Approved For Release 20GUM®LASSt
:P^E-D)789R002200380001 -6
Page 9, paragraph
1 - Re. “...16 showed qualitative evidence...”
At what Table
2 level?
1%,
Page
9,
last paragraph,
last
full line - Define
“...first place matches...”
Page
11, paragraph 2 - Define “complete misses”
Page
11 - Use systematic “group”
of people,
easily accessible - such
as the
“prisons,”
or
the
“military,”
or
“schools”
and
“colleges.”
Has
any
“age”
discrimination taken place?
What about “children”?
If RV is independent of
human prior experience,
then
children should show
this
ability
equally -
or
better
if
experience clutters RV, and vice-versa.
Recommendation:
Yes
November 7,
1988
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
The research
design,
stat protocols,
analyses
of data, and conclusions
are
all
appropriate.
The relatively loose first level screening seems adequate since
it is,
in
fact,
a screening device.
Then second level screening
is accomplished with
proven
protocols.
Much
more
screening
needs
to
be
done
in
order
to
accomplish the goals of this work.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Chris Zarafonetis
Comments:
The study overview,
objectives, approach,
etc., were appropriate
for this mass
screening - which required a needle in the haystack effort.
5 groups, ranging 6
to 139 in size were tested.
16 gave qualitative evidence of ability to report target
related material, and 9 of 16 participated in Stage
II screening.
2 tested to p =
0.05, and other 2 with strong tendency for scoring in right direction.
It will be of interest as more persons are found with this “talent’ to note the age
and gender of the subjects.
^
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME;
Phil Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
See text comments pages
1,
2,
3,
4,
6,
7,
8,
9,
11.
Major method problems.
Page
comment:
The
sentence
read,
“Some
of
these
persons
have had
spontaneous
experiences
that
lead them
to
be more
or
less
aware
of
an
extrasensory potential while others do not.”
Dr. Zimbardo’s comment
is, “With
A-
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2(|g(|K(|^tgA(35|ff(|)00789R002200380001-6
the ability are unaware of it?
or
Others have not had spontaneous experiences?
Unclear as written.”
Page 2 comment:
The sentence read, “No attempt was made to maintain target
orthogonality
across
categories,
but
considerable
effort
was
expended
to
maintain within-category
orthogonality.”
Dr.
Zimbardo’s comment
is,
“add
sentence to clarify use of orgongonality in this case.”
Page
3 comment:
The sentences read, “Dynamic targets have been shown in
some studies to have a higher hit rate than static targets.
Our aim was to have
some
relatively
difficult
targets
to
help
in
our
qualitative
assessment.”
Dr.
Zimbardo’s comments
are, “But
is the
effect robust enough to add
this
as
a
variable?
[Add] reference
[relative to some studies]. Are static areas thus more
difficult?”
Page 4 comment:
Regarding the words “...viewer #009 produced responses...”
Dr. Zimbardo comments
“clarify this ambiguous phrase.”
Page
6 comments:
Regarding “As the sender repeatedly viewed the target...”
Dr. Zimbardo suggests changing the word repeatedly to continually or another
appropriate word.
Regarding the
sentence
“This was
particularly useful
for
finding viewers who occasionally produced an extremely accurate response, but
operated
close
to
chance on
the
remainder
of
the
trials.”
Dr.
Zimbardo
comments, “Important point - to elaborate more.”
Page 7 comments:
Regarding Table
2,
Qualitative Rating Scale, “good scale.”
Regarding “Two independent judges made the
qualitative assessments
of the
responses...”
Dr. Zimbardo comments:
"Need inter-judge reliability measure.”
Page 8 comments:
Under Section 2., Targets “...each against randomly selected
targets...”
Dr.
Zimbardo
comments,
“Not
clearly
worded
assessed
in
comparison
to
viewings
of
randomly.”
Under
Section
3.,
Protocol,
Dr.
Zimbardo comments, “Need to remove the monitor from direct contact with
subject - RV, a possible source of contamination.
Monitor can observe subject
via TV.”
Page
comments:
Hyphenate
rank-order.
Under
B.I.,
paragraph
2,
last
sentence, change and to but.
Page 11 comment:
“But all this effort has produced only 2 reasonable RV’s?
Is
that considered good?
Need to state that - seems costly 2/195?”
2.
Must have multiple judges evaluating target hit/misses - and present data
for
inter-judge reliability.
3.
Must remove
“involved”
monitor from
contact
with
subject.
Replace
with
“supportive” uninformed R. A.
4.
Page 12 - Effect size of “Aspirin Study”
is 0.29 not 0.25 as indicated.
5.
Page
12 - Will there be
a follow-up of the implications of the
final sentence
regarding ways to enhance the efficiency of subject selection?
There should be.
6.
Good strategy.
Is yield of only 2 good RV’s considered “good”?
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
A-
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6