Research Behind My Methods
“The amount of change from one session of Core Transformation was in the same range as the amount of change these other interventions got after 13-23 sessions.”
As someone with a background in academic research, consulting, and product management leadership, I’m primed to look at data. Give me data-driven decisions! Give me the business case!
There are countless qualitative examples I can share regarding transformations my clients and others have seen with the methods I utilize in my practice. These changes can sometimes be profound. But I think it’s important to share quantitative findings about the effectiveness of what I apply.
The methods I use are on the newer and early adopter side compared to more widely known and long-studied techniques, so there’s tremendous opportunity for continued quantitative research. That said, I shall share what is currently available and will keep this post updated as additional research is published.
Core Transformation
61% of those who had appeared to qualify for a clinical diagnosis improved so much that they no longer fit the criteria for a clinical diagnosis, after the CT session.
I’ve included some key excerpts from the Core Transformation website’s research page below. You can read more about the latest Core Transformation research here.
First RCT published in 2019
An RCT on Core Transformation has been published in a major peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of Counseling and Development, July 2019), authored by Dinesh Braganza, et al.
That’s a randomized, controlled trial, which is considered to be the gold standard in research.
129 people were guided through a single session of the Core Transformation process. None of the participants had any prior knowledge of Core Transformation, and most were unfamiliar with any form of counseling. Using five different psychological tests, the researchers found significant improvements in scores in every category they measured. These improvements were found both 4 weeks and 8 weeks after the single Core Transformation session. This shows the results were long-lasting.
What stands out from this study?
Participants in this study were what researchers call a “community sample,” which means they weren’t clinical patients. However, researchers used a standard psychological test to measure “Symptom Experience.” In other words, they measured how bad the problems were. (The research instrument used was the “GHQ-12 Questionnaire”.) Using this measure, researchers could zero in on the subgroup of people in the study who, according to the GHQ-12, could have qualified for a clinical diagnosis. 44 of the 129 participants were in this subgroup.
4 weeks after the CT session, 61% of this subgroup were no longer in that category.
This means 61% of those who had appeared to qualify for a clinical diagnosis improved so much that they no longer fit the criteria for a clinical diagnosis, after the CT session.
How do our results compare with other methods?
Researchers use a number called a “Cohen’s d” to measure “effect size.” In other words, how big was the change? And they can use this number to compare results across studies. This number makes it possible to compare the amount of change from different studies that used different interventions.
The other interventions the research team looked at were:
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy,
Humanistic-Experiential,
Psychodynamic and
Mindfulness approaches.
These are all good approaches. They all get results, according to research. And the amount of change from one session of Core Transformation was in the same range as the amount of change these other interventions got after 13-23 sessions.
Not only that, the research team has just discovered a new finding from the data. This finding isn’t yet published.
If we zero in on the subgroup with more serious problems (mentioned above), this sub-group got significantly better results than the group as a whole. For this subgroup, the results after 1 session of Core Transformation was similar to the very best result from the other studies using 13-23 sessions. The effect sizes of the other studies ranged from d=.26 to d=1.21. (A higher number is better.)
Our effect size with Core Transformation (for the subgroup with more serious issues) was d=1.29.
So, the research showed strongest results for Core Transformation with the subgroup with more serious issues. Why is this? It may be because this subgroup had more room for improvement. If someone starts out with very little anxiety, for example, they have less room for improvement compared to someone starting with more anxiety. Most other methods were tested on a clinical sample, with subjects who likely had more room for improvement.
If this is the case, this suggests that when CT is tested with a larger clinical sample, the results may be even stronger.
30-Day Practice Study
From 2020-2023, Andreas NLP has collected additional data that is in the process of being published.
In one unpublished study, participants received a Core Transformation video training, and then participated in a 30-day practice group. In the practice group, they guided others and they were guided through the process once a week. They were also encouraged to use a quick version of CT as a self-practice every day for about 15 minutes.
As expected, participants noticed improvements in every aspect they measured: symptom experience decreased, and wellbeing improved.
Researchers asked the participants to what degree their problem issue (a behavior, thought, or feeling) had been resolved, in the original situations where it had been a problem. During the last week of the 30 day practice, 91% of the respondents reported that their issue was between 60% and 100% resolved, and over half of respondents (55%) said it was resolved more than 80%.
About 8 weeks later, 72% said their issue was between 60% and 100% resolved, and still over half (nearly 53%) said the problem resolution was greater than 80%. They also reported positive developments in their lives that went way beyond just resolving problems.
Sedona Method
The group that took the Sedona Method outperformed the control group by 33%.
I’ve included some key excerpts from the Sedona Method website’s research page below. You can read about more of the research here.
Study on the Effectiveness of the Sedona Method
Research on The Sedona Method was conducted by Dr. Richard J. Davidson of the State University of New York in collaboration with Dr. David C. McClelland of the Department of Social Relations at Harvard University. Dr. Davidson has been associated with some of the best research in the field of stress reduction, and Dr. McClelland is an internationally known authority.
The Details
The pilot study involved three groups of 20 persons each: one group was taught the Sedona Method, a second group was taught Progressive Relaxation, and a third control group was comprised of people who were interested in a stress reduction technique but who were not taught any. (Progressive Relaxation is a technique of tensing and relaxing muscles. It has been a well-accepted technique for stress reduction since 1935.)
All subjects were shown a film of three gory industrial accidents once before the training, two weeks post-training, and 3 1/2 months post-training. Various physiologic measurements were made during the film and immediately afterwards.
The results:
HEART RATE
The Progressive Relaxation group had a 100% improvement in heart rate over the control group during the third viewing. The Sedona group showed a 360% improvement over the control group.
BLOOD PRESSURE
The diastolic component of blood pressure is the second of the two blood pressure readings and is considered to be the more significant measurement. A comparison between the final diastolic measurement (after the third viewing) and the first showed that the Control group had a 2% increase.
The Progressive Relaxation group had a 3% reduction in diastolic blood pressure while the Sedona group had a 10% reduction.
MUSCLE TENSION
Muscle tension during the third viewing of the stressful film showed that the control group's muscle tension was reduced by 14% whereas the Progressive Relaxation group showed a 28% reduction, and the Sedona group showed a 26% reduction in muscle tension.
Even though The Sedona Method is not aimed at muscle tension (it is a mental technique) it had almost as great a reduction in muscle tension (only 2 percentage points difference) as the Progressive Relaxation group.
CONCLUSION
These researchers concluded: The Sedona Method is an outstanding technique “for its simplicity, efficiency, absence of questionable concepts and rapidity of observable results.”
The scientific results support the experience of most graduates who report that they are calmer in difficult situations after having learned the Sedona Method.
MONY Corporation Study
A study of the effect on sales performance of the Sedona Method was done with the field underwriters of the MONY Corporation. The Group that took the Sedona Method was matched with a control group for production, age, sex and number of years with the company. The group that took the Sedona Method outperformed the control group by 33%.It is also interesting to note that the margin of superiority of the Sedona group was greater in the second half of the test period than it was in the first. The results increased over time.
