The Abrams and Siegel ( 1978) evaluation of the Transcendental Meditation program at Folsom prison has been criticized harshly by Allen (1979). Abrams and Siegel's answer to Allen failed to address some of the issues. In a secondary analysis of their data, it is shown that the experimental group indeed fared better than the control groups, although the treatment explains only a small proportion of the variance. The unsolved issues concern mostly (1) the adequacy of the control group and (2) the adequacy of the underlying theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, A.I. & Siegel, L.M.The Transcendental Meditation program and rehabilitation at Folsom prison . Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1978 , 5, 3-20.
2.
Abrams, A.I. & Siegel, L.M.Transcendental Meditation and rehabilitation at Folsom prison: Response to a critique. Criminal Justice und behavior, 1979, 6, 13-21.
3.
Adams, S.Evaluative research in corrections: A practical guide. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
4.
Allen, D.TM at Folsom prison: A critique of Abrams and Siegel. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1979, 6, 9-12.
5.
Campbell, D. & Stanley, J.C.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Skokie, III.: Rand McNally, 1963 .
6.
Drew, C.J.Introduction to designing research and evaluation. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1976.
7.
Feinstein, A.R.Clinical biostatistics. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1977.
8.
Hill, A.B.Principles of medical statistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
