How CIA Polygraphers Are Evaluated

[George W. Maschke]

In his 17 October 2001 remarks before the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review panel, retired FBI polygraph expert Dr. Drew Richardson spoke about the inappropriateness of evaluating polygraph examiners based on the amount of admissions/confessions obtained, noting that it creates an incentive for polygraphers to exaggerate or even fabricate admissions. He noted that the FBI at one time evaluated its polygraphers on the basis of admissions obtained (and may still do so today).

Retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan confirms that the CIA evaluates its own polygraphers on the basis of admissions obtained at p. 174 of his new book, Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers Vietnam (University of Kansas Press, 2002). Comparing the functions of CIA case officers and polygraphers, Sullivan writes:

Case officers' job is to recruit agents who can provide significant information. Their performance is evaluated based on the number of agents they recruit, as well as the quality of the information the agents provide. Polygraph examiners, in contrast, are responsible for trying to authenticate or validate case officers' agents. Our performance is evaluated on the number of admissions we obtain and the amount of information developed from those we test. (emphasis added)

Evaluating polygraphers on the basis of admissions obtained would certainly give them an incentive to play up the significance of any admissions, especially, perhaps, in the context of pre-employment screening, where the applicant has no right under the Privacy Act to obtain the polygrapher's report and to learn what admissions the polygrapher has attributed to him.