We provide a brief response to a commentary submitted by Rosky in which he questions the rationale and methodological merits of our original study about full-disclosure polygraph outcome differences between juvenile and adult sex offenders. At the heart of Rosky's substantive concerns is the premise that only research tying polygraphy outcomes to actual recidivism is useful or worthwhile. He also questions the overall utility and validity of polygraphy. We acknowledge and challenge these two points. Furthermore, many of the methodological concerns expressed by Rosky represent either a misunderstanding of our research question, study design, and sample, or a disregard for the explicit declarations we made with respect to our study limitations. Overall, it appears Rosky has accused us of not answering well a question we were not trying to ask. Our response addresses the key substantive and methodological concerns extended by Rosky and clarifies the actual aims and scope of our original study. We also argue that a calm, rational, and scientific discussion is the best approach to understanding how to improve clinical methods used in sex offender treatment.
