North American MVVT Research Report
April 11, 2001
David Scharf, Ph.D.

Section 1:  General Considerations   
Section 2:  Review of Data for First Three Sessions   
Section 3: Average Percent Improvement by Disorder Category   
Section 4:  Detail View of Results by Disorder   
Section 5:  Comparison with Initial Report   
Section 6:  Follow-up Self-Evaluations   
Section 7:  Contributing Factors to Success   

Section 1:  General Considerations

Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology has been offered in North America for over two years, resulting in more than 4,500 consultations. 

Table 1. Repeat Consultations.

As of March 26, 2001 we had database entries for 4,722 consultations.  At least 1,186 of these were repeat consultations, by the same people, although not necessarily for the same disorders. The actual number of repeats is probably a couple of hundred more than this, since we did not keep track of this datum for the first few months of the program.  Approximately 3,300 is a realistic estimate of the number of distinct persons who have participated in our program.  A summary of our records on repeat consultations is provided in Table 1. 

 For the sake of simplicity we will consider each consultation to involve a distinct participant. 

Table 2. Disorders Addressed

The 4,722 total participants had 8,974 disorders addressed—an average of 1.9 disorders per participant.  2,267 participants had more than one disorder addressed in their consultation.  A summary of the number of disorders addressed and by how many participants is provided in Table 2. 

More women than men participated in our program, 54% or 2,550 women compared to 46% or 2,172 men.  The great majority of participants were middle-aged, with 5% aged 0 to 19, 10% aged 20 to 39, 71% aged 40 to 59, and 15% aged 60 or older.  The oldest participant was a 95 year old man. 

 Self-evaluation (SE) results forms were filled out for each disorder addressed after each session, 7297 after session one, 7033 after session two and 6495 after session three.  Of these, participants provided a numerical estimate of percent improvement for 2223 disorders addressed after session one, 3407 after session two and 3751 after session three.  Our staff made qualitative assessments of comments on several hundred self-evaluation reports where participants felt it was too soon to evaluate numerically.  By and large, the distribution of these qualitative reports was consistent with the numerical results.  For 1640 disorders addressed, 937 participants provided numerical estimates following all three sessions.  These 1640 numerical reports provide the basis for the primary data analysis for the MVVT program. 

Section 2:  Review of Data for First Three Sessions

 Chart 1, below, follows the progress of the participants through the three sessions, and shows that the results are cumulative—the average percent improvement increased from the first session to the second, and again from the second to the third session. 

Chart 1.  Cumulative Results: Average Percent Improvement by Session.

After the third session, the average percent improvement was 44.57%, with 6% or 98 of the 1,640 disorders addressed reported as100% improved. 

Table 3. Quartile Results for All Disorders following Third Session

By dividing the results into four quartiles, as shown in Table 3, we can see how the results were distributed.  Note that 65% or nearly two-thirds of the disorders evaluated improved by more than 25%.  Chart 2 illustrates these results graphically. 

Chart 2. Totals for All Disorders

The cumulative effect noted in Chart 1, above, also applies to repeat consultations for the same disorders.  As one participant remarked, typically, “It worked very well—in fact, I just repeated the disorder … and I am having additional improvement.”  Table 4, below, illustrates that the cumulative effect tends to accelerate with repeated consultations. 

Table 4. Accelerating Improvement With Repeat Consultations

Section 3: Average Percent Improvement by Disorder Category

Table 5 and Chart 3, below, list the categories of disorders from most to least successful.  Table 5 shows the distribution of reports between the four quartiles (75 to 100% improved, 50 to 74% improved, 25 to 49% improved and less than 25%).  The average percent improvement for each category of disorders is shown in the right-hand column, and the number of reports for each category is given in parentheses after the name, in the left-hand column. 
 

Table 5. Disorder Categories Listed in Order of Success

Note: the number of reports for each disorder category is given in parentheses.

Chart 3, below, lists the disorder categories in terms of their average percent improvement.  The number of reports that each average is based on is given in parentheses after the disorder name. 

Chart 3. Disorder Categories

Section 4:  Detail View of Results by Disorder

 Chart 4 and Table 6, below, list the 50 disorders with 4 or more reports, from most to least successful. 

Chart 4. Disorder Detail View

Table 6 shows the distribution of reports between the four quartiles (75 to 100% improved, 50 to 74% improved, 25 to 49% improved and less than 25%).  The average percent improvement for each category of disorders is shown in the right-hand column, and the number of reports for each category is given in parentheses after the name, in the left-hand column. 

Table 6. Disorders Detailed Results