I'll be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Computer Voice Stress Analyzers (CVSA). I've been a polygraph examiner for over 20 years now (although I have not administered a polygraph in over 10 years). I did a brief search, finding that most of the data is old and the vast majority did not find the CVSA to be consistently valid or reliable. Many would argue that this isn't much different than what research on polygraphs would show. As an examiner, I always felt like the polygraph was an excellent tool. Would I ever support using it in court? No, I wouldn't. That's not because I felt they weren't valid or reliable though. The instrument itself worked. The issue that I generally saw was with the examiner. Good examiners got valid and reliable results. The vast majority of polygraph examiners aren't good at their craft. They expect the instrument to do all of the work and don't fully understand how the science works, so they don't put the appropriate work in to the process. The best case, and easiest way to demonstrate this point, is with pre-employment polygraph. I've heard a number of examiners say somebody has failed a pre-employment polygraph, whether they were talking to background investigators, administrators, or the prospective candidate. Fact of the matter (unless something has changed in the past 20+ years) is though that the pre-employment test is a relevant-irrelevant test that you can't score, so there is no way to actually fail it. This does a huge disservice as it pushes a false narrative and can work to discredit the polygraph in the minds of somebody who "passes" the test while also knowing they were lying about something they were asked about. Does that mean the problem is with the instrument? My answer is obviously not. There is no issue with the instrument, it's the people who incorrectly administer it. I would think the same may be true with the CVSA. The instrument probably does what it is supposed to do, but it's dangerous in the hands of somebody who isn't skilled to use it properly... just like any tool. Virginia generally does a very good job in making sure practitioners are properly trained and that they pass an extensive examination to verify their skills. Problem is that most states (at least when I practiced regularly) don't have the same standards. I'd argue that this is one of the major issues with validity and reliability of the CVSA... it's the people and the lack of regulations that make it seem like a poor instrument. Whether you all approve it or not, this is a significant step in the right direction to gauge whether this instrument should be approved for use in Virginia. Not sure I've said anything to sway you one way or another, but I hope DPOR continues to bring credibility to our profession through the oversight you all provide. 

Aloha,

I am writing in support of the State of Virginia recognizing that the CVSA examination is at the very least equivalent to a polygraph examination for truth verification.  I encourage you to consider the acceptance and use of the CVSA by 43 other States of which I represent Hawaii as evidence that changes are needed in Virginia.  It should be noted that I am a licensed Attorney, DOJ PREA Auditor, and Arbitrator/Mediator, who has worked for the Hawaii Department of Public Safety for thirty-four years; therefore, my opinion does matter.

I have been a NITV certified CVSA examiner with PSD since 2004, which is when PSD began the utilization of the CVSA for investigations, and we progressed to employing the CVSA for Human Resources (HR) suitability screenings of Correctional Officers and Law Enforcement Officers. 

PSD selected NITV’s CVSA based on the research that substantiated the CVSA’s comparability to a polygraph, but at a lower upfront cost to allow for more staff to be trained in the CVSA.  PSD currently has certified examiners who are Internal Affairs Investigators, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Correctional Facility Compliance Managers, the Department’s PREA Coordinator, and HR staff. 

 CVSA has proven to be a valuable tool in staff investigations, inmate investigations, and HR suitability assessments.  It is important to remember that providing your staff with viable tools to perform their duties efficiently and effectively is key to the morale of your agency.  The only significant difference between a polygraph and the CVSA is the fact that an agency can train a larger quantity of staff in various subject matter areas at a financially reasonable cost.  This is very important given the current economic realities for local, county, and state government entities.

I would like to thank you in advance for expanding the CVSA examination process in the State of Virginia.  Please feel free to contact me.

Greetings,

As a CVSA Analyst and a 32-year law enforcement veteran, I highly encourage the use of the CVSA technology/methodology in the State of Virginia.  The CVSA, like the polygraph, is a very effective tool...I personally use the CVSA in the State of Indiana, seeking truth in those instances where only the accused (both guilty and innocent) holds the key. There are may instances where a crime is investigated and suspect(s) are identified, yet little to no information is discovered of evidentiary value that would point toward the most likely suspect. The CVSA, like the polygraph, is an outstanding tool for investigators in seeking out the guilty while excusing those who may be innocent...it's all about when in the investigation to utilize the technology. Investigators should always conduct thorough and complete investigations and interview skills should NEVER be replaced by either the CVSA or the polygraph.

The CVSA is NOT a replacement for the polygraph...it is merely a tool, like a polygraph, that detects (with a qualified examiner) stress reactions from a person that is asked where they may be culpable...nothing more, nothing less. Once the stress reaction is detected, the CVSA analyst or the polygraph examiner seeks from the interviewee an explanation for the stressful reaction, which is in turn validated or found to be untruthful (one or the other) with a follow-up examination. 

The CVSA provides the most "bang for the buck", especially considering the required certification time and cost for polygraph certification. The CVSA course gets the analyst in the field with competence and capability in a fraction of the time and cost of the polygraph certification course. As a Master of Public Administration (MPA) graduate, I feel that is a reality that can't and shouldn't be overlooked.

Respectfully,

Ray Dawson, MPA/BSL

Scott County Indiana Sheriff's Office

CVSA Analyst

812-752-8400

I have been a CVSA examiner for over a decade now and have seen it's effectiveness. I once was approached by another detective that had a sexual assault case involving an exotic dancer as the victim.  This detective's bias pushed him to not believe her.  I offered to give the suspect a CVSA exam to assist in the case. After the suspect failed the exam, I confronted him with the results and he confessed to raping the victim.  The CVSA is a powerful tool that can help victims find justice, can weed out people that shouldn't be cops, and solve otherwise unsolvable crimes.  I strongly urge you to allow it's use in your state.  

The CVSA (NITV) is a reliable system. I have been a certified operator since 2016 and have experienced great success in both the pre-employment and criminal investigation application of the system. It is a useful tool utilized in conjunction with skilled investigators.

I have been a certified in the use of the CVSA for over 10 years. I recently retired but prior to that I was the primary on background investigations for truth verification. Prior to being certified for CVSA we sent our candidates to an outside firm for polygraph exams. Once certified I conducted the CVSA on many candidates over the years. We were able to weed out several due to issues found during the CVSA exam that never showed up in the background investigator's report. The CVSA is easy to use and causes less stress on the examinee. I know, I've had both polygraph and CVSA conducted on me.

Overall the process for certification is a lot less time consuming and using the CVSA requires less equipment, computer and microphone. It can be conducted anywhere and almost at a minute's notice. As with any interview/interrogation, a lot of the success depends on the examiner also. 

One of my last CVSA tests I conducted resulted in negative findings on a candidate that we had thought was a top prospect, a former police officer from another agency who was trying to get back into policing after leaving to start a business. He failed the test. Since he was such a "top" candidate, we conducted another test with a different CVSA examiner. He failed that test also. Command was concerned due to his previous law enforcement experience. He was sent to an outside polygraph examiner and failed that test also, which just showed that the CVSA is just as accurate, if not more, than the polygraph exam. 

In my experience, the CVSA is a good tool, accurate, and easier to use for both background testing and criminal investigations. I know agencies that use both for various reasons and settings. The CVSA is just so convenient and easy to use, less stress on the examinee which I feel makes the testing more accurate because the stress caused by non-truthful answers shows up so much more. 

I would like the thank the Polygraph Board for considering the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer. I also thank Board Members and DPOR Members that attended the vendor demonstration hosted by the Department of Corrections. I have read many articles on CVSA's, articles providing support and articles not supporting their use. Much of what I have read place use of the polygraph and CVSA use against each other. The State Code calls for the Board and DPOR to consider the science related to CVSA's and not how CVSA use in Virginia could affect polygraph use. I have read information on the basic science related to CVSA but do not present myself as qualified to speak on the science. The vendor that provided the demonstration indicates approximately 3,000 Law Enforcement Agencies use CVSA's. Our Unit contacted long time users from several agencies in other states. We spoke to users with the Florida Department of Corrections Inspector General's Office, the Wake County (NC) Sherriff's Office and the Raleigh County (WV) Sherriff's Office. Each user we spoke to was very supportive of CVSA while still describing them as an investigative tool that is only part of a full investigation. If CVSA's are approved for use in Virginia, the Department of Corrections Special Investigations Unit will be interested in training Unit Members to become certified CVSA Examiners.   Thank you,   Paul Haymes, Virginia Department of Corrections Special Investigations Unit  

The question I would have to you is why would you not want to allow agencies to us the CVSA in your state? I thought we lived in a free capitalist society. What is the worry from the polygraph community to not allow this system in. If the argument is the CVSA is not true science, then why are polygraphs not allowed in a court of law.

The polygraph and the CVSA are both investigative tools that help you to determine the truth of an incident or crime. Leaving only one option does not make since to me. The CVSA is a much easier system to use, can be training on in a week, and can be used on the side of the road or at a crime scene. It only makes since to allow police agencies all the options available. And when we are in an environment where we need to save tax payer dollars, this system is cheaper and easier to train on than the polygraph. Not all agencies have the resources of the state or federal government.

We have been utilizing the CVSA system in my department for 8 years now and we have saved the tax payers over $30,000 a year over paying a polygraph contractor.

The Cvsa is a critical tool for Law Enforcement and Corrections. Agencies should be allowed to use this technology if they choose to do. 

Hello, My name is Detective Sergeant James Smith with the Coffee County Sheriff’s Office located in Douglas, GA. I am reaching out to you to speak on the benefits of the CVSA. I am a certified CVSA examiner and have conducted numerous examinations for the purpose of criminal investigations. To this date my stats are 100% accuracy on the CVSA. I don’t know a lot about the polygraph except the margin for error seems to be greater than with the CVSA. During my examinations, I have been able to gain confessions to several different types of crimes including sexual assaults and thefts. I’ve also been able to prove several suspects to be innocent with the use of the CVSA.

If your state, or commonwealth, has the opportunity to utilize the CVSA then you should! When given a choice, our agency will always rely on the accuracy of the CVSA over the Polygraph. If you have any questions or would care to see some of my test results, please feel free to contact me via email or at my desk. That number is 912.384.4227 ext. 2311.

The usage of CVSA is similar to Polygraph.  Both of these applications are tools utilized to gain information based on facts. They are used in private industry and many law enforcement applications. The key is training and later obtaining a higher skill level which would be obtained through experience.. I feel essential elements are, having good investigative skills and interrogation abilities. Again they are only tools, the methods are not absolute. Another key element is proper training,regulation and standards. In closing I feel over the years, Polygraph in our state has been regulated to a high standard. CVSA should be regulated in the same manner. Also maintaining a open communication with the public and individuals utilizing the method.  Att: Marjorie King, Executive Director

As a retired LE officer/sergeant/investigator of 35 yrs and 23 years as a CVSA examiner, I have been exposed to this type of analysis. I have worked with both polygraphers and CVSA examiners. While both have merits, I can tell you my experience now is that I believe strongly that the advantages of the CVSA are distinct and clear. I worked a homicide detail for nine yrs. With the use of the CVSA, I obtained admissions and confessions, cleared people of wrongdoing, and verified statements from individuals. I have also used the CVSA to assist me in solving two cold case homicides, one 22yrs old and one 2 yrs old. In retirement, I am still conducting CVSA's on criminal cases and pre-employments.

While both systems are dependent on the skill and the method of questioning of the investigator, it remains that polygraphs still can have an inconclusive reading while comparatively, that is not the case with the CVSA. The CVSA always has a final analysis of deception indicated or no deception indicated. CVSA does not have inconclusive.

The CVSA can test people on medication, drugs and alcohol without complications. The CVSA readings have been accurate, and they can pinpoint the responses to a greater degree with both criminal and pre-employment investigations. I think everyone would agree that the polygraph and CVSA are as good as the examiner.

I believe that the CVSA is an ideal method even due to strongly thinking traditional polygraphers, and we still have a very strong case for being represented. There is no reason we need to separate the polygraph and CVSA. In fact, I would encourage the Department of Occupational Regulation to allow both polygraph and CVSA and then learn from the results and make a determination so see what is working.

I think the advantages of the CVSA instrument, if you compare them side by side, would be clear. This is not to demean or discredit the long tradition of polygraph. For training purposes, the training requirements for a polygraph are much more restrictive and expensive compared to the CVSA. It takes about three months of training for the polygraph vs five days (52) hours for the CVSA. In these days this is particularly implacable when staffing levels are so compromised and you can train more investigators for the same amount of money.

Polygraph associations have made it clear in the past that the polygraph is the established instrument and mechanism that is used by LE. Breaking tradition and changing is always difficult, but I think the CVSA has real standing in the LE communities and has proven itself over the course of 35 years. LE agencies throughout the US that have converted to the CVSA from the polygraph can provide direct feedback with positive results in both criminal and pre-employment investigations.

No doubt that both the polygraph and CVSA are proven credible methods of examining truthfulness or gaining investigative leads in a case, but I am still a strong proponent of the CVSA standing alongside of the polygraph. In my vast experience training CVSA examiners, the reception I have gotten from agencies that have transitioned to the CVSA has been overwhelmingly positive. There are even agencies that use both polygraph and CVSA in the same department. We are a culture of tradition in LE, but we still must improve with the times as we advance methods of examination. I am a strong proponent that this should be considered. This is not an effort to say that the polygraph is an obsolete tool, but I believe the CVSA stands equally or stronger in comparison.

Using the CVSA for our agency has been a great help. We use it for new applicants applying for Detention Officer and Deputy Sheriff. We also use for criminal cases.  Very accurate and much more easier to transport to different locations. 

CVSA is one of the best tools I have seen to help with Background and Investigation in Law Enforcement.

I have been a CVSA examiner since 2002 and have conducted hundreds of tests in investigations of crimes against persons and property. During that time I was constantly impressed of the accuracy of the instrument to produce results that confirmed physical evidence, forensic evidence and witness statements. In 2016 I formed my own business offering it to the public and the CVSA continues to impress me and my clients. I also am the only examiner to testify as an expert witness in an Arkansas Circuit Court for an examination that I performed. In 2018 I presented the CVSA to the Arkansas Insurance Department and we are one of many state agencies to use it. In short, the CVSA and the training associated with it will be a great benefit in investigations.

I have been a CVSA examiner for a few years now and by no means, am here to sell you the machine.  What I will convey is the truth from my position.  I have taken many truth verifications over the years, to include CVSA's and polygraphs, and can say, without a doubt, neither are always going to be 100%.  After gaining my certification as an examiner, I began understand why neither test are admissible in court; simply put, the machines are only as good as the examiners.  If you have a poor examiner, you will have a poor result from the machine.  If you have a good examiner, favorable results can be expected from the machines; this is not specific to one machine or the other; they both are in line on that metric.  Having said that, the CVSA has been an invaluable tool for gaining admissions, information, and truthful statements.  The CVSA a tool, nothing more.  The polygraph is a tool, nothing more.  Those who argue over the accuracy of one vs another are simply arguing their confirmation bias (i.e. a polygraph examiner will tout the poly and a cvsa examiner will tout the cvsa).  If you wish to take an objective approach here, then you must see past the subjective opinions being offered and ask yourself this one question:  if both are just tools on an equal playing field, why are we limiting ourselves to just one?

Please accept this comment as support for the allowance of the use of the CVSA by Law Enforcement in Virgina.  I have been an Advanced Certified Examiner, since 2009.  I fully support the use of the CVSA as a tool to help in gaining admissions, information, and verifying truthful statements.  The CVSA has been an invaluable in the investigations of my department, but the departments that I have administered the CVSA for.   Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.