Sexual History Disclosure Polygraph Outcomes

Abstract

Despite the empirical and theoretical chasm between the opponents and proponents of polygraphy, its use is prominent among sex offender agencies in the United States. However, current research on polygraph examination outcomes among juvenile sex offenders, along with potential differences from their adult counterparts, is scarce and outdated. In the present study, we assess the difference between juvenile and adult sex offenders in terms of the propensity for passing a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination. A sample of 324 sex offenders (86 juveniles and 238 adults) who engaged in a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination as part of their treatment in an Intermountain West sex offender treatment agency was used for the analysis. Results from preliminary and logistic regression analyses indicate that juvenile and adult offenders do not significantly differ in the likelihood of passing a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords

sexual abuse child abuse treatment/intervention offenders sexual assault reporting/disclosure

The balance between clinical standards and ethical mandates continues to be a pressing issue in the treatment of juvenile sex offenders, particularly as it relates to the use of polygraphy (Brandes & Cheung, 2009; Chaffin, 2011; Grubin & Madsen, 2005). Yet, recent estimates have shown that polygraph examinations are utilized by almost 50% of juvenile sex offender treatment programs throughout the United States (McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2010). The frequency of polygraph testing in sex offender treatment for juveniles is largely the result of its accepted use in adult offender treatment programs. The testing of honest and full sexual history disclosures via polygraphy is considered a key aspect of treatment for many clinicians who argue that it offers critical insights into better understanding an offender’s triggers, tendencies, and sexual vulnerabilities (Grubin, 2008). In addition, polygraphy has been used for decades, and has been substantiated as one of the most effective tools for gathering truthful data (Abrams, 1991; Consigli, 2002; Hindman & Peters, 2001).

Despite the arguments that proponents offer in support of polygraphy (Grubin, 2008; Grubin & Madsen, 2005; Hindman & Peters, 2001), its use is not without controversy (Ben-Shakhar, 2008; Chaffin, 2011; Rosky, 2012). Some concerns are amplified when the use of polygraphy for juvenile sex offenders is being considered (Chaffin, 2011). For example, some researchers argue that minors are significantly more vulnerable to perceived coercion and its consequences than their adult counterparts in a number of clinical settings (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). In particular, minors have been shown to have a less solid future orientation, a greater susceptibility to outside influences and pressure, a weaker ability to regulate their emotions, and a greater tendency to underestimate the risks associated with their choices when compared with adults (Grisso et al., 2003; Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Thus, clinicians may find it challenging to decide whether the use of polygraphy with juvenile clients presents more benefits than costs. An examination of if and how juvenile and adult offenders differ in the likelihood of passing a polygraph examination could prove useful in this regard.

While both proponents and opponents of polygraphy in sex offender treatment, particularly among juvenile offenders, have made their cases, an assessment of whether or not juveniles and adult offenders actually differ in terms of passing a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination is lacking. More generally, research associated with polygraph examinations among juvenile offenders is relatively scarce. Our study aims to fill these gaps. We begin by summarizing the historical development of polygraphy use in sex offender treatment, followed by a discussion of the various ethical concerns and empirical research associated with juvenile offender polygraph testing.

Polygraphy in Sex Offender Treatment

Since the 1970s, polygraphy has been a commonly used tool in the American criminal justice system (Grubin & Madsen, 2005). As a result, many private and public sector treatment agencies, including those specializing in sex offender treatment, began to incorporate polygraphy into their treatment protocols as a way to assess criminal/sexual histories and treatment/parole/probation compliance, among other things. As for the efficacy of this practice, some studies have shown that the use of polygraphy is associated with a significant increase in disclosure of past victims and offenses among criminal populations (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, & English, 2000; Emerick & Dutton, 1993). In addition, the use of polygraphy in the criminal justice system has contributed to crime prevention and reduced prison populations over time (Consigli, 2002). After reviewing the historical developments of polygraph use in the United States, Grubin and Madsen (2005) concluded that the use of polygraphy can help in managing offenders, insomuch as clinicians and law enforcers do not perceive it as an infallible tool.

A number of studies have examined the efficacy and accuracy of polygraphy in sex offender treatment. Accuracy rates (i.e., absence of false positive or false negative cases) have often been measured by comparing actual polygraph examination results with the self-reports of clients. For example, Grubin and Madsen (2006) found an accuracy rate of approximately 85% among a sample of 321 of adult sex offenders. The majority of their sample also reported that the polygraph examinations were helpful in assisting them to avoid reoffending, avoid risk behaviors, and engage in treatment. Similarly, Kokish, Levenson, and Blasingame (2005) explored the perceptions of polygraph experiences among adult sex offenders. After assessing 333 polygraphs taken by 95 offenders during their treatment regimen, they found that clients agreed with the polygraph examiner’s opinions about 90% of time. They also found that the majority of clients reported that polygraph testing contributed to the successful attainment of treatment goals. More recently, researchers in the United Kingdom found the use of polygraphy to be associated with increases in client disclosures, improved adaptation of treatment strategies, and perceived benefits to treatment as reported by both clinicians and adult sex offenders (Gannon et al., 2014; Gannon, Wood, Pina, Vasquez, & Fraser, 2012). These findings were consistent across various sexual offense and risk types. After reviewing various studies associated with polygraph testing in sex offender treatment, Blasingame (1998) concluded that the usefulness of polygraph testing could be found not only in the actual examination but also in the entire preparatory process. As individuals await an impending polygraph test, many are likely to disclose pertinent sexual history information to avoid indications of deceit, and thus potentially improve treatment outcomes.

Some scholars suggest that polygraph testing research has yielded similar outcomes over the last few decades. For example, Hindman and Peters (2001) overviewed a collection of previously unpublished studies which compared sexual history reports among offenders between pre- and postpolygraph testing across a 21-year period of time. They found that in the late 1970s, as well as in the late 1990s, adult offenders who did not undergo polygraph testing were very likely to minimize their sexually abusive behaviors and also exaggerate their own histories of sexual victimization. While juveniles in outpatient sex offender treatment were found to exhibit these tendencies less than their adult counterparts, the authors suggested that there is evidence that higher risk juvenile offenders may be just as inclined to conceal the truth in their self-reports as adult offenders when disclosing their sexual histories (Hindman & Peters, 2001).

Additional research suggests that the efficacy and accuracy of polygraph examinations are questionable, particularly as they relate to actual recidivism rates among convicted sexual perpetrators (Rosky, 2012). In this particular area, research has yielded weak results due to methodological issues (Abrams & Ogard, 1986; Edson, 1991), and one study even found that polygraph testing was not significantly associated with reduced future sexual offenses (McGrath, Cumming, Hoke, & Bonn-Miller, 2007). In addition, many factors influence the dependability of polygraphy, including polygrapher and procedural variables (Blasingame, 1998). Polygrapher competence, verbal and nonverbal communicative style, and overall style of client engagement all impact the validity of polygraph examinations. Among clients, severe mental disorders, mental retardation, medical conditions, refusal to adhere to directions, and drug or alcohol intoxication may influence the results of a polygraph examination. Despite these findings and concerns, polygraphy remains a common practice in various treatment settings for sex offenders. This is likely due, in part, to the subjective benefits reported by both offenders and clinicians mentioned earlier.

Juvenile Polygraphy and Ethical Concerns

Although there is some research on the use of polygraphy in adult sex offender treatment, its use among juvenile offenders is less well studied. However, Emerick and Dutton (1993) compared sexual offense disclosures by data attainment type (legal/police documentation, clinical interviews, and polygraph examinations) among 76 juvenile offenders (ages between 10 and 18, with a mean of 15.09 years). They found that child victimization and hands-on assaults were reported more frequently with polygraph examinations. Furthermore, adolescent offenders were more likely to disclose experiences associated with pornography, voyeurism, rape, and obscene phone calls in polygraph examinations than clinical interviews. These findings suggest that polygraphy is relatively more effective in attaining accurate sexual history information from juvenile offenders when compared with other sources of data attainment, such as clinical interviews or police records. This perspective is also supported by the work conducted by Hindman and Peters (2001).

Even though polygraphy has shown to be relatively efficacious in terms of attaining sexual history information, its use among juveniles remains controversial (Brandes & Cheung, 2009; Chaffin, 2011; Grubin & Madsen, 2005; Prescott, 2012). As noted earlier, a number of researchers have argued that developmental differences between adults and juveniles, such as a lack of future orientation, susceptibility to outside influences, and inability to regulate emotions, make juvenile offenders more vulnerable to perceived coercion than their adult counterparts (Ben-Shakhar, 2008; Scott & Steinberg, 2008). This notion is further supported by research suggesting adolescent offenders (all types) are more likely than adult offenders to comply with authority figures via self-incriminating disclosures, and less likely to recognize the risks associated with their legal choices (Grisso et al., 2003). Taken together, these findings suggest that juvenile offenders may tend to pass polygraph examinations at a higher rate than adults—a proposition that remains empirically untested.

Ethically, some have suggested that polygraphy “requires coercion, deception, and circumventing personal agency” (Chaffin, 2011, p. 320). Furthermore, polygraphy may introduce maleficence into the treatment process, given that coerced confessions during the polygraph examination could lead to negative client outcomes, such as further legal prosecution or sanctioning. Given these differences and ethical concerns, some have argued that the use of polygraphy is not advisable with juvenile clients. However, there remains little empirical guidance to help clinicians decide if the benefits of juvenile polygraphy outweigh or justify the potential costs.

The Present Study

Regardless of any ethical or practical concerns that exist, polygraph examinations are a popular clinical tool utilized by a large number of American sex offender treatment agencies. While some researchers have assessed its efficacy and accuracy (with mixed results and assertions), most of these studies have explored its use with adult offenders. We know less about juvenile populations in this area.

In terms of clinical practice, proponents of juvenile polygraphy might argue for its use to maintain the status quo or to obtain perceived clinical benefits for clients. Opponents might discourage its use with juveniles on grounds that polygraphy is unhelpful at best, and harmful at worst. However, if an entire clinical profession is going to decide how to treat juvenile sex offenders relative to adult populations, they ought to better understand if and how these groups differ from one another. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to investigate whether juvenile and adult sex offenders differ significantly in their likelihood of passing a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination.

Importantly, we do not seek to refute any notion that juvenile populations are subject to a number of unique vulnerabilities in the context of perceived coercion, nor can our study alleviate any ethical concerns. Also, we do not aim to propose the infallibility of polygraphy or to attain and/or solidify any sort of guarantee that polygraphy use leads to reduced recidivism rates among convicted sexual perpetrators. Rather, our exploratory analysis will simply highlight if adult and juvenile offender groups demonstrate a differing propensity toward passing their sexual history disclosure polygraph examination. If we find that juveniles are less prone to failing their polygraph examinations than adults, the implications might lean in favor of juvenile polygraphy opponents, as the potential costs associated with its use might not be adequately justified. However, if we find that juveniles are prone to fail a polygraph examination at a similar or greater rate than adults, the implications might lean in favor of juvenile polygraphy proponents, as the benefits of attaining an open and honest clinical atmosphere might outweigh the potential costs associated with polygraphy use. Either way, our results will assist clinicians in making a more informed decision regarding the inclusion of juveniles in polygraph testing regimens.

Method

Data and Procedures

Data were collected from comprehensive reports of polygraph examinations that were issued to clients between 2000 and 2012 at a sex offender treatment agency in the Intermountain West area. The polygraph examinations analyzed in this study dealt specifically with an assessment of the client’s honesty regarding a full-disclosure of their sexual history. Individuals undertook the same preparatory protocols by divulging their sexual histories via comprehensive written accounts in response to standardized sexual history prompts, and if needed, additional interviewing by the individual’s therapist or the examiner. Following such preparation, the polygraph examiner would generally ask the following yes-or-no questions: “Have you been involved in any type of sexual behavior with a minor child you have not told me about?”; “Have you used any part of your body to touch the sexual body parts of a minor child you have not told me about?”; and “Are you intentionally withholding any information about your sexual involvement with a minor child?” These questions were adapted as needed to fit each client situation and sexual historical context. This form of assessment was issued during the first few weeks (usually four) of the client’s treatment, and was a mandatory step in the treatment process. We determined the type of polygraph by reading the examiner’s explicit statement regarding the purpose of each polygraph test as reported in the polygraph report manuscript. Other types of polygraph examinations in our original data set included assessments of a client’s compliance with treatment and probation policies/procedures, and “specific issue” polygraph examinations used to explore a specific issue as deemed appropriate by the client’s probation officer and/or primary therapist. These other types of polygraphs were not used in or analyses. Again, only sexual history disclosure polygraphs were analyzed.

In some cases, clients would not pass their polygraph examination, meaning that they were found to be deceitful to at least one of the three yes-or-no questions asked by the examiner. The examiner would then either issue a second test in the same session after the client disclosed more information, or the client would prepare for another examination in the near future (at least 30 days later as required by state law). If the client was issued two tests in the same session, we used any indication of deceit as the outcome, regardless of it being the result of the first test or the second polygraph test. In cases where individuals were required to prepare for an additional full-disclosure polygraph examination because they did not pass, we used the first polygraph exam issued for our analyses. If the first full-disclosure polygraph had results which were deemed inconclusive or incomplete, we used the next polygraph exam issued (this specific scenario only occurred once among those in our analytical sample). For individuals who passed their polygraph examination, no further action was taken in terms of additional examinations.

Importantly, this study was approved by the authors’ university Institutional Review Board (IRB). Client anonymity was protected in a number of ways. All polygraph examination reports, from 2000 to 2012, were stored in the agency director’s office. This office was always locked when unattended. Data on the polygraph reports were coded in an office at the agency, which was also locked when unattended. Each relevant piece of information was coded into an Excel spreadsheet, and was eventually imported into Stata 12.0 for statistical analysis. In addition, any client identifiers were removed from the data and all cases were assigned ID numbers.

Sample

Given that we coded all polygraph examination reports regardless of type, we began with a sample of 782 individual polygraph examination cases. However, for the purpose of this study, we only analyzed polygraph reports dealing with initial sexual history disclosure assessments. Thus, our final analytical sample consisted of 324 individual cases. Only 11 (about 3%) individuals in the sample were female, and 313 (about 97%) were male. Recent estimates have indicated that women represent about 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape and about 7.5% of all adult arrests for other types of sexual offenses in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2011). As for juvenile offenders, females represent about 3% of forcible rape arrests and 5% of other violent sexual offenses, as well as about 19% of nonviolent sexual offenses (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Thus, our gender representation falls within reasonable bounds in terms of national averages of sexual offenses by gender. Within the juvenile group (n = 86), age ranged from 11 to 17, with a mean age of 14.71 years and standard deviation of 1.63 years. As for the adult group (n = 238), age ranged from 18 to 83 years, with a mean of 33.35 years and standard deviation of 13.28. For the whole sample, the mean age was 28.23 years with a standard deviation of 13.84 years. Importantly, the vast majority of participants (>99%) had admitted to their offenses prior to treatment. Refer to Table 1 for more details.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Preliminary Analysis, and Demographic Information of Sample (N = 324).

							Polygraph Outcome
Variable	n	%	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Pass	%	Fail	%
Age group^a
Juvenile	86	26.5	11	17	14.71	1.63	58	67.4	28	32.6
Adult	238	73.5	18	83	33.35	13.28	163	68.5	75	31.5
Total					324
Gender^b
Female	11	3.4					9	81.8	2	18.2
Male	313	96.6					212	67.7	101	32.3
Total					324

Note. Mean ages and standard deviations are listed by age group. Percentages in the polygraph outcome section are interpreted by row and are in reference to the associated variable group in that row.

Chi-square analysis indicated that the percentage of subjects that passed their polygraph examination did not differ significantly by age group, χ²(1, N = 324) = .03, p = .86.

Chi-square analysis for the influence of gender on the percentage of subjects that passed was not feasible due to low cell counts.

Measures

Our key independent variable was age, which we analyzed as both a categorical and continuous variable. The continuous form of the age variable was derived from the difference between the participants’ date of birth and date of polygraph examination. All values were rounded down to the year value of age. For the categorical form of our age variable, all individuals within the sample who were less than 18 years of age at the time of their polygraph examination were grouped together, while all other individuals who were 18 years of age or older were grouped together. To assess possible differences between young, middle-aged, and older adults, we conducted preliminary analyses in which these three adult groups were represented in a logistic regression model. Results did not indicate significant differences in the outcome (not shown in tables). Our key dependent variable was the outcome of a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination for each individual. This outcome was binary in nature, such that results either indicated that the individual passed or failed. We coded “pass” as 1 and “fail” as 0.

Unfortunately, the exploratory design of this study was limited to the scope of the polygraph examination reports. These reports did include variables such as sexual offense type, risk type, psychological issues or symptomology, and other sociodemographic factors. While some of these measures have been analyzed within the adult offender literature, some results suggest that study findings were consistent across sexual offense type and risk type (Gannon et al., 2014). However, we encourage the use of these variables in future research when we discuss the limitations of our study further below.

Analytical Strategy

To assess our research question regarding any difference between juvenile and adult offenders in their likelihood of passing a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination, we used the use of logistic regression analysis, and other preliminary analyses in Stata 12.0. To begin, we conducted descriptive analyses, and also utilized a chi-square analysis of our participants in terms of age groupings (juvenile vs. adult offenders) and polygraph outcomes. To further assess the potential association between these two variables, we analyzed a logistic regression model in which age was coded continuously, rather than categorically. Importantly, more than 99% of the cases in our sample were assessed by the same polygraph examiner. This condition greatly reduced the likelihood of nonindependence among individual observations. In other words, because only one examiner assessed the vast majority of the polygraph examinations, individual outcomes were clustered within that single examiner, rather than clustered among numerous examiners—in which case multilevel analysis accounting for examiner-level variables would be the preferred methodological approach (Heck & Thomas, 2009; Hox, 2010).

Results

Descriptive and Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 reports the results of our descriptive and preliminary analyses. Results indicated that of the 86 juvenile offenders in the sample, 58 (67.4%) passed their polygraph examination, and 28 (32.6%) failed. As for the 238 adult offenders in the sample, 163 (68.5%) passed their polygraph examination, and 75 (31.5%) failed. Proportionately, juvenile offenders and adult offenders did not appear to differ significantly in their polygraph outcomes. For further assessment, we conducted a chi-square analysis on the potential association between age groups and polygraph outcomes. Results indicated that the percentage of subjects that passed their polygraph examination did not differ significantly by age group, χ²(1, n = 324) = .03, p = .86.

In terms of gender, descriptive results indicated that of the 11 female offenders in the sample, 9 (81.8%) passed their polygraph examination, and 2 (18.2%) failed. Also, of the 313 male offenders in the sample, 212 (67.7%) passed their polygraph examination, and 101 (32.3%) failed. Because there were an inadequate number of individuals in each descriptive cell (gender by polygraph outcome), we were unable to conduct a preliminary chi-square analysis and assess if gender significantly influenced the percentage of individuals who passed their polygraph examination. These inadequate cell counts also prevented us from incorporating gender in our logistic regression analysis.

Logistic Regression

Table 2 reports the results of our logistic regression model in which age was analyzed as a continuous measure. Results indicated that age was not significantly associated with the odds of passing the sexual history disclosure polygraph examination (OR = 1.002, SE = .009, p = .85). Also, the pseudo R² value for this particular model was .0001, indicating that beyond a nonsignificant association between continuous age and the outcome, the model essentially explained no variance at all in the outcome.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression of Passing Polygraph Examination on Age (N = 324).

Variable	Odds Ratio	SE	p	95% Confidence Interval
Constant	2.049**	0.557	.008	[1.203, 3.489]
Age	1.002	0.009	.850	[0.985, 1.019]
Pseudo R²	.0001
Log likelihood	−202.572

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ . 01. ***p ≤ . 001.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess the difference between adult and juvenile sex offenders in terms of the likelihood of passing a sexual history disclosure polygraph examination amid court-ordered treatment. Results indicated that these two age groups did not differ significantly. Thus, despite some of the inherent developmental differences between juveniles and adults, juvenile offenders were not any more or less likely to pass their polygraph examinations. Furthermore, both age groups were given similar amounts of time to prepare for their examinations, so the preparatory process (standardized protocol) for an impending examination did not appear to influence juveniles and adults differently in terms of pass–fail rates. Overall, both client groups were subject to fail a sexual history polygraph about one third of the time. Despite the possibility of false polygraph readings, if one third of a client group fails a polygraph for which they are fully aware and able to prepare, it is interesting to consider how deceitful a client group might be without an impending polygraph examination.

Implications

Given the results of this investigation, we discuss a number of clinical implications pertinent to social workers and other clinicians who engage with juvenile sex offenders in treatment. First, clinicians who argue that polygraphy should not be used with juvenile offenders because they believe juveniles are relatively more forthright and honest in treatment should take pause and consider our findings. While our results do not offer any insight into how polygraphy interacts with recidivism generally (as no current study of youth sex offenders has; see Rosky, 2012), our results suggest that juveniles appear to pass or fail their sexual history disclosure polygraph examinations at a statistically similar rate as adults (about one third of the time). Clinicians should consider this possible similarity and reflect on how treatment protocols could be adjusted to yield optimal transparency from juvenile clients. Ultimately, as researchers have continued to investigate and confirm the unique characteristics and etiological factors associated with juvenile sexual deviance (Driemeyer, Yoon, & Briken, 2011; Seto & Lalumiere, 2010), our results suggest that sexual history polygraphy is one area in which juveniles might actually be similar to their adult counterparts. Treatment methods should be assessed and adjusted accordingly.

Undoubtedly, opponents of polygraphy use among juvenile offenders would suggest that this similarity is not meaningful. One could argue that evidence of juvenile deceit being similar to that of adults does not take steps to support the utility of polygraphy in terms of treatment outcomes (Prescott, 2012). But, the weight of that perspective stands on the lack of empirical ties between polygraph-induced disclosure and observable recidivism rates (Prescott, 2012; Rosky, 2012). To this viewpoint, we offer three important responses.

First, recidivism rates are captured by incidences of subsequent unlawful sexual behavior that are actually detected by law enforcement. While this is arguably the only tangible way to generate recidivism rates, it still fails to account for all possible future behaviors that are sexually unlawful. Thus, true recidivism rates are quite latent and evasive.

Second, many opponents of juvenile offender polygraphy overlook the research which has shown that among adult offenders, the majority of clients report that polygraph testing was helpful in avoiding reoffense, avoiding risk behaviors, attaining treatment goals, and strengthening personal relationships through greater tendencies to be honest (Gannon et al., 2012; Grubin & Madsen, 2006; Kokish et al., 2005). Additional research suggests that clinicians improve risk assessments, enhance treatment strategies, and report improvements in treatment with clients as a result of polygraphy use (Gannon et al., 2012; Grubin, 2008). While these studies have offered subjective reports among adult offenders and their clinicians, could not juveniles report similar positive experiences and benefits? Some argue that empirical evidence tying polygraphy to decreases in recidivism is necessary to justify polygraphy testing, particularly among juveniles. However, if the majority of clients are telling us that polygraphy is beneficial in a large number of ways, should this information be dismissed? In other clinical settings, would one tell clients that they can only engage in therapeutic methods which objectively demonstrate efficacy, even when they subjectively report that such methods are indeed effective? Still, we acknowledge that the severity of sex offender recidivism is arguably greater than the recurrence of other conditions for which individuals seek clinical assistance (e.g., phobias, mood disorders, etc.). As a result, we see the value in objective indices of sex offender treatment success—indices of which researchers should be mindful.

Third, if clinicians are not concerned with the rate at which juvenile offenders are being deceitful in treatment, then are they equipped to argue how allowing dishonesty, albeit inadvertently, will not undermine desirable treatment outcomes more than experiences with polygraphy might? In other words, if helping juvenile clients avoid potential discomfort (relating to the polygraph) is more advantageous to treatment than establishing a more honest and responsible clinical climate, then more research ought to be presented which demonstrates the relative superiority of that approach.

Limitations and Future Research

Of course, the results and implications of our study should be tempered by its limitations. First, the accuracy and validity of polygraphy is questionable (Rosky, 2012). As cited previously, researchers have found that individuals do not always agree with the outcome of their polygraph examinations (Grubin & Madsen, 2006; Kokish et al., 2005), and there remains conflicting research supporting the validity, reliability, and practical benefit of polygraphy in sex offender treatment (Rosky, 2012). Moreover, various psychological ailments or conditions have the potential to obstruct the accuracy of polygraph testing (Blasingame, 1998). As a result, the instrument of measurement in our study should not be considered fully valid or reliable, and we did not account for any psychological diagnoses (due to data unavailability) among clients that could lead to spurious polygraph outcomes. Second, our study did not account for sexual offense type (e.g., pedophilia, rape, voyeurism, etc.), which may be associated with an increased or decreased likelihood of deceptive indicators in polygraph examinations. Our failure to account for this factor was attributable to the absence of this data on client polygraph reports. Third, our participants were not gathered through random sampling, and thus our results yielded neither national representation nor generalizability—a common issue within the sex offender literature. However, the fact that these data come from a clinical setting can provide an important context for the implications of our results. Our sample also had reasonable representation of gender as compared with national averages (FBI, 2011; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Future research should compensate for some of these shortcomings. Specifically, an exciting direction for future research would be to incorporate sexual offense type into the analysis, allowing for the detection of significant differences in polygraph outcomes based on such types (Gannon et al., 2014; Gannon et al., 2012). This work could be extended by accounting for personality traits (e.g., conduct disorder, etc.), because such traits might be linked to offense type and the propensity for passing or failing a polygraph examination. With a growing body of literature relating to unique characteristics and outcomes among juvenile sex offenders (Driemeyer et al., 2011; Seto & Lalumiere, 2010), this could likely make a meaningful contribution. In addition, future research should incorporate measures dealing with psychological diagnoses that might alter polygraph outcomes. Doing so could help control for the influence that extraneous physiological reactions resulting from psychological symptomology might have on polygraph examination outcomes (Blasingame, 1998). Also, future research ought to explore and theorize about the processes underlying the similarity in polygraph outcomes between adults and juveniles. An investigation of how juvenile offenders experience polygraph testing might also help identify whether its use in treatment is more subjectively beneficial than harmful, or vice versa.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of this study, our results provide meaningful insights regarding the use of polygraphy with juvenile sex offenders. This is particularly important given the paucity of research conducted on juvenile sex offender polygraphy and existing differences from their adult counterparts. Thus, our study helps fill a substantial hole in the polygraphy and juvenile sex offender literature and offers meaningful implications for polygraphy use in juvenile sex offender treatment regimens. In a time when so many agencies across the United States use polygraphy with juvenile sex offenders, our study offers some empirical support for this ethically ambiguous practice.

Certainly, our results do not explain the mechanisms underlying differences in polygraph outcomes between juvenile and adult offenders nor do they suggest that policymakers or legal authorities ought to treat or categorize juvenile and adult sex offenders identically. Indeed, a growing body of literature suggests that there are notable differences between these two groups (Driemeyer et al., 2011; Grisso et al., 2003; Seto & Lalumiere, 2010). What our results offer is one simple, general, yet important insight: juvenile and adult sex offenders appear to generate similar outcomes in sexual history polygraph examinations. Social workers and other clinicians who engage with juvenile sex offenders in treatment should consider this prospect.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Todd M. Jensen, MSW, is a doctoral student in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His primary research interests include stepfamily functioning and intervention, stepchild perspectives, divorce and repartnership, and social work practice.

Kevin Shafer, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at Brigham Young University. His research interests include social demography, research methods, statistics for the social sciences, social stratification and marriage, divorce, remarriage, and immigrant families in the United States.

C. Y. Roby, PhD, is a clinical psychologist with decades of experience in forensic treatment settings. He specializes in court-ordered sex offender treatment, and stands as a well-respected and valued expert in the sex offender treatment community, particularly within the Intermountain West Area.

Jini L. Roby, MSW, JD, is a professor in the School of Social Work at Brigham Young University. With a strong presence in international settings, her research interests include international child welfare with a focus on orphan care and supportive parenting policies.

References

Abrams

(1991). The use of polygraphy with sex offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 239-263. doi:10.1007/BF00850056

Abrams

Ogard

(1986). Polygraph surveillance of probationers. Polygraphy, 15, 174-182.

Ahlmeyer

Heil

McKee

English

(2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 123-139.

Ben-Shakhar

(2008). The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 191-207.

Blasingame

(1998). Suggested clinical uses of polygraphy in community-based sexual offender treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 37-45.

Brandes

Cheung

(2009). Supervision and treatment of juveniles with sexual behavior problems. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26, 179-196.

Chaffin

(2011). The case of juvenile polygraphy as a clinical ethics dilemma. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 314-328.

Consigli

(2002). Post-conviction sex offender testing and the American Polygraph Association. In Kleiner

(Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 237-249). London, England: Academic Press.

Driemeyer

Yoon

Briken

(2011). Sexuality, antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and victimization in juvenile sexual offenders: A literature review. Sexual Offender Treatment, 6, 1-10.

10.

Edson

C. F.

(1991). Sex offender treatment. Jackson County, OR: Department of Corrections.

11.

Emerick

R. L.

Dutton

W. A.

(1993). The effect of polygraphy on the self report of adolescent sex offenders: Implications for risk assessment. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 83-103. doi:10.1007/BF00849301

12.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2011: Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Gannon

T. A.

Wood

J. L.

Pina

Tyler

Barnoux

M. F.

Vasquez

E. A.

(2014). An evaluation of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders in the United Kingdom. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26(2), 178-203. doi:10.1177/1079063213486836

14.

Gannon

T. A.

Wood

J. L.

Pina

Vasquez

E. A.

Fraser

(2012). The evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot (Ministry of Justice Research Series). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217436/evaluation-of-mandatory-polygraph-pilot.pdf

15.

Grisso

Steinberg

Woolard

Cauffman

Scott

Graham

. . . Schwartz

(2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 333-363.

16.

Grubin

(2008). The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 177-189.

17.

Grubin

Madsen

(2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 16, 357-369.

18.

Grubin

Madsen

(2006). Accuracy and utility of post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 188, 479-483.

19.

Heck

Thomas

(2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Hindman

Peters

J. M.

(2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult and juvenile sex offenders. Federal Probation, 65(3), 8-15.

21.

Hox

(2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Kokish

Levenson

J. S.

Blasingame

G. D.

(2005). Post-conviction sex offender polygraph examination: Client-reported perceptions of utility and accuracy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 211-221. doi:10.1177/107906320501700210

23.

McGrath

R. J.

Cumming

G. F.

Burchard

B. L.

Zeoli

Ellerby

(2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The safer society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

24.

McGrath

R. J.

Cumming

G. F.

Hoke

S. E.

Bonn-Miller

M. O.

(2007). Outcomes in a community sex offender treatment program: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non-polygraphed offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 381-393.

25.

Prescott

(2012). What do young people learn from coercion? Polygraph examinations with youth who have sexually abused. ATSA Forum, Vol. XXIV, No. 2, Spring, 2012.

26.

Rosky

J. W.

(2012). The (f)utility of post-conviction polygraph testing. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 259-281.

27.

Scott

E. S.

Steinberg

(2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. Future of Children, 18, 15-33.

28.

Seto

Lalumiere

(2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 526-575.

29.

Snyder

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.