A REMOTE VIEWING EVALUATION PROTOCOL REVISED JULY 1983

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 48
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 10, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 1, 1982
• Content Type: REPORT

For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788 R001800050001-8
Final Report December 1982
11
A REMOTE VIEWING EVALUATION PROTOCOL (U)
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
SG1J
CONTRACT MDA908-82-C-0034
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR GRILL FLAME.
RESTRICT DISSEMINATION TO ONLY INDIVIDUALS WITH VERIFIED ACCESS.
CLASSIFIED BY: DT-5A
REVIEW ON: 31 December 2002
Copy No. .....f.......
This document consists of 48 pages.
SRI/G F-024 7
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, California 94025 NOT RELEASABLE TO
[phone] ? Q -'o TWX: 910-373-1246 NATIONALS
ed For Release 2000/0 - DP96-007888001800 I
 Approved For Release 20p0Lqjfq0D0788R001800050001-8
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
LIST OF TABLES (U) . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
I OBJECTIVE (U) . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
I I INTRODUCTION (U) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
III ANALYSIS PROTOCOL (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
IV CONCLUSIONS (U) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Appendix A--EVALUATION OF FOUR COORDINATE REMOTE VIEWINGS (U). .
12
Appendix B--SUMMARY OF EVALUATION TECHNIQUE (U). . . . . . . . .
43
REFERENCES (U . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20I A& MDXXW0788R001800050001-8
1 Sample RV Assessment Form (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A-1 Transcript 1 (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A-2 Transcript 2 (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A-3 Transcript 3 (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A-4 Transcript 4 (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A-5 Target Site Hango (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A-6 Target Site Fernando de Noronha (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A-7 Target Site Inverness (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A-8 Target Site Punkaharju (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200W0N0;LA 66EQ788R001800050001-8
1 Task-Defined Relevance Scale for Target Elements (U) . . . 6
2 Quality Assessment Scale (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Numerical Score Conversion Table (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A-1 Target Element Relevance Ratings for Hango (U) . . . . . . . 23
A-2 Target Element Relevance Ratings for Inverness (U) . . . . . 23
A-3 Target Element Relevance Ratings for Fernando de
Noronha (U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A-4 Target Element Relevance Ratings for Punkaharju (U). . . . . 24
A-5 RV Assessment Forms for Calibration of Remote Viewing (U). . 25
A-6 A Rank Ordering of Weighted Averages (U) . . . . . . . . . . 41
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
sw
 Approved For Release 20UINQAMl O788RO01800050001-8
(U) The objective of this task was to develop an evaluation procedure
to assess the relative quality of a set of different remote viewing (RV)
responses.
1
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 2 g 1L61ED0788R001800050001-8
(U) To quantify the analysis procedure, we have divided the task
into four separate areas: subject response, target/task definition,
quality assessment, and numerical analysis. Figure 1 is a sample RV
Assessment Form that has been designed to emphasize the separation of the
analysis tasks. Each of the parts of the form are described below.
(U) The subject's response should be prepared for analysis without
any knowledge of either the target site or the overall task. The aim of
this method of response preparation is to reduce a possibly redundant,
rambling response to a coherent set of concepts. To meet this requirement
we have developed a set of initial guidelines to the conceptualization
procedure.
(U) A concept is defined as a paraphrase of a single idea that has
been expressed in the RV verbal or drawing response. That coherent idea
should not be fragmented into component parts. For example, a response
might be of the form, "I see a large, textured, gray building." The single
concept that expresses this idea should be "large, textured, gray building,"
rather than four separate concepts--one for each word in the phrase. Each
concept should be entered under the "Transcript Concept" column in the RV
Assessment Form.
(U) For this initial evaluation technique, a particular concept
should be used only once in the analysis. (Some weighting factor propor-
tional to concept frequency could be utilized, but, for the initial attempt,
only unique concepts are used.) If in the construction of the transcript
concept list a concept later in the transcript is a duplicate of an earlier
one, it should be so noted by placing the concept number of the original
concept in the "D" column.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20UN A& D0788ROO1800050001-8
b
4)
N
N
O
~D
.-+
h
M
lT
-1
O
.-~
P.
M
CT .y
O
N o
O
M
Pte.
O
.,y'
N
,--a
ur
CO
N
~
ON
N ~D
O
e
O
O
O
r-I
rl
N
N
N
M
M
M
O
,-I
N
M
eM
~
tL1
h
OD
01
O
~
N C7
~M
m
N
ri
rl N
N
4
O
N
M
d'
b
t0
GO
O
O
H
rl N
N
0
0
m
ra
a
d
a
44
a+'
ri
N
M
t!~
f,D
N
OD
Oi
O
N
r~l
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 2ocJ A$$LFI 788R001800050001-8
(U) To utilize an analysis procedure that is capable of quantitative
assessment, it is necessary to define, in advance, what the goals of the
assessment are. In the RV Assessment Form, columns "Element of Target"
and "Relevance" are provided to clearly define the goal of the analysis.
In the ideal situation, an RV target should be completely specified in
advance. A target typically consists of a number of target elements,
each of which may have varying relevance with regard to the overall RV
task. For any given target, an independent list of target elements should
be prepared. The selection of what constitutes a target element is left
completely to the discretion of the task coordinator. The target element
must be selected with little regard to task relevance (target element
relevance is accounted for later). Because an RV target consists, in
principle, of an essentially infinite number of possible elements, discre-
tion needs to be exercised in the selection process.
(U) For each target element identified for the site, the task
coordinator must define a relevance rating. This rating allows the
coordinator to tailor the analysis to the task requirements. Table 1
shows the scale that is used for the target element relevance rating.
(U) TASK-DEFINED RELEVANCE SCALE FOR TARGET ELEMENTS (U)
Rating
Relevance Scale
1
A
target
element
of
trivial interest
2
A
target
element
of
minor interest
3
A
target
element
of
intermediate interest
4
A
target
element
of
major interest
5
A
target
element
of
key interest
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200W(WQA6$1b6EQ788RO01800050001-8
(U) For each transcript concept on the RV Assessment Form (Figure 1),
the analyst should attempt to find the element on the list of target
elements that he/she considers to be the best match. The analyst should
be quite liberal in the concept/element matching (i.e., the quality of
the match should be considered at this point in the analysis). If
he/she is able to identify a target element that might be considered a
match to the given concept, a 1 is placed in the "p" (present) column
on the assessment form. If no element can be identified, a 0 is placed
in the "p" column. After making a target element identification, the
selected target element, and its corresponding overall relevance rating
should be entered in the appropriate columns on the assessment form.
(U) Having identified a corresponding target element for each con-
cept, it is now appropriate to assess the quality of the match. The
quality assessment is done on the basis of how well the single concept
in question matches the selected target element. The judgement is to be
made without regard to any other issues, such as importance of the concept
to the transcript, or importance (relevance) of the target element to the
target. Table 2 shows the quality assessment scale that is used for this
part of the analysis. The appropriate quality score from Table 2 is
entered in the "Quality" column on the RV Assessment Form for each concept
for which a matching target element has been identified.
from the relevance and quality (Tables 1 and 2) evaluation as follows:
S' = P X R X Q ,
where P is the value in the "p" column (0 or 1); R is the relevance
evaluation; and 0 is the quality assessment. S' can assume values ranging
between 0 and 25. Table 3 demonstrates how to determine the final score,
S, for a given value of S' for each concept. The conversion table is
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20c 0JN LA5-3 &788R001800050001-8
II INTRODUCTION (U)
(U) In addressing the remote viewing (RV) evaluation question, we
consider two separate requirements:
Absolute evaluation of a single response for a
single unknown target.
? Relative evaluation of a set of responses for
a series of known targets.
The first of these is of the most interest in an operational setting. As
part of the RV enhancement task, we have considered this problem in two
ways. First, by conducting an operational RV session between two calibra-
tion RV sessions, a tentative a priori assessment of operational efficacy
can be determined. The evaluation is made on the basis of performance
during the calibration sessions, and on the basis of adherence to a pre-
determined session structure.
(U) A second technique for an a priori evaluation was explored as
part of the Fiscal Year 1982 program in an audio-linguistic task. This
task provided indications that careful linguistic analysis, when coupled
with technical audio analysis, could yield an assessment in the absence
of knowledge about the target.
(U) Various techniques have been used in the pasts in an attempt to
solve the relative evaluation problem. The most common of these was the
simple rank ordering of all responses, as assessed against all possible
targets used in an experimental series. In this procedure, a judge is
presented with n RV transcripts and n target sites. His task is to arrange
(U) References are listed at the end of this report.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/ 96-00788 R001800050001-8
(U)
the transcripts in order of the best to least match for each of the n
targets. A simple numerical counting procedure is then used to estimate
the likelihood that the judge's transcript/target matches are by chance
alone.2 This early technique contained little systematic structure for
determining the final order of matches.
(S) The first step toward systematizing the rank order judging
procedure was to preprocess the raw data in the transcript by "concep-
tualizing" both the verbal and the pictorial responses. Conceptualizing
a transcript requires an analyst to paraphrase the transcript into a list
of coherent statements. This concept list is then compared and scored
concept-by-concept to each of the targets in the experiment. The resulting
scores are averaged for each response, and all responses are rank-ordered
on the basis of these scores.3 This improved analysis procedure was applied
to a number of experiments within the Technology Transfer Task for INSCOM
(U) The problem with the above technique is that there are no guide-
lines as to how the analyst should paraphrase the transcript; furthermore,
the method in which the concepts are to be assessed against the targets
remains undefined. The purpose of the Evaluation Task in FY 1982 was to
identify a procedure that corrected these deficiencies.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20U1GLAM00788R001800050001-8
Table 2
(U) QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE (U)
Rating
Discrimination Scale
1
Poor description; only one or two aspects of the material match.
2
Fair description; a few aspects of the material match, but a
large ambiguity exists.
3
Reasonable description; many aspects of the material match, but
there remains some ambiguity.
4
Good description; a large number of aspects of the material
matches, but it is possible to conceive of material that
would be a better match.
5
Excellent description; all or nearly all aspects of the
material match.
(U) NUMERICAL SCORE CONVERSION TABLE (U)
S P x R x Q
Score
Normalized Score
0
0
0.00
1
1
0.35
2
2
0.71
3
3
1.07
4
4
1.43
5
5
1.79
6
6
2.14
8
7
2.50
9
8
2.86
10
9
3.21
12
10
3.57
15
11
3.93
16
12
4.29
20
13
4.64
25
14
5.00
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20UbCLA& D0788R001800050001-8
(U)
used to eliminate the nonuniformly-distributed gaps in scoring numbers
that occur if one simply uses the product S'. Thus, the final score for
each concept ranges from 0 to a maximum of 14. This conversion table is
provided as part of the RV Assessment Form.
(U) If an assessment of an individual concept is required, the final
score for each concept/target-element match can be related to the quality
assessment scale by using the conversions shown in the third column of
Table 3 and on the assessment sheet. It should be noted, however, that the
integer scores are used to simplify the remaining calculations.
(U) To determine a final evaluation of the complete transcript
assessed against a given target, a weighted average of concept scores
is computed. To assist in the calculation of the weighted average, a
tally box score is provided at the bottom of the RV Assessment Form. For
each of the possible scores, 0 through 14, the number of concepts that
attained that particular score are counted. For example, if 3 concepts
were evaluated with a score of 12, a 3 is entered in the box below the
12 score. If the frequency of occurrence of score Si is fi, then the final
weighted average is computed by
Ak = E fJ 'If j X Si /Z fJ
Ak = 0.357 Ak
(U) The normalized, weighted average score, Ak, is entered in the
weighted average box on the assessment sheet. The weighted average score
has been normalized to be within the range
0 C U
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 o
.~
N
M
r'
q
M
ti
00
Ol
.~-4
N C4
m
-
M
Lh
?
-
t?
vi
Approved For Release 20'0708105" 04DP9R00788R0018000500
w
w
yg
a
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20YQ%(T8TOr8": CTi~ NAP-00788 ROO 1800050001-8
$
~'
n
$0
n
a0
0~
O
'
'
o
-
N
M
~
o
.
o
c
o
m
o
O
o
0
h
~'
v
ri
d'
N
ra
M
&
L os
AY
eM
F1
Ln
LO
er
to
QQ
O
E
a
o
o
'+
o
~+
o
~
o
-
o
~
-
~+
FT
rl
7
N
O
~
0
M
$4
4)
'
&1
00
-H
H
w
F
cd
.+
+
a
+
+
a
U)
a
.
a~
a
4I
a
q-
0
P4
0
o w
,~
N
N
M
N
tD
N
00
Of
04
~-1
r4
N
rl
M
d'
.-1
M
N
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20001 crJ `:'+CIR-KQP9b=00788R001800050001-8
O
rl
N
M
N
t0
P
OD
0!
O
14
~4
.~-~
m
O
'+
N
M
ep
M
O
OD
T
O
N
N
a
89
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 2O 6GN14A SJl F1 0788R001800050001-8
O
,-I
N
M
w
M
(D
N
OD
Q!
O
C4
m
V
O
N
M
N
m
GD
m
O
N
N
fa
N
N
0
fA
Ui
U)
N
tD
d'
rl
M
N
rl
rl
?~ O
ri
N
N
N
It
sY
M
1 O
U]
U
M
M
Ui
V7
41
Q
q
v
~
a
F
ro
q
14
r-4
14
H
-H
14
14
a
1-1
-
,
0
U
41
ri
N
UI
?
d
m
H
qo~
0
U
P
U
p
.,-
a
q
q
TI
44
a
0
,~
rl
N
M
tM
U!
t0
N
00
Q~
.~-~
"4
M
N
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200W0V081A 96.788RO01800050001-8
1
O
.r
N
M
w
n
tD
n
a
O!
0
?+
N
O
rt
N
M
a
h
0a
00
M
0
N
N
s
00
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
old v
O
M
r-1
N
OY
t)
N
Q
?i
o
o
.-~
~
0
0
0
a
rfi
~
N
to
O F
M
w
n
to
n
00
a
H
N
1-1
N
r-4
r-1
UNCLASSIFIED
d) rb
P 4J
o CL
U 4)
V) U
r.
0
U
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20c 6l04 4AP 1F4 D 788R001800050001-8
I
o
.r
N
ri
.r
n
m
n
ao
o,
o
w
-
-
w
O
.~
N
M
t0
00
Of
m
r~i
N
N
u
N
N
N
0
C)
N
0
at
O'
ri
rl
ri
N
0
ea
%
a
112
a~ `+
N
N
N
o
sr
er
ep
W
O
W
Pq
~
fA
~
G~0
~
~
pg
qa
O
E
F
E
93
0
m
rl
++
N
0
pp
F
N
at
-H
$4
4J
U
a
.
a
a
m
a
s
!
,~
o. ~
,~
fc
.-~
N
l7
h
m
N
OD
O)
-4
cn
to
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200 L "F%FI . 788R001800050001-8
o
~+
N
N
.M
n
tD
n
oo
w
o
?+
w
.i
.i
4
4
N
M
V~
H
W
W
q7
N
0
N
N
0
O
N
O
O
M
N
O
O
O
O
N
-
r~i..
O
eN
O
M
N
O
O
rl
tcaD
h0
q
bD
~
.N
}
.N
UU
7
r+
y
}
4
x
?+
as
p
.7
O
U
a
.0
cd
H
a
41
b
ti
y
-+
a
a
N
N
er
0
01
M
01
Y
+?
N
r.
w
G
C4
b
(#
al
01
'pr
U
U
a
U
A
U
a
Cl
a
O
W
0
.
U
6 R
~
r1
N
M
W
1f!
~D
N
W
O
-1
,N
N
-I
V
to
o
Ir
gamg.~ 01
y q U
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20OUNCLASfAF;E-D788R001800050001-8
o
O
-
N
M
'I
U9
t0
N
00
Of
0
-
N
M
d'
rl
r4
-4
O
~
N
M
V'
U1
tD
00
O
~
~
~
N
N
N
O
W
M
0
CO
N
N
-
tD
0
N
er
tD
w
i d
a
N
eM
N
N
V
m
U'7
N
eM
u
N
~a v
Cl
U)
Cl
Cl
eM
N
Cl
M
U!
M
to
11
93
,SA
O
p
?d
gC
O
N
F
Y
0
a
0
00
a
~+
14
'r
o
rl
ti
0
m
b
4
14
v
a
m
0
41
a)
FOi
44
m
61
N
f0-,
Myy
F
ep
N
q
NO
0
a
600
z
,4
V
.)
M
0
a
7
4J
144
O
4~
-44
10
tOr
14
1-1
;H
4-4
c
a
P.
a
w
op.
,-1
N
M
el'
U!
t0
N
00
0)
O
F
N
M
tM
H
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200"`CfRPIEQ788ROO18OOO5OOO1-8
g
m
o
~
N
M
.r
as
to
n
ao
w
o
~
~
~
~
O
r1
N
M
ep
b
t0
fb
O)
~
~
N
N
N
N
4
ro
N
M
M
N
0
00
w
0
M
O
0
M
q
V
M
M
M
N
M
4
ff!
?
yb + ?t
fi P
.
It
.r
a
M
M
a
M
4J
ttl
w
w
84
40
ca
p
to
A
m
x
??
x
x
a
m
x
x
x
4J
v
'i
N
M
eN
O
P
L7
F
U
W
m
b
14
b
14
yy
Fi
U
V
F
4J
U
yy
F
4J
f)
P
N
0
{~
q
-4
Ol
H
44
++
a
a
U
P+
a
P4
F
W
W
aI.
,$
rl
N
M
V
to
m
t-
00
Ot
0
'
V
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800050001-8
 Approved For Release 2044NQ:AS 0788ROO1800050001-8
0
N
N
M
~N
N
t0
t'?
00
Ol
0
r4
Cl
1
$
.4
m
d'
M
0
OD
Q1
0
N
In
w
N
N
O
N
N
M
M
M
N
ti
Cl
.d
Cl
rl
0
0
Cl
-
M
rd
0
W
V
N
m
m
0
94
-P
4.3
m
0m
-1
as
m
U
m
M
r
m
H
Q
-1
m
N
an
H
QQ
N
o
F
A'
a
.-4
.-1
-1
r
rl
0
d
0
r+
i-1
0
u
at
mq
0)
r4
b
q
0
k
)
ma
N
M
V
44
0
b
d
k
4-)
cV
NO
7
H
1
4)
4A
d
44
w
F4
91
O
b
r-i
1H
14
u
a
a
V
a
.
+
8
v
a
C
x
u
a
a
w
0
w
.,1
? ,$
r1
N
M
N
fa
t.
00
Ql
~d-1
UNCLASSIFIED
o A.
U 4)
UD U
0
0
0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20UN A F{EDO788ROO18OOO5OOO1-8
8
f0
O
-
N
M
w
w
t0
A
ao
Ol
O
-
." 1
N
rl
c
N
a
.-1
O
N
N
8'1
a
fn
t0
OD
M
N
O
N
N
r
-1
0
O
N
O
N
M
N
O
O
N
N
N
C1
M
N
M
i o
a
-
,
ep
M
.-~
r4
a
.-4
u0
u7
N
r
N
~!'
rl
N
N
V
N
N
N
A
yym
q
rl
O
c
d
N
P
a
m
cd
!..
a~
N
F4
P
~
yC~l
a
~
yN
01
~y
?
a
m
d
a
a
N
0
44
13.
Gi
p
N
N
M
41
V
44
01
w
+,
H
t7
vv
W
~
A
d
:3
4J
v
91
gp
0
ym
(A
c~
F
-H
r4
?~
F1
F7
F
ail
3
N
N
E
H
00
Oi
O
-I
N
M
V
N
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20(W/WQJM$R 1D0788R001800050001-8
x
o
N
M
r'
n
ro
n
ao
o
O
r+
N
.i
rMi
O
rl
N
M
V
In
w
w
Qb
0
CQ
N
N
N
a
O
M
O
O
M
O
O
M
M
N
M
Sp
O
N
N
N
ep
"4
V
I
t eM
N
M
~
y ~
,
M
M
M
M
M
M
ifi
M
N
N
~O
U
~p
~"
2
F
Ol
14
0
a
ri
.,
N
r,
O
r~
O
O
.~
H
N
H
H
44
b
N
M
~p
q
d
is
4J
4J
44
W
-H
W
CF7
W
Fi
A
q
F
$
h
.~
r?
N
q
H
t0
A
OD
Of
O
N
rl
N
rl
M
rl
rl
N
rl
UNCLASSIFIED
y
4-)
u
G
0
0
w
0
Z*
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20 UNGLA1S 00788ROO1800050001-8
8
tp
O
rl
N
M
~M
h
m
N
OD
fi
O
-
.
N
rl
M
N
-d
O
.-~
N
M
N
t9
CD
N
N
N
O
O
N
O
N
ca
V
eM
O
aw
M
'd'
6l
t.
6)
-'~i d
M
V~
M
r-1
.-1
~-1
eP
rl
I!7
N
IC)
a
112
,
eM
er
V~
N
'd~
eN
V'
tf)
V~
N
eM
N
4H
0
4J
W
r4
:OH
d
ld
4
H
4
14
x
"q
H
02
H
m+
CA
4
4
E
:
N
93
4J
A
cd
V.
N
CI
bD
h0
N
\
rl
rl
M
44
M
A
4~
~
4J
W
(D
3
q
d
~
0
V
~
~
Qdy
p
U~
F
q
A
v
W
A
m
0)F
E
ti
-a
i
+
A
i
o"
R
N
M
a
v,
w
ti
00
Of
1.4
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20 *L-A1SC6&O788ROO1800050001-8
O
O
N
M
~N
M
t0
h
00
01
0
r4
cq
~
-
CO
O
~M
N
t0
00
Of
0
M
O
O
.1
N
C
)
r
-i
.
i
N
N
~p
O
O
0
m
0
1f)
N
O
N
0
ti
0)
N
M
Cl
eM
rl
r-1
rl
~-1
V~
rl
~
N
r-1
a
.12
to
M
LO
eN
N
M
N
44
0
0
0
0
41
q
i
44
~
4+
4~
~
44
4J
?C
A
07
~
i0
O
l
14
cd
-1
cd
0
'
4)
~'rpQ
,
Q
4)
4)
'N~
LO)
.
F
ey
N
1-1
a
o
-I
,-q
.4
o
r,
N
.r
.i
1-4
H
1-1
1-1
N
4J
co
4D
ri
N
r4
C
~p
Q
ty
d
$4
k
Y
+~
d
d
F
1
{
Y
a
N
a
b
0
a"'i
F
v~'
~
?yp
W
3
C7
G1
y
Gi
~i
q
r
[~
3~
e
,~
.~
N
M
V'
M
t0
h
00
01
~
~
~
N
N
to
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20UM6LA& D0788ROO18OOO5OOO1-8
(U) Two types of overall assessment were chosen to emphasize the
versatility of the evaluation procedure, (1) a simple rank ordering based
on weighted average scores, and (2) a concept-by-concept, non-parametric,
statistical technique. Table A-6 shows the results of the first method,
the rank ordering. For convenience, the correct matches are underlined.
(U) A RANK ORDERING OF WEIGHTED AVERAGES (U)
Session/Target
Inverness
Hango
Fernando
de Noronha
Punkaharju
2
4.13*
2.72
0.22
2.11
3
1.12
2.65
2.49
2.42
4
1.21
1.38
2.22
2.21
1
1.53
2.52
2.36
0.90
Scores computed with non-uniform target relevance factors.
(U) From Table A-6, we see that there were 3 first-place matches
and 1 fourth-place match. The probability of obtaining 3 of 4 possible
first-place matches from chance fluctuations alone are less than 0.051.
The point spread between the best match (Inverness) and the worst match
(Punkaharju) are in qualitative agreement with a subjective "first look"
at the quality of the transcripts as well.
(U) The second analysis determines the significance of the difference
between the correct concept/target matches and a control set of matches.
All concept/target matches that are not the correct matches act as an
internal control set. To avoid any invalid assumptions as to the correct
parent distribution, a non-parametric statistical test, the Mann-Whitney
U-Test, was chosen for the analysis.4
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800050001-8
 Approved For Release 20UNQA&59J O788ROO1800050001-8
(U) It is beyond the scope of this report to review the details
of the Mann-Witney U-Test; thus, only the results are quoted here. The
probability that the set of correct concept/target matches is statistically
indistinguishable from the control concept/target matches is less than
0.071.
(U) There are a number of additional statistical procedures that
could be used to analyze the results of this evaluation technique. The
two cited above, however, represent a spread in complexity that demonstrates
the internal consistency of the basic evaluation procedure. With only four
similar RV sessions, the evaluation technique nearly reached the 0.05 level
of statistical significance with each of the two statistical procedures,
a result indicating a successful outcome with regard to the overall
assessment procedure.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200'Oi08/IIS" C1A'FM9'6=00788 R001800050001-8
Appendix B
(U) SUMMARY OF EVALUATION TECHNIQUE (U)
Step Action
1 Task coordinator defines the evaluation goal. He/she identifies
target elements and assigns target element relevance factors as
appropriate.
2 Analyst conceptualizes responses and prepares an RV assessment
sheet for each response.
3 Repeated concepts are noted in the "D" column.
4 Copies of the sheets from Item 2 are made; one for each possible
target used in the analysis.
FOR EACH POSSIBLE RESPONSE/TARGET COMBINATION:
5 Identify a target element for each concept not marked in the
"D" column; mark a 1 in the "p" column and write the target
element and its relevance factor from Step 1 in the appropriate
columns. (Write 0 and blanks if no element can be found.)
6 Using Table 3, assign a quality rating for all present (p = 1)
concept/element combinations.
7 Compute the score as follows:
a. Calculate relevance (R) X quality (Q)
b. Convert R X Q to an integer between 0 and 14 using
the conversion table provided.
8 Enter the number of concepts that obtained each possible score
in the space provided.
9 Calculate the weighted average using:
l
Ak = 0.357 [Z fj /f i Sj/E fj ff
where: S. is the score and f. is the number of concepts
tl.at obtained score
j = 0, 1, 2, ..., 14
10 For each response, rank order the weighted averages.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8
 Approved For Release 200 GLASSWbE-D788R001800050001-8
1. H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information
Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and
Recent Research," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 329-354 (March 1976).
2. C. Scott, "On the Evaluation of Verbal Material in Parapsychology:
A Discussion of Dr. Pratt's Monograph," J. Soc. Psych. Res., Vol. 46,
No. 752, pp. 79-90 (June 1972).
3. R. Targ, H. E. Puthoff, and E. C. May, "State of the Art in Remote
Viewing Studies at SRI," Technical Session on Research in Psycho-
energetics, Proc. 1977 IEEE International Conf. on Cybernetics and
Society, Washington, D.C. (September 20, 1977).
4. S. Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics, pp. 116-120 (McGraww-Hill, 1956).
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800050001-8