See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328491389

Practical Polygraph: The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality

Check

Article · January 2018

CITATION READS

1 791

4 authors, including:

Raymond I Nelson Rodolfo Prado

107 PUBLICATIONS   286 CITATIONS   

IPTC
14 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Mark Handler

38 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

polygraph algorithm replication View project

practical aspects of field polygraph testing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodolfo Prado on 07 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

Practical Polygraph: The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and

Functionality Check

Raymond Nelson, Rodolfo Prado, Ben Blalock and Mark Handler

Abstract

We discuss the published literature on the effectiveness of the known-solution acquaintance

test (ACQT). Although studies have not supported an effect for the unknown-solution ACQT, the
known-solution ACQT is better supported by scientific evidence. Some important advantages of the
known-solution ACQT is that it does not engage a role-reversal, wherein the examinee is testing the
polygraph test, and does not rely on manipulation or deception as a form of demonstration of the
validity of the polygraph testing. The basic procedures are described for using the known-solution
ACQT.

Introduction card-control test wherein the examinee is in-

structed to pick a card under the false pre-
Use of an acquaintance test (ACQT) is text that the examiner does not know which
a standard practice for polygraph diagnostic card was chosen. Although Summers (1939)
and screening exams (American Polygraph first described the use of comparative re-
Association, 2018; Department of Defense, sponse questions, Reid (1947) popularized
2006), and serves as a form of practice-test for the idea and suggested that the inclusion of
the examinee and as a functionality-check1 for control questions in polygraph test question
the examiner. Reid (1947) provided an early sequencing represented an advancement in
description of field practices that were in some polygraph field practice methodology over the
ways like the contemporary ACQT, involving a card-control test. Reid also suggested that the
card-test as a form of control-test to ascertain card-control test should be conducted as the
that the examinee can exhibit normal physio- first chart. Other publications, such as those
logical responses to the test questions in the by Kirby (1981), describe continued use of
event of deception. In contemporary usage, the standard-card-test, also known as a card-
the ACQT is conducted as the first test chart. stim test, after the first iteration of the poly-
However, early use of the card-control test was graph test questions. Later, Widup and Bar-
after the first iteration of the sequence of poly- land (1994) reported there was no effect for
graph test questions and its purported pur- the classification of deception or truth-telling,
pose was to demonstrate the polygraph effec- and no effect for inconclusive results, when a
tiveness to the examinee. number-stim test was used before or after the
first iteration of the sequence of polygraph test
Discussion questions.

Reid and Inbau (1966) described the Kirby (1981) studied results using the

1 Most modern computerized polygraphs do not require periodic field calibration or periodic factory service, though it may
be important to check with the manufacturer of each individual instrument. The notion of functionality check refers to
whether the recording sensors and software are capturing and recording physiological data in the intended ways. Proper
functionality is easily observed at the time of an examination when observing and recording stimulus events and changes
in sensor activity and can be effectively observed and demonstrated during the administration of an ACQT.

122 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality Check

standard card-test and the known-card-test, 2 in Bradley & Janisse, 1981) and potential-
finding no difference in effect sizes for decep- ly problematic in that some examinees may
tive or truthful outcomes. The known-card-test learn of the use of misinformation and manip-
was also referred to as the known-solution-test ulation in the ACQT (Ben-Shakhar & Furedy,
– a form of peak-of-tension test. The known- 1990; Lykken, 1981). One view of type of test
solution-test differs from the earlier unknown represents a form of role-reversal – wherein
card-test in important ways. The most import- the examinee is testing the examiner.
ant difference is that no attempt is made to
conceal the examinee’s selection when using Perhaps the most problematic aspect of
the known-solution ACQT. any attempt to use the ACQT to demonstrate
the polygraph’s effectiveness to the examin-
Kirby (1981) also provides insight into ee, is that virtually no well-informed person
the use of the card-stim test, also referred to today believes the polygraph, or any scientif-
as a stim-test or stimulation-test, including ic test, to be infallible. Yet studies involving
the emphasis on promoting a perception of examinees who were knowledgeable or in-
the infallibility of the polygraph instrument. formed about polygraph methodologies (Honts
The standard-card-test at that time was an & Reavy, 2009; Honts & Alloway, 2007; Honts
unknown-solution ACQT for which each ex- & Handler, 2015; Nelson, Handler, Blalock &
aminee was required to select the key ques- Hernandez, 2012; Rovner, 1986) have report-
tion by selecting a number, card or item. The ed effect sizes for test accuracy that are similar
premise was that the examinee would conceal to other studies with more naive examinees.
their choice of key question from the examin- This complication to the older intended usage
er. The examiner would then conduct the un- of the ACQT – involving the demonstration or
known-solution ACQT and correctly determine proof of the infallibility of the polygraph – is
the examinee’s choice and would then proceed that highly motivated examinees may be likely
to verbally stimulate the examinee while as- to respond with superficial cooperation, and
serting the infallibility of the test. examiners may be at risk for mistaking this
for authentic or genuine rapport (though most
This older practice of attempting to as- polygraph examiners would assuredly deny
sert the infallibility of the polygraph appears to ever making such an error).
have been premised on an arcane assumption
that the effectiveness, or validity, of the poly- Studies on the ACQT and the use of
graph was fundamentally dependent on the feedback are informative but provide some-
examinee’s belief that the polygraph was flaw- what mixed information. Using a card-test,
less. These assumptions may have contribut- Ellson, Davis, Saltzman, and Burke (1952)
ed to the emergence of field practices wherein showed that detection of deception was more
every examinee was informed, regardless of difficult and reduced on subsequent trials
the outcome, that they had been correctly de- when examinees were informed that deception
tected. Other field practices involved the ma- had been detected in response to the first tri-
nipulation of the purportedly unknown-key al. Later, Davis (1961) hypothesized that guilty
question such that the examiner either deter- subjects might become less psychologically
mined the examinee’s selection or was fully reactive, and therefore less detectable, if they
informed and knowledgeable about the exam- are convinced that their deception is clearly
inee’s choice prior to the ACQT. Elliott, Egan indicated. It is also possible that guilty sub-
& Grubin (2017) provide evidence that it is not jects alter their strategies for concealing their
necessary for the examinee to believe the com- deception after receiving effective feedback.
plete infallibility of the polygraph for it to be
effective. A subsequent study by Barland and
Raskin (1975), using a comparison question
Reliance on manipulation and decep- test format, showed that the manipulation
tion in the demonstration of polygraph validi- of feedback, in terms of effective detection of
ty is scientifically questionable. Moreover, re- deception, ineffective detection, and no feed-
liance on manipulation and deception in the back conditions produced an effect for ex-
ACQT has been described by psychologists as aminee confidence in the polygraph test but
ethically questionable (see Lykken, 1981; Note failed to produce an effect for the classification

Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2) 123

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

of deception or truth-telling. A later study by with the known-solution ACQT.

Horowitz, Kircher and Raskin (1986) who also
showed lower rates of deception when exam- How to Conduct the ACQT
inees were told that their deception had been
identified during a number card-test. These ACQT Question List
findings differ from those of later studies that
showed either no effect or desirable effects Use of the ACQT begins with the con-
from the ACQT using a known-solution ap- struction of the list of stimulus questions. A
proach. commonly used form of the known-solution
ACQT involves the use of sequence of num-
An important difference between the bers. Table 1 shows an example list of ques-
unknown-solution ACQT and known-solu- tions for a known-solution number test, using
tion ACQT is that the use of feedback with the the number 4 as the known-key question. The
known-solution ACQT does not attempt to as- examinee will be instructed to answer NO to the
sert the infallibility of the polygraph test, but known-key question, along with all other ACQT
instead attempts to provide the examinee with questions. The example in Table 1 includes
feedback as to the effectiveness of the sensors three buffer questions before the known-key
at capturing and recording changes in phys- question and three buffer questions after the
iology in response test stimuli. A study by key-question. Also, the key-question should
Bradley and Janisse (1981) – in addition to us- be clearly indicated in the question sequence.
ing an electric shock paradigm that showed no
effect for the type or intensity of consequences
for failing a polygraph test – found high rates
of accuracy for the card control test, leading
them to suggest that providing the actual re-
sults of the card-control test would be an ef-
fective approach that is less scientifically and
ethically and complicated.

Kircher, Packard, Bell and Bernhardt

(2001) studied the effects on the subsequent
outcomes of comparison question tests with
probable and directed lie questions when sub-
jects were first placed in effective-feedback,
ineffective-feedback, and no-feedback condi-
tions using a known-solution ACQT test. Ef-
fective feedback in this usage was limited to
statements about the observance of a physi-
ological response to the test stimuli. The test
structure was a known-solution ACQT for-
mat that was previously described by Podle-
sny and Truslow (1993). However, whereas
Podlesny and Truslow instructed the subjects
to answer truthfully to all questions, Kircher
et. al. (2001), instructed the subjects to an-
swer NO to all questions including the select-
ed number. Horneman and O'Gorman (1985)
previously reported that denial of a selected
card led to increased response and detection
of the correct number-card compared to affir-
mative answers or non-answering. Kircher et
al. reported significant effects for both effec-
tive-feedback and no-feedback and general-
ized the recommendation of Bradley and Ja-
nisse (1981) for the use of effective-feedback

124 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality Check

Table 1. Question list for known-solution ACQT number test.

Question Tag Type Question Answer

X This practice test is about to begin. Please sit still. Look straight ahead. -
Listen carefully, and answer “no” to each question. No other talking, and
do not move during this practice test.
1 Did you write the number 1? No
2 Did you write the number 2? No
3 Did you write the number 3? No
4K Did you write the number 4? No
5 Did you write the number 5? No
6 Did you write the number 6? No
7 Did you write the number 7? No
XX End This practice test is complete. Please remain still until I release the -
pressure in the cardio cuff.

Table 2 shows another common form may also exist, including variants that make
of known-solution ACQT, using the examin- use of personal or novel information. Because
ee’s surname as the known-key question. The there is no ‘scientific magic-sauce’ in the
ACQT surname has been described by field ACQT topic itself, there is no reason to expect
practitioners as a simple and easy known-solu- any difference in the contribution to polygraph
tion ACQT format for which the salience of the outcomes for different variants of the known
personalized known-key question differs from solution ACQT.
the other questions. Other known-solutions

Table 2. Question list for known-solution surname ACQT.

Question Tag Type Question Answer

X This practice test is about to begin. Please sit still. Look straight ahead. -
Listen carefully, and answer “no” to each question. No other talking, and
do not move during this practice test.
1 Is your surname Johnson? No
2 Is your surname Jefferson? No
3 Is your surname Wilson? No
4K Is your surname Nelson? No
5 Is your surname Iverson? No
6 Is your surname Stevenson? No
7 Is your surname Mickelson? No
XX End This practice test is complete. Please remain still until I release the -
pressure in the cardio cuff.

Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2) 125

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

Although some examiners may prefer patiently throughout the testing process and
to use a shorter list of ACQT questions, with provides an examiner with more opportunity
fewer buffer questions, the use of three buf- to observe the examinee’s posture and cooper-
fer questions is recommended because it pro- ation during silent periods in between the test
vides more opportunity for any instruction or stimuli. Use of fewer buffer questions provides
admonition needed to improve the examinee’s less opportunity for practice and observation.
posture or cooperation prior to the presenta- There is little value in the use of short-cut pro-
tion of the known-key question. Use of three cedures during the ACQT.
buffer questions will often ensure that at least
one question was presented without the need Introduction and Review of the ACQT
for in-test instruction prior to the known-key Questions
question.
Introduction of the ACQT questions
Examiners who use less than three begins when the examiner informs the exam-
buffer questions before or after the known key inee that a practice test will be completed, and
question will have more limited insight as to then requests the examinee to write a num-
how the examinee will cooperate and respond ber (i.e.“4”) in large print in the middle of a
during testing. In the same way that shorten- large circle which the examiner has drawn
ing the question interval can reduce the length on a sheet of blank paper. The examiner will
of the ACQT, use of fewer ACQT questions may use this activity to orient or sensitize the ex-
incorrectly instruct the examinee as to the ex- aminee’s attention to the number they chose,
pected length or duration of the question se-
in this example 4, and this can sometimes be
quence during the data-collection phase of the
done by circling the number 4 several times,
polygraph test. or by asking the examinee to print boldly or
over-print the number one or more times. The
Many examinees are unaccustomed
examiner will then, in the presence of the ex-
to polygraph testing, and may produce what
aminee, write the numbers 1, 2 and 3 before
is termed artifacted, or unstable data at the
the number 4, and then proceed to write the
onset of testing due to unsatisfactory posture,
numbers 5, 6 and 7 after the number 4. The
cooperation (i.e., excessive movement) or dis-
examiner should explain to the examinee that
traction. These examinees may benefit from
it is obvious that the examiner has written the
additional in-test instruction. It is common for
numbers 1, 2, and 3, and the numbers 5, 6,
some examinees to move slightly upon the X
announcement of test onset, and some exam- and 7, while the examinee is the person who
has written the number 4.
iners may instruct the examinee at that time.
When using the surname test, having
Other examinees may move upon an-
the examinee spell the surname, letter by let-
swering the first question. This is also an op-
portunity to provide instruction to improve the ter, is good practice, as it can help to avoid
examinee’s behavior and cooperation during spelling and documentation errors and can
test. Another possible problem is that some also serve to orient or sensitize the examinee’s
examinees may become distracted during the attention to the known-key question. Other
silent periods between questions. This is also variations on the known-solution ACQT may
an opportunity for an examiner to provide in- employ other methods to orient and sensitize
formation that helps motivated and truthful the examinee to the known-key question, in-
examinees to cooperate successfully. cluding simple math questions. Some exam-
iners may choose to display a paper with the
Use of three buffer questions prior to list of question items in front of the examinee
and after the known-key question will ensure during the ACQT. Others may request the ex-
that the ACQT is closer in length to the ac- aminee to fold the paper and sit on it during
tual polygraph test question sequence and the ACQT. These activities are non-critical and
will better orient the examinee as to what to are intended only to contribute to the exam-
expect during testing. This provides an op- inee’s heightened attention and awareness of
portunity for examinees to practice sitting the ACQT questions.

126 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality Check

The examiner will explain to the complications, it may be useful for the exam-
examinee that during the test, he/she will iner to avoid referring to the requested NO
be asked if they wrote the number 1, 2 answer as a lie unless the examinee sponta-
and 3 (i.e., Did you write the number 1? neously refers to it as a lie. Examiners who
maneuver the examinee into referring to the
Did you write the number 2? Did you write
requested answer as a lie may be at risk for
the number 3?)2. The examiner should read mistaking superficial cooperation for rapport.
each question to the examinee and allow
the examinee to answer. The examinee Other examinees may attempt to object
will normally answer NO to each ques- to the idea of telling any lies during any part of
tion, and the examiner will advise that the polygraph process or at any other times –
these answers are known to be truthful asserting this to be inconsistent with personal
because the examiner, not the examinee, values or religious beliefs. In these cases, it is
has written those numbers. The examiner often best to simply advise the examinee that
answering NO in this context is not a lie per se
may explain further that these questions
but is merely an instruction and a procedure,
provide an opportunity for the examiner and that failure to follow the instructions and
to observe normally expected physiologi- procedures may result in not passing the poly-
cal responses. graph test.

The examiner will then present the The examiner will complete the review
known-key question, (Did you write the num- of the ACQT questions by reading each of re-
ber 4?), along with a clear instruction that the maining questions and allowing the examin-
examinee is to answer NO to this question, in ee to answer. The examiner should advise the
the same manner as he/she has answered NO examinee once again that it is already known
to each of the previous questions. The examin- that these answers are truthful or correct be-
er should emphasize that it is already known cause the examiner has written the numbers
that the examinee did in fact write the number 5, 6 and 7. The examiner should then advise
4 and that the required NO answer is incor- the examinee that the purpose of the practice
rect. The examiner will further advise that the test is to observe the response when the ex-
purpose of this is simply to observe how the aminee answers NO to the questions about
examinee responds physiologically3. Some ex- number 4.
aminees may inquire to clarify that they are
being instructed to lie, and it is acceptable to Introduction of the ACQT with the sur-
refer to the NO answer as a lie if the examinee name or other topics is like the use of the ACQT
does so. with numbers. The examinee is instructed to
answer known-key question incorrectly with a
Some examinees will know answering NO answer. Also, it may be necessary to alter
NO is not actually lying when one is instructed the buffer questions to exclude the known-
to answer NO. It is simply an instruction – a key item when using a variation to the num-
procedure – but not a lie. To avoid potential ber-test.

2 Another form of these question has also been used, in this manner: “Regarding the number you wrote, was it the number
1? “Was it the number 2? “Was it the number 3?” Although semantically identical this wording has less similarity with
common language usage. A principle of polygraph questions formulation is to use of comfortable and common language
whenever possible to avoid reactions that may result from novelty or confusion from uncommon language usage.

3 It is not advisable to state that the purpose of this exercise is to observe what it looks like or what the examinee’s body
does when lying – because this statement would be obviously factually incorrect. The basic physiological patterns – phasic
change and return to tonicity – is similar for many types of responses. Also, the act of lying to a matter under investigation
is thought to be a distinct phenomenon from answering NO incorrectly when instructed to do so. For these reasons, it is
advisable to limit this statement to one that is simple and factually correct: the purpose of the activity is to observe the
physiological response.

Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2) 127

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

Best practice is for the examiner to Attachment of Polygraph Recording Sensors

refrain from taking any shortcuts in the doc-
umentation and preparation of the list of The polygraph recording sensors
polygraph test questions. This means that ex- should be attached to the examinee following
aminers should always type or write each of the review of the ACQT questions. The exam-
the questions completely, without shorthand, iner should briefly remind the examinee about
using correct spelling, punctuation, and use the purpose or function of each sensor, in
of capitalization. addition to advising the examinee about the
importance of remaining still during testing.
After introducing and ascertaining Many polygraph examinees will have an un-
the examinee’s answer to the first three sur- der-developed understanding of how to sit still
name buffer questions, the examiner should during testing. It may be helpful for the ex-
alert the examinee that the next question will aminer to clearly advise the examinee about
be the correct surname question but that it how to remain still including the importance
is a requirement to answer NO. The examiner of keeping one’s feet flat on the floor, allowing
should then ascertain through practice that the chair to support one’s posture, and keep-
the examinee can answer NO to the known- ing one’s arms on the arm-rest or desk – in
key question. The examiner can then intro- addition to the importance of looking straight
duce and ascertain the examinee’s answer to ahead during testing. The examiner should
the remaining buffer questions. The examiner take notice of those examinees who may bene-
should then advise the examinee that the pur- fit from an additional support to stabilize their
pose of the practice test is to observe the re- feet during testing. Also, it is ideal if the exam-
sponse when the examinee answers NO to the inee can use the back of the chair to further
support and stabilize his or her head and pos-
questions about his or her surname.
ture during testing.
ACQT Question Interval
Examinee’s should be advised to keep
their eyes open during testing. This will help
It is recommended that the ACQT is
the examinee to avoid falling asleep during
conducted with the same 25 second question
testing and may also help to avoid problems
pace interval as the data-collection phase of
from increased attention to other physical
the polygraph test. While it may be tempt-
sensations when one’s eyes are closed, or
ing for some field practitioners to shorten
problems related to past issues of trauma for
the question interval for the ACQT – with the some examinees. Using a visual focal point or
view that it is un-important or less important visual reference point may help some examin-
– use of a shorter interval may be problem- ees to refrain from looking around or moving
atic for several reasons. For example, use of
their head during testing.
a shorter question interval during the ACQT
may deprive the examiner of an opportunity to Although it does not affect the scientif-
fully observe the examinee’s normal posture ic validity of a test result, polygraph recording
and cooperation after each test question and sensors are normally attached in a consistent
before the next stimulus is presented. Also, sequence, beginning with the lower and upper
shorter question intervals may provide insuffi- respiration sensors. The traditional procedure
cient time for the physiological data to return is for the examiner to provide simple instruc-
to the tonic level before each subsequent test tion to reposition the examinee while attach-
stimuli. A shortened question interval may ing the respiration sensors. Some examinees
lead some examinees to expect a similarly may experience less social discomfort if they
short interval during the polygraph data col- are instructed as how to attach the sensors
lection phase, leading to unintended cognitive to themselves. The cardio cuff is normally at-
activity or other reactions for examinees who tached to the examinee after the respiration
notice what appears to them be an unusually sensors.
long wait – though it is the normal intended
interval – in between questions during the ac- There is no empirical evidence to sup-
tual polygraph test. port a requirement that the cardio sensor or

128 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality Check

other sensors must be attached to the right or display and then saved to the computer stor-
left side of the examinee’s body. Subsequent- age device.
ly, there is no evidence regarding the direction
of the cardio tubing. What is most important If any of the recording sensors are not
is that the cardio sensor and tubing must be functioning normally, or if the examiner is un-
located in a manner in which it will neither be able to stabilize the data to a satisfactory and
disturbed by nor distract the examinee during usable degree, the examiner should terminate
the testing process. Electrodermal sensors can the recording and then correct the problem.
be attached to the examinee’s right or left side After the problems are corrected, the recording
as is most convenient for the testing location. can be started again and the ACQT completed.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that If an examinee’s physiological data is observed
the choice of right or left side has any effect on to be of insufficient quality or stability, an ex-
polygraph outcomes. Similarly, a fingertip va- aminer may elect to forgo polygraph testing or
somotor sensor can be attached to either the may wish to consult with the referring agent
right or left hand. There is no basis of evidence before deciding how to proceed.
to support requirements for the separation of
recording sensors to different sides. Rules or Examinees who move excessively or
constraints on these matters would increase who experience distraction during the ACQT
examiner venerability to criticism with no can be given simple instructions. For example:
known effect on scientific validity of the test “it is important that you stay still during the
data and test result. Most importantly, high- test,” or “it is important that you concentrate
ly skilled examiners will be able to attach the and do not get distracted during the test.”
polygraph sensors without placing the exam- Similarly, problems involving disruptive deep
inees in socially awkward and/or physically breathing can be calmly addressed by advis-
uncomfortable positions. ing “it is important that you do not move your
upper body during this practice test.” Instruc-
ACQT Recording tions of this type should not be repeated more
than two times.
After all recording sensors are at-
tached, the examiner will make any necessary Effective in-test instruction and skill-
adjustments and then initiate the ACQT re- ful management of observed problems during
cording. The examiner should inform the ex- the ACQT procedure may give the examiner an
aminee that the recording has begun and will opportunity to observe whether the examinee
begin to advise the examinee of the need to sit is capable of and willing to cooperate during
still. Some examiners will inflate and stabilize testing. An examiner may choose to abort and
the cardio cuff sensor prior to initiating the restart the ACQT if it necessary to provide an
recording. This will generally result in less vi- examinee with additional information or in-
sual distortion at the onset of recording. Oth- struction in response to observed problems
er examiners may prefer to start the record- with attention, posture or cooperation. It may
ing before inflating the cardio cuff. Here the also be acceptable for an examiner to continue
advantage is that the process of inflating and the ACQT to completion even after continued
stabilizing the cardio cuff is permanently in- problems are observed after advising the ex-
cluded in the recorded data and subsequently aminee. Under some conditions an examiner
available for visual review. may elect to repeat the ACQT.

Additional adjustments may be made If necessary, the ACQT may be aborted

to the data following the onset of recording. to address and correct any observed problems
The ACQT itself begins with the announce- with the functioning of the recording sensors.
ment of test onset (X) and will proceed through It is unproductive to complete the ACQT if the
the ACQT question sequence until the an- sensors are not functioning as intended. The
nouncement of test completion (XX). The re- ACQT should be restarted after the problem
cording is stopped following the completion of is corrected. Correct functionality will be ob-
the ACQT data collection, after which the data served in the form of normal physiological
can be dressed or adjusted for optimal visual activity in respiration, cardio, electrodermal,

Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2) 129

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

vasomotor and activity sensors, along with ob- questions of before the XX announcement of
servable changes in activity in response to the test completion. Because this is simply an ac-
ACQT stimuli. quaintance test, there is no known reason why
this should be considered unacceptable.
Known-Key Question
The known-key question will normally
The known-solution ACQT is not de- produce an observable change in physiolog-
pendent on psychological or situational ma- ical activity. If no response is observed, the
nipulation, and for this reason can be viewed examiner may elect to repeat the known-key
as less ethically and scientifically controver- question at the end of the ACQT sequence,
sial. The known-solution ACQT permits more before the announcement of test completion.
potential for standardization than the un- Though repetition is usually un-necessary, it
known-solution test, including the potential may be useful to repeat the ACQT under some
for the use of the same known-key question, circumstances, such as when the examinee
located in the same position in the ACQT does not cooperate in a satisfactory manner or
question sequence, for each examinee. Exam- when the data are unsatisfactory and can be
iners who are tempted to add variation to the improved with some adjustment to the sensor
known-key item or ACQT question sequence or instrument. Some examinee’s physiological
are cautioned against adding variation only to responses may be unusable or un-interpreta-
ble. In these cases, a decision to proceed with
relieve occasional professional boredom and
testing under the prior knowledge that the
are advised to embrace the value of a consis-
data are unusable or uninterpretable would
tency in the applied use of the ACQT.
not be without some ethical complication.
Consistency in the administration of
ACQT Feedback
the ACQT will help to avoid errors. Consistent
administration of the ACQT will allow an ex-
Common practice is to provide the ex-
aminer to gain more insight about individual
aminee with feedback after the completion of
differences in behavior and response at re-
the ACQT. Use of the known-solution ACQT
cording onset, attention during silent periods,
– which cannot be confused with any form
response to in-test instructions, and response
of parlor-trick – permits a standardized ap-
to test stimuli both before and following the proach to ACQT feedback. It is reasonable to
known-key question. Although this informa- inform the examinee that he or she has shown
tion is unquantified and not subject to objec- a response to the known-key question. It is
tive analysis, it is a potentially rich source of also reasonable to advise the examinee that he
information that can assist an examiner to or she is likely to show a reaction in response
work effectively with each individual examin- to deception during the actual polygraph test,
ee. and similarly reasonable to advise that there
should be no difficulty if he or she is telling the
Some examinees may answer incor- truth about the matter under investigation. An
rectly in response to the known-key question. example is shown below:
If the examinee does not answer the known-
key question as instructed, the examiner may You showed a reaction
terminate the ACQT and advise the examinee to that question about
of the error and need to answer as instructed. (the number 4 / your
It is possible that the examinee forgot instruc- name / other ACQT
tions, though it is also possible that some ex- topic). If you lie during
aminees may choose not to cooperate. In ei- the polygraph you
ther case the examiner may be able to rectify are likely to show a
the problem by re-instructing the examinee reaction. On the other
and re-starting the ACQT. Some examiners hand, there should
may elect to provide the examinee with in-test be no great difficulty
instruction regarding the requested answer determining if you are
and then repeat the known-key question, ei- telling the truth.
ther before presenting the remaining buffer

130 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality Check

These statements make no claims or stimulation test. The term stimulation may
about the detection of deception or the mag- have been thought by some to be problematic,
nitude of physiological response. And, empiri- and the profession has gravitated away from
cal data supports these statements for normal that term in the form of more comfortable and
functioning examinees. Detection of deception general words like acquaintance test or simply
may not be a realistic endeavor with a single practice test. The method described herein is
iteration of a question sequence, and the use highly standardized, and applicable to a wide
of a known-solution ACQT creates a context in range of examinees and testing contexts. It
which no actual deception has occurred. does not depend on parlor-tricks, manipula-
tion or misinformation, and is consistent with
The purpose of the known-solution published scientific evidence on the beneficial
ACQT is to allow the examinee to become ac- effects of the ACQT on polygraph outcomes.
customed to the sensors, testing procedure,
need for cooperation, and for the examiner to The known solution ACQT is the only
ascertain that the instrument and sensors are form of acquaintance test described in avail-
functioning as intended. For this reason, it is able publications on polygraph field standards
neither necessary nor advisable to tell the ex- of the U.S. federal government (Department of
aminee that any deception has been detected. Defense, 2006). Considering the available sci-
Nor it is advisable to tell the examinee any- entific evidence for the known solution ACQT
thing about the difference or size of the ob- there is little argument that it is a valuable part
served reactions. of the test, and little argument for the use of
any unstudied or experimental form of ACQT
It is not advisable to show the ACQT in lieu of the evidence-based known-solution
charts to the examinee, because providing this test. It is consistent with published evidence
information may contribute to a change or in- and applicable to a wide variety of polygraph
crease in the way the examinee attends to his screening and diagnostic contexts, including
or her perceptions and awareness of physio- criminal investigations, public safety appli-
logical activity and responses during testing. cant screening, employee screening, security
Examinees who desire to engage in counter- screening, and post-conviction testing. The
measures during testing may attempt to mis- known-solution ACQT is highly standardized
use the information gained if an examiner and does not rely on psychological or situa-
shows the test data. This view contrasts with tional manipulation, or misinformation.
older practices that sometimes involved show-
ing the ACQT data to the examinee4. There is much to learn about an exam-
inee from the careful and competent use of a
Summary known-solution ACQT. In addition to ensuring
that the instrument and recording sensors are
The ACQT has been used by polygraph functioning as intended, it is an opportunity
examiners since the early history of the poly- to observe the examinee’s posture and coop-
graph profession, though its use has changed eration during testing, and potentially rectify
somewhat over the years. Along with subtle any problems before the actual polygraph ex-
but important changes in ACQT field practic- amination. Skillful use of the known-solution
es, some changes have occurred in the termi- ACQT has been shown to increase the effec-
nology used to refer to the ACQT. For exam- tiveness of the polygraph test. The actual rea-
ple, some early practices involved the use of son for this effect appears to have little to do
the ACQT between the first and second test proving or demonstrating the effectiveness or
chart and referred to the ACQT as a stim test infallibility of the polygraph test and may have

4 The most concerning of all old-school manipulative ACQT practices that the authors are aware of involves the increase of
test sensitivity adjustment at the time of the key-question, resulting in a response that would always be visually impressive
though unrepresentative of the actual change in physiological activity. This practice is not possible with contemporary
computerized polygraph instruments.

Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2) 131

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

more to do with ensuring that the instrument tunity to practice cooperating with behavioral
and recording sensors are functioning prop- instructions during the polygraph test.
erly and that the examinee has had an oppor-

132 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

The Known-Solution Acquaintance Test and Functionality Check

References

American Polygraph Association (2018). APA Standards of Practice (Effective March 24, 2018.
[Electronic version] Retrieved August 17, 2018, from http://www.polygraph.org.

Barland, G. & Raskin, D. C. (1975). An evaluation of field techniques in detection of deception.

Psychophysiology, 12(3), 321-330.

Ben-Shakhar, G. & Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and applications in the detection of deception: A
psychophysiological and international perspective. Springer-Verlag.

Bradley, M. T. & Janisse, M.P. (1981). Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of
deception: Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures. Psychophysiology, 18,
307-315.

Department of Defense (2006). Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner

Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-
handbook-02-10-2006.pdf on 3-31-2007. Reprinted in Polygraph, 40(1), 2-66.

Elliott, E., Egan, V. & Grubin, D. (2017). A Not So Bogus Pipeline: A Study of the Bogus Pipeline
Effect and Its Implications for Polygraph Testing. Polygraph,46(1), 1-9.

Ellson, D. G., Davis, R. C., Saltzman, J. A. & Burke, C. J. (1952). A report of research on detection
of deception. (Contract N. N6 ONR 18011, Office of Naval Research). Bloomington: University
of Indiana.

Horneman, C. J. & O'Gorman, J.G. (1985). Detectability in the card test as a function of the subject's
verbal response. Psychophysiology, 22, 330-333.

Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C. & Raskin, D.C. (1986). Does stimulation test accuracy predict accuracy
of polygraph test? Psychophysiology, 23, 442 [abstract].

Honts, C. R. & Alloway, W.R. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question
test. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 311-320.

Honts, C. R. & Reavy, R. (2015). The comparison question polygraph test: A contrast of methods and
scoring. Physiology and Behavior, 143, 15-26.

Honts, C. R., Handler, M., Shaw, P., & Gougler, M. (2015). The Vasomotor Response in the Comparison
Question Test. Polygraph, 41(1), 62-78.

Kirby, S. L. (1981). The comparison of two stimulus tests and their effect on the polygraph technique.
Polygraph, 10, 63-76.

Kircher, J. C., Packard, T., Bell, B. G. & Bernhardt, P. C., (2001). Effects of Prior Demonstrations of
Polygraph Accuracy on Outcomes of Probable-Lie and Directed-lie Polygraph Tests. Final report
to the U. S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. Jackson, SC. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.

Lykken, D. T. (1981). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. McGraw-Hill.

Nelson, R., Handler, M., Blalock, B. & Hernandez, N. (2012). Replication and extension study of
Directed Lie Screening Tests: criterion validity with the seven and three Position models and

Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2) 133

 Nelson, Prado, Blalock, Handler

the Empirical Scoring System. Polygraph, 41(3), 186-198.

Reid, J. E. (1947). A revised questioning technique in lie detection tests. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 37, 542-547. Reprinted in Polygraph 11, 17-21.

Reid, J. E. & Inbau, F. E. (1966). Truth and deception: The polygraph (“lie detector”) technique.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Rovner, L. I. (1986). Accuracy of physiological detection of deception for subjects with prior knowledge.
Polygraph, 15(1), 1-39.

Summers, W. G. (1939). Science can get the confession. Fordham Law Review, 8, 334-354.

Widup, R. & Barland, G. H. (1994). Effect of the location of the numbers test on examiner decision rates
in criminal psychophysiological detection of deception tests. Department of Defense Polygraph
Institute.

134 Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment , 2018, 47 (2)

View publication stats