ApplicaApplication of Computer Polygraph in Forensic Psychological Expert Research During Pre-Trial Investigation of Criminal Offensestion of computer polygraph in forensic psychological expert research during pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses

Oleksandr Yevsiukov (Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Leading Scientific Employee, Forensic Psychological Expert, National Scientific Center "Hon. Prof. M. S. Bokarius Forensic Science Institute" of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukra)
Yuliia Sukhomlyn (Ph.D. in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Procedure of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv, Ukraine)
Serhii Mytych (Ph.D. in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Procedure of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv, Ukraine)
Borys Lukianchykov (Ph.D. in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Information, Economic and Administrative Law, National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute"б Kyiv, Ukraine)
Olena Riashko (Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Procedure and Criminalistics, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine)

Jurnal Cita Hukum
Vol. 14 No. 2 (2026): Summer Edition

The article examines the methodological and procedural conditions under which the use of a computer polygraph within the framework of forensic psychological expert research at the stage of pre-trial investigation can be considered scientifically justified and procedurally acceptable. The study was implemented in the format of a sequential mixed design: in stage A, a quantitative content analysis of 60 depersonalized conclusions/reports of polygraph examinations in criminal proceedings was carried out, and in stage B, a two-wave structured survey of the expert community (N = 110; polygraph examiners, forensic psychologists/experts, investigators/prosecutors, lawyers) was conducted to form a consensus on a minimum standard. The quality of documentation was operationalized through the methodological transparency index (MPI) and the procedural compliance index (PCI). The reports were found to be moderately transparent (MPI M = 44.2) and marginally compliant (PCI M = 38.4), with moderate correlation between the indices (r = .54; p < .001), indicating incomplete agreement between the methodological and procedural components. Systemic deficiencies in documentation were identified, including the lack of alternative explanations for responses, countermeasures, and evidence of test invalidity; CIT/GKT documents showed higher MPI and PCI than CQT. Phase B results showed an acceptable level of agreement (Kendall’s W = .74) and a consensus minimum standard of 11 criteria was developed. A comparison of the stages revealed a significant gap between practice and the normatively expected standard, which outlines priorities for unifying documentation and increasing the evidentiary reliability of results.