INTERVIEWS WITH SITTERS

INTERVIEWS WITH SITTERS

Over a nine month period, 88 sitters (clients that obtain a reading or messages via the Medium from discarnates), were contacted by the principal investigator to participate in a 60 minute phone interview. The researcher randomly selected sitters from the Medium’s client list and used random numbers to determine what sitters would be contacted for a phone interview. The second method utilized a non-random sampling method. Mediums consenting to participate in this study would issue a research pamphlet to every client and sitters made a choice to contact the researcher. The former method is preferred as random selection reduces bias and increases one’s ability to generalize results to the wider population. The latter method reduces the researcher’s opportunity to use random selection resulting in a reduced opportunity to generalize the study findings to the population (also known as external validity). In general, the convenience sampling (purposive and snow ball techniques) approach is usually typical for this type of research where privacy and trust is a high priority for the sitter and the Mediums.

Click on the link to access the Survey for the Sitter

During these phone interviews, all of the statements shared between the medium and the sitters were recorded and scored.

Click on the link to access the scoring tool

The scoring tool developed by Donna Smith-Moncrieffe (2011,) )is the first tool that has developed quantitative measures that reflect the relevance and accuracy of a statement communicated by a Medium to a sitter. For example, during the sitters interviews, they were asked “What information received from a medium would be considered “high”, “moderate” or “low” levels of evidence?” This information was calculated using a “hierarchical ranking framework”. This framework was developed from the most frequent responses. So for example, researchers can score a “3” for high evidence if the Medium shares the name of a discarnate; sharing a name demonstrates real communication with the spirit world. The research has identified types of information that can be categorized in four levels: Level 1. High, evidence; Level 2. Moderate evidence; Level 3. Low evidence; and Level 4. No evidence. This type of quantitative tool allows researchers to calculate a total score that can be compared to statistical probabilities. If the score is beyond chance (i.e p<0.05), there is a 95% chance that the phenomenon being observed is not based on chance, but is based on a real relationship. In the case of mediumship, if scores based on communication between a Medium and their sitter are found to be beyond statistical chance, it means that “survival of consciousness” or the ability to access information about predictions is real and possible. It also increases support for the alleged claims that there are certain individuals who have enhanced faculties (beyond the normal five senses) to communicate with discarnate beings

During phase II of the study, there will be enough participants to conduct a factor analysis. This type of statistical testing will ensure that the tool has construct validity; that is, it will demonstrate that it is measuring what “we think and hope” it is measuring. Participants will be involved in double-blind experiments where prior to a reading, the Medium and the researcher have no knowledge of the sitters participating in the research.

If you are interested in being part of Phase II of the study, please contact Metaphysics Researchat

Please click here to e-mail Metaphysics Research

Interviews with sitters involved testing information about survival of consciousness and factors contributing to making accurate predictions. The following repeated measures design was used to assess the accuracy of predictions communicated to sitters.

See link to a sample diary recall

If a medium predicted a specific event that would occur in the future, to be considered an “eligible event for follow-up”, the information about the predicted event would need to have the following criteria: 1. Be specific; 2. Have details about the event; and 3. Have a time frame. These criteria allow the results to be measureable.

Encouraging research participants to complete a diary recall was important to ensure that during the follow-up interviews, the sitters could easily recall information. Sitters were asked compare the “actual event/experience” with the prediction. This follow-up is the only way to accurately validate predictions as these messages shared by Mediums during a reading take time to manifest.

Next