SINCE THE ASSIGNMENT OF INMATES TO THE TM PROGRAM REPORTED ON IN THEIR ARTICLES WAS NONRANDOM, THE INTERNAL VALIDITY OF THE EXPERIMENT IS REDUCED. ALSO THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SEEMS TO BE BASED ON ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF THE 'AFTER' MEASUREMENTS, A WRONG PROCEDURE. A TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE IN CHANGES BETWEEN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE. MORE APPROPRIATE WOULD BE AN ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE WITH 'BEFORE' SCORES AS COVARIATES. ALSO ETHNICITY AND SECURITY STATUS OF THE SUBJECTS WAS NOT CONTROLLED. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE TM STUDY DATA, IS REANALYZED IT APPEARS THAT THE AUTHORS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEIR PROCEDURE, THE TRAITS THEY MEASURED, AND THE POSSIBLE REHABILITATION OF THE PRISONERS. IT IS STATED THAT OTHER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GROUPS SEEMS AS REASONABLE AS THE ONE OFFERED BY ABRAM AND SIEGEL AND EARLIER BY ALLEN. THE RESULTS OF THEIR STUDY SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED SUGGESTIVE BUT NOT MORE THAN THAT. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.