Professional Sexual Misconduct:

Abstract

This study examines the use of Psychophysiologic Detection of Deception (Polygraphy) as part of an independent, comprehensive, fitness-for-practice evaluation. It compares the findings for 18 non-randomized polygraph subjects selected from 60 medical professionals referred for assessment between 2007 and 2014 for violating sexual boundaries. Information derived from polygraph examination of fitness-for-practice evaluation subjects was independently rated for seven variables and retrospectively compared with that from subjects who were not polygraphed. Consensus values were used as final ratings associated with each case. In 56% of the 18 polygraphed cases, important new information was uncovered about sexual boundary problems that had not been elicited beforehand by repeated interviews and other standard clinical methods. This rose to 73% among those cases determined to be unfit for practice. Various recommendations were made in each case to improve patient safety and to enhance professionalism through specific education, treatment, support, supervision, monitoring and practice restrictions. Results suggest that the polygraph appears to be a useful component of an independent, comprehensive evaluation for sexual misconduct, as it may provide additional information to better understand what happened and more accurately determine a strategy for possible rehabilitation of the physician.

The influence of polygraphs on evaluators' decisions regarding sexually violent persons.

“…Given the limited accuracy of polygraph exams, the impact of simply examining passed versus failed exams on evaluator opinions may be quite complex. The importance of considering polygraph interview content, rather than just polygraph outcomes, is also supported by other research (see Finlayson et al, 2015). Thus, future researchers should examine the impact of the disclosures made prior to or during examinations and consider more diverse types of polygraphs (e.g., sexual history and penile plethysmograph polygraphs) on evaluators' decisions.…”

Talking points related to misogyny, sexual misconduct and harassment in academia

“…This is because there may be a gender effect or bias in harassment claims (Wiener et al, 1997). In extreme cases, false claims can be assessed using polygraph tests (Reid Finlayson et al, 2015). Lessons can be learned from school-related sexual misconduct cases (Sikes and Piper, 2011), but in all cases, sexual harassment claims must be based on solid social analytic jurisprudence (Wiener, 1995).…”