws. Understanding the history of polygraph use in intelligence contexts helps explain why the RI format remained entrenched in certain agencies.

The Complete Testing Process

Understanding what happens during a polygraph test is essential preparation. The RI test follows a structured sequence:

Pre-Test Interview: Before any sensors are attached, the examiner conducts a thorough pre-test interview. They explain the testing process, review all questions that will be asked during the exam, discuss the issues under investigation, and obtain your informed consent. The pre-test interview ensures you understand every question and eliminates surprises during the actual test.

Sensor Attachment: The examiner attaches standard polygraph sensors: pneumograph tubes around the chest and abdomen to measure breathing, a blood pressure cuff on the arm to monitor cardiovascular activity, and electrodermal sensors (galvanometers) on the fingers to detect sweat gland changes. These are the same components used in virtually all modern polygraph examinations, regardless of the questioning technique [18]Verified DoDPI Numerical Scoring and Test Format Documentation
Confirms R/I Screening Test, TES, LEPET, and AFMGQT are recognized federal testing formats.

Question Sequence Delivery: The examiner asks the prepared questions in a predetermined sequence, alternating between relevant and irrelevant questions. Each question is typically followed by a 20–35 second pause to allow the physiological response to develop and return toward baseline. You respond with simple "yes" or "no" answers.

Multiple Chart Collections: The question sequence is repeated multiple times — typically three to five repetitions — to ensure consistency of responses. Each complete run-through is called a "chart." Multiple charts allow the examiner to determine whether your response patterns are consistent or whether an individual reaction was an anomaly.

Data Analysis: After all charts are collected, the examiner analyzes the physiological data. In the RI format, the primary comparison is between the magnitude of responses to relevant questions versus irrelevant questions. If the relevant questions consistently produce significantly larger physiological reactions, the examiner may render a deceptive opinion. For more on what constitutes a meaningful reaction, see our guide to significant responses in polygraph testing.

Post-Test Discussion: After analysis, the examiner conducts a post-test interview to discuss the results. In some settings, the examiner may ask follow-up questions or allow the examinee to explain any reactions. The depth of the post-test discussion varies depending on whether the test is conducted in a screening or investigative context.

Relevant Questions

Relevant questions are the heart of any polygraph examination. In the RI format, these questions directly address the specific issue being investigated. They are designed to be clear, unambiguous, and answerable with a "yes" or "no." Examples include: "Did you steal any money from the company?" or "Have you ever disclosed classified information to unauthorized persons?"

The relevant questions are where the examiner expects to see the greatest physiological response from a deceptive examinee. A truthful person, in theory, should not find these questions significantly more arousing than the irrelevant ones. However, as research has demonstrated, even innocent people are more physiologically reactive to the threatening accusation contained in the relevant question compared with the response to an irrelevant question [3]Verified John Augustus Larson — Polygraph Pioneer
Confirms Larson invented the modern polygraph in 1921 at Berkeley under Vollmer.

Irrelevant Questions

Irrelevant questions are intentionally bland, factual, and non-threatening. They are designed to produce minimal physiological arousal and serve as the baseline against which relevant question responses are measured. Examples include: "Is today Wednesday?" or "Are you sitting in a chair right now?"

These questions should be easy to answer truthfully, emotionally neutral, and completely unrelated to the topic under investigation. The examiner expects your physiological readings during these questions to reflect your normal, less aroused state. The typical comparison questions in an RI format are very unlikely to yield emotionally significant responses [2]Verified Effective Policing: Understanding How Polygraph Tests Work and Are Used
Confirms RI format limitations and that CQT was developed to address its flaws.

What's Missing: No Comparison (Control) Questions

The single most important thing to understand about the RI format is what it does not include: comparison questions (sometimes called control questions). In the CQT, the examiner adds a third category of broadly threatening questions that are not directly related to the investigation but are designed to provoke a physiological response in truthful people. For example, "Have you ever lied to get out of trouble?"

Comparison questions give the examiner a way to distinguish between a person who is generally nervous about the test and a person who is specifically deceptive about the relevant issue. The absence of this mechanism in the RI format is the primary reason it has fallen out of favor for most investigative applications [3]Verified John Augustus Larson — Polygraph Pioneer
Confirms Larson invented the modern polygraph in 1921 at Berkeley under Vollmer [13]Verified Evolution of Numerical Scoring in Polygraph Chart Analysis
Confirms Backster introduced the Zone Comparison Technique in 1960 and pioneered numerical chart analysis. Understanding how comparison questions work is essential background for anyone comparing polygraph formats — our complete guide to comparison test formats covers this in detail.

Side-by-Side Comparison

The Relevant-Irrelevant (RI) format uses two question types — relevant and irrelevant only. It compares relevant responses to a neutral baseline. It has no anxiety control mechanism and cannot distinguish general nervousness from deception. Its primary use today is in large-scale screening programs. Administration is faster due to simpler question structure, but the risk of false positive results is higher for truthful but nervous examinees.

The Comparison Question Technique (CQT) uses three or more question types — relevant, irrelevant, and comparison. It compares relevant responses to comparison question responses. It has built-in anxiety control through comparison questions that account for general anxiety. Its primary use is investigative, evidentiary, and private testing. Administration is slower because it requires individualized comparison question development, but the risk of false positive results is lower when properly administered.

Understanding the Comparison Advantage

The critical advantage of the CQT over the RI format comes down to one concept: internal control. Every polygraph examination takes place in a stressful environment. Even a completely truthful person will feel some degree of anxiety when asked whether they committed a crime or violated a trust.

John E. Reid recognized this when he developed the Control Question Technique. He theorized that a subject will exhibit the most significant arousal to questions which hold the greatest emotional weight as a result of threatening a particular goal during a polygraph examination [13]Verified Evolution of Numerical Scoring in Polygraph Chart Analysis
Confirms Backster introduced the Zone Comparison Technique in 1960 and pioneered numerical chart analysis. The goal of an innocent subject is to be reported as telling the truth, making the comparison questions more threatening. The goal of a deceptive subject is to avoid detection, making the relevant questions more threatening.

The RI format lacks this internal control entirely. If a truthful person reacts strongly to a relevant question — simply because being asked whether you committed espionage is inherently alarming — the examiner has no comparison question to use as a counterweight. The only comparison available is to the irrelevant question, which is so benign that virtually everyone shows minimal response to it.

Why the Distinction Matters for You

If you are scheduled for a polygraph test, knowing which format will be used directly affects how you should prepare and what you should expect. An RI-format test will feel different from a CQT-format test — the question sequence will seem simpler, the test may go faster, and you won't be asked any questions that seem confusingly unrelated to the investigation.

To determine whether you are suitable for polygraph testing and to understand how the process works with modern digital equipment, our examiner digital workflow guide explains the complete process from test to report.

Federal Pre-Employment and Security Screening

The most prominent remaining use of the RI format — and its derivatives — is in federal government screening programs. Agencies including the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and other elements of the intelligence community have historically used RI-derived formats for mass screening of applicants and employees.

It's important to note that federal screening programs have evolved significantly. Many agencies now use modernized formats that incorporate comparison question techniques. The Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES), developed by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute around 1992, is a standardized screening format that uses directed-lie comparison questions and has largely replaced older RI-based screening methods [19]Verified AFMGQT Documentation and History
Confirms AFMGQT is a modified version of the Reid technique, adopted by the military starting in the 1960s [20]Verified Effectiveness of the Air Force Modified General Question Test Format
Validated the USAF-MGQT format with total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9%. By 1994, all DoD agencies had switched from the older Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP) to TES for security screening [20]Verified Effectiveness of the Air Force Modified General Question Test Format
Validated the USAF-MGQT format with total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9%. The Relevant/Irrelevant Screening Test remains listed alongside TES and the Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET) as techniques used in screening contexts [21]Verified Practical Use of the Concealed Information Test for Criminal Investigation in Japan
Documents Japan's routine operational use of the CIT in criminal investigations including murder, arson, and theft cases.

The Air Force Modified General Question Test (AFMGQT) is another widely used format — a modern variant of the Comparison Question Test that has proven effective for both criminal-specific and counterintelligence screening purposes across the federal government [22]Verified Issues Related to Personnel Reliability — NRC Polygraph Findings
Confirms NRC 2003 found polygraph testing in specific investigations produces results at rates well above chance [23]Verified A Comparison of PDD Accuracy Rates: CISP vs. TES Question Formats
Compared screening formats used in the US intelligence community; found both achieved significant detection rates. Research validated the AFMGQT format with a total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9% [23]Verified A Comparison of PDD Accuracy Rates: CISP vs. TES Question Formats
Compared screening formats used in the US intelligence community; found both achieved significant detection rates. For applicants facing lifestyle polygraph testing for security clearances, understanding these format distinctions is especially valuable.

International Intelligence Services

Outside the United States, certain foreign intelligence and security agencies continue to use RI-based formats, particularly in countries where polygraph programs were established with American technical assistance during the Cold War era. South Korean and Japanese security services have historically employed RI-derived techniques, though Japan in particular has developed extensive operational use of the Concealed Information Test (CIT) for criminal investigations [24]Verified Current Research and Potential Applications of the Concealed Information Test
Confirms CIT false positive rate remains extremely low (~5%) across studies, demonstrating strong scientific foundation. For a broader view of polygraph use internationally, our guide to polygraph history in the Middle East provides regional context.

Where the RI Format Is Not Used

You are very unlikely to encounter a pure RI format in the following contexts:

Private polygraph testing — Reputable private polygraph examiners use CQT-based techniques for specific-issue testing. Learn more about how polygraph services work.

Criminal defense testing — Defense attorneys typically require the most scientifically validated techniques available.

PCSOT (sex offender testing) — Post-conviction testing programs use validated CQT-derived formats with clear operational definitions.

Infidelity and relationship testing — These tests are conducted using specific-issue CQT formats.

Local law enforcement hiring — Most police departments use CQT-based screening formats or the LEPET.

The NRC 2003 Report

The most authoritative scientific review of polygraph testing was conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies in 2003. The resulting report, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection," examined all available evidence on polygraph accuracy across different techniques [2]Verified Effective Policing: Understanding How Polygraph Tests Work and Are Used
Confirms RI format limitations and that CQT was developed to address its flaws.

The NRC report noted that the RI technique has "numerous limitations from a scientific standpoint" and observed that it is used in criminal investigations and in some federal employee security screening programs, including at the NSA [2]Verified Effective Policing: Understanding How Polygraph Tests Work and Are Used
Confirms RI format limitations and that CQT was developed to address its flaws. The NRC found that polygraph testing in specific investigations could produce accurate results at rates well above chance, though well below perfection [25]Verified Decoding Deception with the P300: A Meta-Analysis of the Concealed Information Test
Found a large mean effect size of 1.59 for P300-based CIT across 54 studies, demonstrating robust detection capability. However, the report emphasized that the sorts of decisions made in screening contexts — such as forecasting whether a job applicant might pose a future risk — are "so fundamentally different" from event-specific investigations that even the best event-specific research may not be relevant to screening validity [2]Verified Effective Policing: Understanding How Polygraph Tests Work and Are Used
Confirms RI format limitations and that CQT was developed to address its flaws.

The NRC panel concluded that polygraph screening may be useful for achieving objectives such as deterring security violations, increasing admissions, and deterring employment applications from potentially poor security risks [2]Verified Effective Policing: Understanding How Polygraph Tests Work and Are Used
Confirms RI format limitations and that CQT was developed to address its flaws. The evolution of the field toward comparison-based methods like the TES and AFMGQT reflects the profession's response to the scientific limitations identified in the RI format.

The False Positive Consideration

The most widely discussed concern about the RI format is its elevated false positive rate. A false positive occurs when a truthful person is classified as deceptive. In the RI format, this can occur for several reasons:

Relevant questions are inherently arousing — being asked whether you committed espionage is stressful even if you are completely innocent. The irrelevant questions provide too flat a baseline — almost any reaction to a relevant question appears elevated by comparison. No anxiety control mechanism exists — without comparison questions, the examiner cannot differentiate between nervous truthfulness and calm deception. High stakes amplify responses — in federal screening contexts, the pressure itself generates physiological reactivity to relevant questions.

As Iacono (2008) noted in his review of polygraph techniques, the CQT was developed specifically to address flaws in the RI technique, since even innocent people are more physiologically reactive to the relevant question than to the irrelevant question [3]Verified John Augustus Larson — Polygraph Pioneer
Confirms Larson invented the modern polygraph in 1921 at Berkeley under Vollmer. This insight was one of the driving forces behind the development of modern polygraph methodologies. For a deeper understanding of how truthful responses are identified, see our guide to non-deceptive response patterns.

Evolution of Screening Formats

The polygraph profession has responded to the identified limitations of the RI format by developing more sophisticated screening tools. DoDPI research in the 1990s compared the accuracy of the TES format against older Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph formats and found that the TES decisions were significantly more accurate at identifying deceptive examinees [19]Verified AFMGQT Documentation and History
Confirms AFMGQT is a modified version of the Reid technique, adopted by the military starting in the 1960s [20]Verified Effectiveness of the Air Force Modified General Question Test Format
Validated the USAF-MGQT format with total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9%. In one replication study, 98% of innocent examinees and 83.3% of programmed guilty examinees were correctly identified using the TES format [20]Verified Effectiveness of the Air Force Modified General Question Test Format
Validated the USAF-MGQT format with total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9%.

Similarly, the AFMGQT — which incorporates comparison questions as the first evaluated question in the series — was validated with strong accuracy rates across both criminal-specific and screening applications [22]Verified Issues Related to Personnel Reliability — NRC Polygraph Findings
Confirms NRC 2003 found polygraph testing in specific investigations produces results at rates well above chance [23]Verified A Comparison of PDD Accuracy Rates: CISP vs. TES Question Formats
Compared screening formats used in the US intelligence community; found both achieved significant detection rates. A 1997 DoDPI study comparing CISP and TES screening formats found that both achieved significant detection rates, with differences in sensitivity and specificity profiles [26]Verified AFMGQT Glossary Entry
Confirms AFMGQT uses relevant, probable-lie, sacrifice-relevant, and irrelevant questions, with directed-lie comparison options.

Research on the Concealed Information Test (CIT) has also offered promising alternatives for specific applications. The CIT's false positive rate remains extremely low — approximately 5% across studies — making it valuable for forensic contexts where avoiding false accusations is paramount Verified Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
Comprehensive volume covering CIT theoretical foundations, laboratory research, field applications, and legal issues. A comprehensive meta-analysis of P300-based CIT studies found a large mean effect size of 1.59, demonstrating robust detection capability. Japan has pioneered the operational use of the CIT in criminal investigations with standardized procedures used by police forces [24]Verified Current Research and Potential Applications of the Concealed Information Test
Confirms CIT false positive rate remains extremely low (~5%) across studies, demonstrating strong scientific foundation.

These advances demonstrate the polygraph field's commitment to improving accuracy and addressing the known limitations of older formats like the RI test.

Preparing for an RI-Format Test

If you are facing a polygraph examination — particularly for federal employment or security clearance — here are practical steps you can take:

Ask which format will be used. Inquiring about the specific technique is always appropriate and helps you understand the process.

Understand the question categories. In an RI test, you will hear relevant questions about the investigation and irrelevant baseline questions. There will be no comparison questions designed to make you anxious about general honesty.

Know that anxiety is normal. Feeling nervous during a polygraph examination is a universal human response. In a CQT, comparison questions help account for this. In an RI format, this anxiety control is absent, which is why your truthful emotional responses to relevant questions are important context.

Cooperate fully and honestly. The best approach to any polygraph examination is complete honesty and cooperation with the examiner. Attempting countermeasures during any polygraph test is both counterproductive and detectable by trained examiners.

Be aware of your rights. You generally have the right to understand the testing process, to have all questions reviewed before testing begins, and to provide explanations for any reactions. In federal screening contexts, specific policies govern how results are used and what avenues exist for challenging outcomes.

Modern Alternatives to the Pure RI Format

Several formats have evolved from or been developed as alternatives to the original RI technique:

Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES) — Developed by the DoDPI around 1992, the TES is a standardized screening format that uses directed-lie comparison (DLC) questions and is now the primary counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening format employed by the U.S. Departments of Defense and Energy [19]Verified AFMGQT Documentation and History
Confirms AFMGQT is a modified version of the Reid technique, adopted by the military starting in the 1960s [20]Verified Effectiveness of the Air Force Modified General Question Test Format
Validated the USAF-MGQT format with total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9%. It represents a significant improvement over older RI-based screening methods.

Air Force Modified General Question Test (AFMGQT) — A modern variant of the Comparison Question Test widely used across the U.S. federal government for both criminal-specific and counterintelligence screening purposes [22]Verified Issues Related to Personnel Reliability — NRC Polygraph Findings
Confirms NRC 2003 found polygraph testing in specific investigations produces results at rates well above chance. The AFMGQT uses relevant, probable-lie, sacrifice-relevant, and irrelevant questions, and has been validated through research conducted at the National Center for Credibility Assessment [23]Verified A Comparison of PDD Accuracy Rates: CISP vs. TES Question Formats
Compared screening formats used in the US intelligence community; found both achieved significant detection rates.

Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP) — An older screening format that predates the TES, using either probable-lie or directed-lie comparison questions [20]Verified Effectiveness of the Air Force Modified General Question Test Format
Validated the USAF-MGQT format with total accuracy of 83.8% and definitive accuracy of 84.9%.

Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET) — Used specifically for law enforcement applicant screening [21]Verified Practical Use of the Concealed Information Test for Criminal Investigation in Japan
Documents Japan's routine operational use of the CIT in criminal investigations including murder, arson, and theft cases.

For a complete overview of comparison-based formats used in modern polygraph testing, see our comparison test formats guide. If you're ready to schedule an examination, you can book a polygraph test or explore our polygraph test locations and pricing.