Inter-Rater Agreement of Biofield Tuning: Testing a Novel Health Assessment Procedure.

Richard Hammerschlag, Eileen D McKusick, Namuun Bat, David J Muehsam, James McNames, Shamini Jain
{"title":"Inter-Rater Agreement of Biofield Tuning: Testing a Novel Health Assessment Procedure.","authors":"Richard Hammerschlag,&nbsp;Eileen D McKusick,&nbsp;Namuun Bat,&nbsp;David J Muehsam,&nbsp;James McNames,&nbsp;Shamini Jain","doi":"10.1089/acm.2020.0159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Practitioners of Biofield Tuning assess health status of their clients by detecting off-the-body biofield perturbations using tuning fork (TF) vibrations. This study tested inter-rater agreement (IRA) on location of these perturbations. <b><i>Design:</i></b> Three Biofield Tuning practitioners, in randomized order, identified locations of the 4-5 \"strongest\" perturbations along each of 4 sites for the same series of 10 research subjects. <b><i>Setting/Location:</i></b> An Integrative Health and Medicine Center in La Jolla, CA. <b><i>Subjects:</i></b> Adult volunteers with no serious current illness and no prior experience of a Biofield Tuning session. <b><i>Interventions:</i></b> Practitioners used an activated 174 Hz unweighted TF to \"comb\" the same four sites per subject, located on the left and right sides of the base of the spine and the heart. <b><i>Outcome Measures:</i></b> Practitioners identified and vocalized the distance from the body of perturbations along each site. Distances were recorded by a research assistant in the clinic room. No health information related to perturbation sites was discussed with the subjects. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Practitioners reported 6.3 ± 0.6 (mean ± standard deviation) perturbations per combed site per subject, with no significant difference among the raters. The overall level of IRA was low based initially on a first-pass, nonstatistical, analysis of results, with \"agreement\" defined within a tolerance of ±2 inches. In this approach agreement was 33%. More rigorous statistical analysis, including a statistical test using a Monte Carlo approach, strongly supported the conclusion of poor IRA. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> IRA was low despite attempts to balance the real-world practice of Biofield Tuning with the constraints of research. For example, while IRA necessitates multiple assessments of the same subject, no information exists as to whether an initial assessment may affect subsequent assessments. Our study exemplifies the challenges faced when attempting to fit interventions with incompletely understood procedures and mechanisms into conventional research designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":520659,"journal":{"name":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)","volume":" ","pages":"911-917"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/acm.2020.0159","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2020.0159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: Practitioners of Biofield Tuning assess health status of their clients by detecting off-the-body biofield perturbations using tuning fork (TF) vibrations. This study tested inter-rater agreement (IRA) on location of these perturbations. Design: Three Biofield Tuning practitioners, in randomized order, identified locations of the 4-5 "strongest" perturbations along each of 4 sites for the same series of 10 research subjects. Setting/Location: An Integrative Health and Medicine Center in La Jolla, CA. Subjects: Adult volunteers with no serious current illness and no prior experience of a Biofield Tuning session. Interventions: Practitioners used an activated 174 Hz unweighted TF to "comb" the same four sites per subject, located on the left and right sides of the base of the spine and the heart. Outcome Measures: Practitioners identified and vocalized the distance from the body of perturbations along each site. Distances were recorded by a research assistant in the clinic room. No health information related to perturbation sites was discussed with the subjects. Results: Practitioners reported 6.3 ± 0.6 (mean ± standard deviation) perturbations per combed site per subject, with no significant difference among the raters. The overall level of IRA was low based initially on a first-pass, nonstatistical, analysis of results, with "agreement" defined within a tolerance of ±2 inches. In this approach agreement was 33%. More rigorous statistical analysis, including a statistical test using a Monte Carlo approach, strongly supported the conclusion of poor IRA. Conclusions: IRA was low despite attempts to balance the real-world practice of Biofield Tuning with the constraints of research. For example, while IRA necessitates multiple assessments of the same subject, no information exists as to whether an initial assessment may affect subsequent assessments. Our study exemplifies the challenges faced when attempting to fit interventions with incompletely understood procedures and mechanisms into conventional research designs.

生物场调谐的评分者间协议:测试一种新的健康评估程序。
目的:生物场调谐的从业者通过使用音叉(TF)振动检测离体生物场扰动来评估其客户的健康状况。这项研究测试了这些扰动的位置的内部一致性(IRA)。设计:三名生物场调谐从业者,按随机顺序,在相同的10个研究对象的4个地点的每个地点确定4-5个“最强”扰动的位置。环境/地点:加州拉霍亚的一个综合健康和医学中心。受试者:成人志愿者,目前没有严重疾病,之前没有生物场调谐会议的经验。干预:医生使用激活的174赫兹非加权TF来“梳理”每个受试者相同的四个位置,分别位于脊柱基部和心脏的左右两侧。结果测量:从业人员确定并大声说出每个地点离扰动体的距离。距离由一名研究助理在医务室记录。没有与受试者讨论与摄动部位有关的健康信息。结果:从业人员报告每个受试者每个梳理部位6.3±0.6(平均值±标准差)的扰动,评分者之间无显著差异。根据最初的第一次非统计分析结果,IRA的总体水平较低,“一致性”定义在±2英寸的公差范围内。在这个方法中,同意率是33%。更严格的统计分析,包括使用蒙特卡罗方法的统计测试,有力地支持了不良IRA的结论。结论:尽管试图平衡生物场调谐的现实实践与研究的限制,IRA仍然很低。例如,虽然IRA需要对同一主题进行多次评估,但没有关于初始评估是否会影响后续评估的信息。我们的研究举例说明了在试图将不完全理解的程序和机制的干预措施纳入传统研究设计时所面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信