Centre for Forensic Neuroscience
Home About Us Polygraph Examinations Cyber Psychology Investigative Psychology Statement Analysis Blog Contact Us

Interview Route Maps

Visual clarification of polygraph question scope

Interview Route Maps are structured visual aids used during the pre-test interview to clarify exactly what a proposed polygraph question includes—and what it does not include. They help the examiner and examinee establish a shared understanding before physiological data collection begins.

Discuss an Examination How Polygraph Questions Are Formulated

What Is an Interview Route Map?

An Interview Route Map is a box-and-line or node-and-branch visual framework used during the pre-test interview. A central investigative topic is placed in the middle. Surrounding nodes identify:

  • Behaviours that may be included in the examination scope
  • Behaviours that may need separate consideration
  • Exclusions agreed between the examiner and examinee
  • Definitions of ambiguous or contested terms
  • Relevant dates and time periods
  • Matters already disclosed to the instructing party
  • Distinctions between personal involvement and knowledge of another’s conduct
  • Distinctions between authorised, accidental, consensual and deliberate conduct

The examiner reviews each component with the examinee before deciding whether the topic can be reduced to one or more concise and defensible relevant questions. This process takes place during the question-review phase of the pre-test interview, before physiological data collection begins.

Why Behavioural Definitions Matter

Apparently simple expressions may be understood differently by different people. Consider the following terms, each of which may carry multiple meanings:

Being unfaithful Sexual contact Romantic contact Inappropriate communication Secret account Meeting another person Physical intimacy Emotional relationship Deleting messages Concealing contact

These are broad concepts rather than automatically suitable polygraph questions. Relevant questions should concern clearly defined actions during a specified period. They should not rely upon:

  • General character assessments
  • Subjective moral language
  • Vague relationship expectations
  • Undefined accusations
  • Questions about feelings alone
  • Questions asking whether someone has been “completely honest”
  • Questions asking whether someone has “ever cheated” without defining the relevant conduct and period
Principal Worked Example

Relationship-Fidelity Interview Route Map

The following route map illustrates how a broad relationship-fidelity investigative issue may be separated into defined behavioural categories before individual relevant questions are formulated.

View accessible text version of this route map

Central investigative topic:

Undisclosed intimate or romantic conduct with another person during the agreed period.

Branch 1 — Physical Sexual Conduct:

Sexual intercourse; oral sexual contact; genital contact; intimate touching; sexualised physical contact; conduct initiated by the examinee; consensual conduct; relevant exclusions.

Branch 2 — Romantic Physical Contact:

Romantic kissing; intimate embracing; meeting for a romantic purpose; physical affection outside agreed boundaries; accidental or socially customary conduct; conduct already disclosed.

Branch 3 — Digital Sexual Conduct:

Sending sexual messages; requesting sexual images; sending intimate images; live sexual video communication; use of sexual messaging platforms; deleted sexual conversations; accounts used for sexual contact; automated or commercial content. Note: passive viewing of public material is not automatically equivalent to interpersonal sexual communication.

Branch 4 — Secret Romantic Communication:

Romantic declarations; arranging private meetings; sustained concealed communication; presenting oneself as single; using an undisclosed account; using an alternative telephone number; concealing the identity of the other person; deleting communications to conceal the relationship.

Branch 5 — In-Person Meetings:

Meeting arranged for a sexual purpose; meeting arranged for a romantic purpose; attending the meeting; attempted meetings that did not occur; incidental or professional contact; group meetings; matters already known to the instructing party.

Branch 6 — Scope Controls:

Agreed start date; agreed end date; named person or any person; physical conduct; digital conduct; conduct already disclosed; disputed definitions; accidental conduct; coercive or non-consensual conduct; whether attempted conduct is included; whether knowledge alone is excluded.

A Route Map Defines the Issue—It Does Not Become the Question

The broad central topic illustrated above may be too wide to test as one relevant question. The route-map discussion may show that separate questions are required for different behavioural dimensions.

For example, the final polygraph examination might distinguish between:

  1. Undisclosed physical sexual contact
  2. Undisclosed in-person romantic meetings
  3. Undisclosed interpersonal sexual communication

These are illustrative categories only. The actual questions must be based on the case facts, relevant period, disclosed information and intended use of the examination. The examiner does not automatically propose all three questions in every case. The question-formulation process determines the final examination structure.

Illustrative Route-Map Discussion

Initial Allegation
“Have you been unfaithful?”
Problems Identified
  • “Unfaithful” has not been behaviourally defined
  • No relevant period has been specified
  • Physical and digital conduct may be interpreted differently
  • Already disclosed conduct has not been addressed
  • Romantic contact and sexual contact may require separate consideration
  • The question may depend upon one partner’s subjective relationship rules
Route-Map Clarification

The examiner establishes:

  • The agreed beginning and end of the relevant period
  • The precise physical behaviours under consideration
  • Whether digital interpersonal sexual conduct is included
  • Whether meetings arranged but not attended are relevant
  • Which matters have already been disclosed
  • Whether the investigation concerns one identified person or any other person
  • Which behaviours must be addressed separately
Possible Result

One or more concise, behaviourally defined relevant questions may then be formulated and reviewed with the examinee.

This illustration is not a universal model fidelity question. The final wording depends on the specific case circumstances, relevant period, disclosed matters and intended use of the examination.

Safeguarding and Suitability

A relationship-fidelity route map is a question-clarification tool, not a mechanism for resolving relationship conflict. An examination should not proceed where participation is coerced, the intended use is punitive, or an adverse result could create a foreseeable risk of intimidation, retaliation or harm.

  • Every examination must be voluntary
  • The examinee must be free to decline or discontinue the process
  • An examination should not proceed where consent appears coerced
  • The examiner must consider the intended use of the result
  • The examination may be declined where there is a foreseeable risk of retaliation, intimidation, violence or serious emotional harm
  • Interview Route Maps do not make an unsuitable examination suitable
  • A route map cannot resolve broad relationship conflict or provide reassurance about a person’s entire character
Review the Suitability Questionnaire

Other Illustrative Applications

Interview Route Maps are not limited to relationship-fidelity examinations. The following examples illustrate how the method may be applied to other investigative issues.

Illustrative Topic Personally taking workplace property without authority
  • Cash
  • Stock
  • Equipment
  • Client property
  • Unauthorised refunds
  • Diversion of payments
  • Assisting another person
  • Disclosed matters
Illustrative Topic Personally accessing confidential information without a legitimate business purpose
  • Customer records
  • Employee records
  • Financial information
  • Medical information
  • Password sharing
  • Database searches
  • Copying or downloading
  • Disclosure to another person
Illustrative Topic Personally using physical force against the identified person
  • Striking
  • Pushing
  • Restraining
  • Choking
  • Use of an object
  • Directing another person
  • Accidental contact
  • Agreed exclusions

These diagrams are illustrative only. Actual Interview Route Maps are developed around the specific investigative issue and do not determine the final examination questions.

What Interview Route Maps Do

Interview Route Maps may help the examiner and examinee to:

  • Identify ambiguous terminology
  • Organise complex information
  • Clarify inclusions and exclusions
  • Distinguish action from knowledge
  • Separate broad topics into testable behavioural issues
  • Define the relevant period
  • Confirm which matters have already been disclosed
  • Support communication with an interpreter
  • Provide a visual aid for examinees who benefit from structured information
  • Document the reasoning leading to the final question wording

What Interview Route Maps Do Not Do

Interview Route Maps do not determine whether a person is truthful or deceptive. They are communication and question-clarification tools used during the pre-test interview. Physiological data collection begins only after the questions and their meanings have been reviewed and agreed.

A route map does not:

  • Establish ground truth
  • Prove or disprove infidelity
  • Replace a properly conducted pre-test interview
  • Replace informed and voluntary consent
  • Make an unsuitable examination suitable
  • Compensate for vague or compound relevant questions
  • Permit numerous unrelated allegations to be combined
  • Provide an assessment of a person’s overall honesty or character
  • Guarantee a conclusive examination result

How Route Maps Integrate with the Examination Process

1 The client’s investigative concern is reviewed.
2 Suitability, consent and safeguarding issues are considered.
3 The broad topic is separated into observable behaviours.
4 Ambiguous terms are identified.
5 A route map is developed where it would assist clarification.
6 Included and excluded conduct is discussed.
7 The relevant period and disclosed matters are confirmed.
8 One or more concise relevant questions are formulated.
9 The examinee reviews and confirms their understanding.
10 Physiological data collection begins only after question review is complete.

The route-map discussion may be detailed, but the final relevant questions should remain concise, behaviourally defined and capable of being answered clearly.

When Route Maps May Be Useful

A tightly defined specific-incident examination may not require a full Interview Route Map where the alleged act, relevant period and behavioural meaning are already clear.

Evidence and Professional Limitations

Published case-study work has examined whether Interview Route Maps and related procedural changes may support question comprehension and facilitate disclosure during screening interviews. However, several qualifications apply:

  • Route maps may be introduced alongside other interviewing or question-development changes
  • The independent effect of the map may therefore be unclear
  • Increased disclosure is not equivalent to increased diagnostic accuracy
  • Route maps do not establish ground truth
  • Route maps should be understood primarily as procedural and communication tools
  • Further controlled research would be needed to isolate their independent effect

Preliminary evidence supports the use of Interview Route Maps as question-clarification and interview aids. It does not establish them as independent measures of deception or as a guaranteed method of improving decision accuracy.

Reference: Witte, B., Backster, G., & Senter, S. (2016). Impact of Interview Route Maps: Single Examiner Case Study. Polygraph, 45(2).
[Citation placeholder — verify volume, issue, page range and full author list before publication]

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Interview Route Maps used in every examination?

No. They are used where the topic contains terms, behaviours or boundaries that would benefit from visual clarification. A tightly defined specific-incident examination may not require a full Interview Route Map where the alleged act, relevant period and behavioural meaning are already clear.

Does the examinee see the route map?

Normally, yes. Its purpose is to support transparent discussion and establish a shared understanding of the proposed question scope.

Is the map displayed during physiological data collection?

No. It is used during the pre-test question-review process. Physiological data collection begins only after the questions and their meanings have been reviewed and agreed.

Can a fidelity route map prove someone has been faithful?

No. It helps define the conduct being examined. It does not establish ground truth or assess a person’s entire relationship history.

Can “being unfaithful” be tested as one question?

Usually not without further definition. Physical conduct, digital communication, meetings and previously disclosed matters may require separate clarification.

Can messages and social-media activity be included?

Potentially, but the precise interpersonal conduct must be defined. Passive viewing, general social-media use and direct sexual communication should not be treated as interchangeable.

Can several allegations be combined into one question?

Unrelated allegations should not be bundled into a compound question. The route map may demonstrate that separate questions or a narrower examination scope are required.

Can a route map be used with an interpreter?

Yes, where appropriate. It may help support consistent translation and understanding, but it does not replace a competent interpreter.

Does using a route map improve accuracy?

It may improve procedural clarity and question comprehension. It should not be presented as independently proven to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Are route maps included in the final report?

Only where appropriate and consistent with the examination instructions, reporting purpose and confidentiality requirements.

Can a client create the route map?

Clients may provide relevant factual information and explain their concerns. The examiner remains responsible for defining the investigative issue and formulating defensible relevant questions.

Will every relationship enquiry be accepted?

No. Voluntariness, safeguarding, coercion, intended use, examination scope and suitability must be reviewed before an appointment is accepted. See the suitability questionnaire for further information.

Is the Investigative Issue Sufficiently Clear for a Polygraph Examination?

Suitable examination questions are developed only after the circumstances, relevant period, disclosed information, intended use and safeguarding considerations have been reviewed.

Submit an Examination Enquiry Complete the Suitability Questionnaire