Post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders

References

• Abrams, S., & Ogard, E. (1986). Polygraph surveillance of probationers. Polygraph, 15, 174–182.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B., & English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sex Abuse, 12, 123–139. doi:10.1177/107906320001200204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alder, K. (2007). The lie detectors: The history of an American obsession. London: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Polygraph Association. (2011). Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Retrieved from https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf
   Google Scholar
• American Polygraph Association. (2018). Model policy for post-conviction sex offender testing. Retrieved from www.polygraph.org/assets/docs/Misc.Docs/PCSOT_Model_Policy_March_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barry, R. J. (1990). The orienting response: Stimulus factors and response measures. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 25, 93–103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ben-Shakhar, G. (2008). The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 191–207. doi:10.1348/135532508X298577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanchard, R., Klassen, P., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., & Blak, T. (2001). Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 13, 118–126. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.13.1.118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Psychological Society. (2004). A review of the current scientific status and fields of application of Polygraphic Deception Detection: Final report (6 October 2004) from the BPS Working Party. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb0a/e565616336820142d36da8bb9da1cf70ca4a.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Buschman, J., Bogaerts, S., Foulger, S., Wilcox, D., Sosnowski, D., & Cushman, B. (2010). Sexual history disclosure polygraph examinations with cybercrime offences: A first Dutch Explorative Study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 395–411. doi:10.1177/0306624X09334942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantor, J. M., & McPhail, I. V. (2015). Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for hebephilia. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 1940–1950. doi:10.1111/jsm.12970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaffin, M. (2011). The case of Juvenile polygraphy as a clinical ethics dilemma. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 314–328. doi:10.1177/1079063210382046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, R., Barkley, W., & Anderson, P. B. (2014). The sexual history polygraph examination and its influences on recidivism. Journal of Social Change, 6, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, T. P., & Saxe, L. (2001). Polygraph testing and sexual abuse: The lure of the magic lasso. Child Maltreatment, 6, 195–206. doi:10.1177/1077559501006003001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DeLisi, M., Caropreso, D. E., Drury, A. J., Elbert, M. J., Evans, J. L., Heinrichs, T., & Tahja, K. M. (2016). The dark figure of sexual offending: New evidence from federal sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 6, 3–15. doi:10.1108/JCP-12-2015-0030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713–1722. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice, 46, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• English, K. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law Special Issue: Sex Offenders; Scientific, Legal, and Policy Perspectives, 4, 218–235. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• English, K., Jones, L., Patrick, D., Pasini-Hill, D., & Gonzalez, S. (2000). We need you to become experts in the post-conviction polygraph. Polygraph, 29, 44–62.
   Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313–324. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2404_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gannon, T. A., Wood, J. L., Pina, A., Tyler, N., Barnoux, M. F. L., & Vasquez, E. A. (2014). An evaluation of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders in the United Kingdom. Sexual Abuse, 26, 178–203. doi:10.1177/1079063213486836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubin, D. (2008). The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 177–189. doi:10.1348/135532508X295165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubin, D. (2010). A trial of voluntary polygraphy testing in 10 English probation areas. Sex Abuse, 22, 266–278. doi:10.1177/1079063210369012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubin, D., & Madsen, L. (2006). The utility and accuracy of post-conviction polygraph testing with sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 188, 479–483. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.008953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubin, D., Joyce, A., & Holden, E.J. (2014). Polygraph testing of 'low risk' offenders arrested for downloading indecent images of children. Sexual Offender Treatment, 9, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Holden, E. J. (2000). Pre- and post-conviction polygraph: building blocks for the future – procedures, principles, and practices. Polygraph, 29, 69–97.
   Google Scholar
• Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–187. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.70.1.177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handler, M. D., Honts, C. R., & Nelson, R. (2013). Information gain of the directed lie screening test. Polygraph, 42, 192–202.
   Google Scholar
• Kokish, R. (2003). The current role of post-conviction sex offenders polygraph testing in sex offender treatment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 175–194. doi:10.1300/J070v12n03_07
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKune v. Lile. (2002). (00-1187) 536 U.S. 24 (2002) 224 F.3d 1175.
   Google Scholar
• 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. Sex Abuse, 19, 381–393. doi:10.1007/s11194-007-9058-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon Vt: The Safer Society Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, R., & Stephenson, T. (2018). Inductive interview system: The art and science of forensic interviewing. Charleston, SC: Forensic Interviewing and Consulting Services, LLC.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. (2003). Committee to review the scientific evidence on the polygraph. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palmatier, J. L., & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary process theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95, 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prescott, D. S. (2012). What do young people learn from coercion? Polygraph examinations with youth who have sexually abused. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Magazine, 24, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Rosky, J. W. (2013). The (F)utility of post-conviction polygraph testing. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 259–281. doi:10.1177/1079063212455668
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK government. (2009). The Polygraph Rules 2009. Retrieved from www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/619/contents/made
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar