Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4 @ a short break before beginning the next trial. Because the response sheets include carbonless carbon paper, the participants have copies of their original responses and can compare their individual responses with the target material during the feedback phase of each trial. §. Analysis Quantitative scoring presents several problems when testing groups of subjects. Because all subjects have seen the same four targets, a single judge cannot produce an independent rank ordering for each person. Therefore, since the goal was to find persons with high-quality natural talent for additional testing, a more qualitative assessment was done by the analyst to find any individuals who had produced striking matches to discrete target elements. Qualitative assessments of the responses from the first stage of screening formed the basis for deciding which persons might be invited for second-stage screening. The qualitative judging was based on the seven-point rating scale shown in Table 2.* An analyst was instructed to start at the top of the scale and find the highest rating that describes the match between each response and its intended target, post hoc. Table 2 Qualitative Rating Scale Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail (e.g., nam- ing the site by name), and with essentially no incorrect information. Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g., naming the function), and relatively little incorrect information. Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements, but some incorrect information. Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with incorrect information. Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site. Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond chance expectation. Little correspondence. No correspondence. * In other work, this seven-point scale was found to correlate with “blind” analysis (r=0.56, df=34, pS 5 &X 10-5). Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001 -4 Cc. Second-Stage Screening Protocol 1. Viewers The goal of second-stage screening is to select exceptional individuals who could participate in research. Individuals who showed qualitative evidence of remote viewing ability in the group screening described above, either by producing an average qualitative rating above three or producing a qualitative rating of six or seven on at least one trial are invited to participate in a second round of individualized screening in the laboratory. 2. Targets Targets for second-stage screening were the same as for the initial group screening. 3. Session Protocol For the second-stage screening, no sender was used. Before a session begins, a remote viewing monitor (i.e., an individual who interviews the viewer) selects the top opaque envelope, containing a target number as described above, from a randomly ordered stack of envelopes. The monitor places that sealed envelope adjacent to the video disk unit which is locked in a separate and isolated room during the remote viewing session. The sequence of events for each trial was as follows: ® The monitor and viewer enter a remote viewing laboratory which is isolated from the target room. They sit opposite each other across a table in a well-lit, office—-type environment. (This is SRI’s standard remote viewing protocol.) e After a brief relaxation period, the viewer is instructed to describe the target with written words and drawings. ® The remote viewing session is five to fifteen minutes. During this time, the monitor is free to seek clarification from the viewer about words, drawings, and other information that arise during the session. (NOTE: The monitor is blind to the target selection.) @ The data (response papers) is collected, secured, and copied. @ The viewer and monitor leave the remote viewing laboratory and enter the target room. The target is displayed on a video monitor for the viewer as feedback. (NOTE: The viewer only has a copy of his/her response. Thus, there is no opportunity to add anything to the response.) 4. Analysis Quantitative analysis presents no problem if each viewer is tested individually. Each response was ranked against the intended target and its three associated decoys by an independent 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001 -4 analyst (who was otherwise uninvolved with the experiment). In this procedure, the target and its three decoys from the designated category were presented in random order. The analyst rank-ordered the targets in order of decreasing similarity to the response (i.e., a rank of 1 means that the target best matches the response, and a rank of 4 means the worst match). The output from each trial was the rank number the analyst assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks over the total number of trials was used to calculate p-value and effect size (r) for the second-stage viewer. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001 -4