Consciousness-Based Education - Maharishi University of ...

quality of life in the us (1960–1984)Analysis 4. From the Maharishi Effect Index, shown in Table 1, aphase transition to a better quality of life in the U.S. was predicted for1982 to 1984, when the index rose to exceed a numerical value of one,reflecting growth in the number of participants in the collective practiceof the TM-Sidhi program at MIU.To study the change in trends from 1976–1981 to 1982–1984,another indicator variable was created for regression analysis; “l”s wereassigned to the experimental years 1982 to 1984, and “0”s were assignedto the years 1976–1981 (the years 1960–1975 were excluded from thisanalysis). The adjusted regression coefficient was r = .912 and the coefficientof determination was .832, which means that the indicator variablecould account for approximately 83.2% of the variance (t (8) =6.368, p = .0002). The standard deviation of the residuals was .490. Thetests of model adequacy showed non-significant autocorrelation for theresiduals from lags 1 to 5, and some directionality in runs about themean (Ljung-Box = 8.078, df = 4, p = .088; Runs-about-the-mean test= –2.49, p = .013). However, the normal probability plot showed thatthe residuals closely followed a random, normal distribution and a plotof the residuals looked symmetrical and stationary with stable variance.Thus, the assumptions underlying the regression analysis were met. TheBeta coefficients showed that the quality of life increased yearly by 2.207percent more in 1982 to 1984 compared with the change over 1976 to1981, which showed an average increase of .424%, yielding an absoluteaverage annual change of 2.631% for 1982 to 1984 (Table 2). The trendanalyses show that the improvement in the quality of life in 1982 to1984 was unprecedented in the previous 21 years in the United States.Analysis 5. The “0-1” indicator variable for the Maharishi Effect correlated.919 with the adjusted rate of participants in the collective practiceof the TM-Sidhi program at Maharishi University of Management,indicating a large overlap between these parameters. The adjusted rateis 100((# Coll. TM-Sidhi Pract.) 2 /p op). Regression analysis withthe adjusted collective practice rate (Table 1) on the Quality of LifeChange Index yielded a correspondingly high coefficient (r = .708,t (23) = 4.910, p < .0001). The standard deviation of the residuals was1.145. The residuals in this case were also white noise (Ljung-Box =4.936. df = 4, p = .294; Runs-about-the-means test = .57, p = .569, and553