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.
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.
