[proquest.umi.com]
(emphasis mine)

The work of Byron Katie: The effect of applying principles of inquiry on the reduction of perceived stress
by Nye, Fabrice Ange, Ph.D., Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, 2011, 129 pages; AAT 3474459
Abstract (Summary)

Stress has been associated with a variety of chronic and acute conditions and with higher use of health care services. This study examines the effects of a 6-week stress reduction program based on a process developed by Byron Kathleen Mitchell--better known as Byron Katie. This technique is called interchangeably The Work or Inquiry. This study recruited nearly a hundred volunteers between the ages of 30 and 71, randomized into either an experimental group or a waiting-list control group. Both the treatment and the control groups received the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-16), the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) at baseline, postintervention, and a six-week follow-up. The treatment was administered during the first 6 weeks. Prior to the assessments, all participants were prescreened using a questionnaire about their stress level, mental health, and whether they were in therapy. In addition, a demographic questionnaire and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) were administered to establish covariates. The members of the treatment group were asked to participate in focus groups at the end of the treatment. The research hypothesis was that the treatment group receiving training in Inquiry would show an improvement superior to that experienced by the control group, as measured by the selected instruments for the study. A set of unpaired t -tests applied to measured data revealed significant changes at postintervention for perceived stress ( p < .01) and acceptance ( p < .05), and at follow-up for anxiety ( p < .05), perceived stress ( p < .001), acceptance ( p < .05), and subjective well-being ( p < .01). A set of unpaired t -tests applied to imputed data revealed no significant changes at postintervention or at follow-up. A further refining of the analysis using analyses of covariance revealed significant changes ( p < .001, except for AAQ/Post/Measured, SWLS/Post/Measured, and AAQ/Post/Imputed where p < .01) after correcting for covariates. Covariates for each analysis were chosen by forward selection model. Focus group interviews revealed that participants in the intervention found the treatment helpful and could point to improvements in their lives. Results suggest that an inquiry-based intervention with a nonclinical population may mitigate chronic stress.

link for a free preview of the dissertation: [proquest.umi.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 12:53AM by luckychrm.

Both Fabrice Nye, who conducted the Palo Alto study in 2011, and Shahar Lev Ari, who directed at least two of the three Isaeli studies, are Certified Facilitators of The Work.

You may consult the complete text of my study at your leisure and decide for yourself its usefulness. It is by no means perfect and I have delineated how it could be improved in the section on Limitations & Delimitations. The impetus behind my decision to make Byron Katie's process of inquiry the topic of my dissertation was my personal experience of its efficacy but the absence of quantitative data to back that up. For anyone who has attempted to do a randomized, controlled trial without a grant as your dissertation, you will know that it is not a simple endeavor.

Cheers!
--
Fabrice Nye

It had better have double blind protocol.

A facilitator has personal devotion to the work and has spent much time and very much money to become and then remain a facilitator.

That means ego involvement in the outcome of one's research, and makes it necessary to select assistants who have NO emotional or social investment in Byron Katie or The Work and in the outcome of the study.

One's dissertation committee must also have no tie to Byron Katie or any investment, social, financial, or emotional, in the outcome of the study.

The first thing clinicians trained in the scientist practitioner model to is examine the research design for a study. Especially one in which the topic has already a matter of controversy.

In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and who belongs to the experimental group (Wikipedia). The problem is, when doing a therapeutic intervention, that the experimenter obviously knows what treatment s/he is providing. Procedural interventions have that built-in limitation, which would not be present, for instance if you were only delivering a pill. If the intervention were, let's say, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, the experimenter would have to be trained in the technique and wouldn't be blind to the treatment provided.

Because I am well aware of the inherent limitations, I made the complete text of the study available for anyone to form their opinion.

Cheers!
--
Fabrice