I believe that the days of the polygraph as a screening tool for applicants are numbered. The internet and the readability and the accessibility of information pertaining to the exam specifically how it works and how it is administered has severely crippled the validity of the test. The mere fact that a subject can now easily determine the difference between control, irrelevant and relevant questions skews and compromises the test. 

Subjects who know the difference between the different types of questions can lead to a large number of false positives, reacting to relevant questions simply based on the fact that they know they are indeed relevant and not reacting to control questions because they understand they are ultimately not being judged by them. This is a serious problem.

I have to believe that this is leading to a large number of failed test or inconclusive results and that it is costing agencies more and more money. Ultimately someone will realize that we are not in the 60’s anymore, that the test and how it works is no longer a secret. In fact today I am sure that more and more people who are taking the exam or have taken it are more informed and aware of the test’s structure and how it works than those who are not.

I do believe that the polygraph can be a viable test but it depends on it’s secrecy and that the subject not know how it works for it’s validity. In today’s world where information about it is can be gathered within seconds it’s results, be they good or bad,  can simply not be trusted or used with any confidence. 

They are many studies, discussions, lawsuits, senate testimony’s ect, which encompass whether the test is simply valid or not but maybe the better question is whether the test is valid and reliable against those who are informed about it. I’m sure the answer is absolutely not and unfortunately the number of people being administered the test who are informed about it is steadily growing.   

Note that polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method to begin with, even were we to assume that an examinee is ignorant of the procedure. It is not the case that the public availability of information on polygraph procedure (and countermeasures) is compromising an otherwise valid test. But such availability certainly does make the assumptions underlying CQT polygraphy even less tenable. 

The polygraph community is clearly concerned about this. Numerous examinees have reported being quizzed by their polygraphers about whether they have researched polygraphy on the Internet. And an instructor at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute has even gone so far as to suggest that making information about polygraph countermeasures available to the public should be criminalized.

The number of informed persons being polygraphed is undoubtedly growing. Yet the polygraph community seems to be unwilling to publicly state how polygraphers should handle examinees who are honest enough to admit that they are familiar with polygraph procedure. Rather than acknowledging that such an admission invalidates the key assumptions behind the "test" and exempting such individuals from being "tested," it appears that the standard practice is to go ahead and polygraph the individual anyway. Some who have admitted to their knowledge of polygraph procedure during the "pre-test" phase report having been rewarded with a false accusation of countermeasure use during the "post-test" phase.

By now, a large and growing number of persons subject to pre-employment, periodic, and aperiodic polygraph screening must certainly know about "the lie behind the lie detector," and the polygraph charade must ultimately come to an end. But given the well esconced vested interested supporting continued polygraph screening, I fear it may take some well-publicized catastrophic failure of the polygraph to bring policymakers to their senses.