48 Spirituality Studies 11-2 Fall 2025 3.1.5 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Root Mean Square of Successive Differences (RMSSD) DG (pre-post) comparison: Post-intervention analysis showed an increase in the mean ± SD Root Mean Square of Successive Differences (RMSSD) from 29.67 ± 12.34 to 38.50 ± 21.88; however, this increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.427). The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.49), with a 29.76% increase in RMSSD (Table 2). CG (pre-post) comparison: Post-intervention analysis showed a minimal increase in RMSSD from 45.59 ± 31.31 to 46.06 ± 32.10; this difference was statistically non-significant (p = 0.955). The effect size was negligible (Cohen’s d = 0.01), with a 1.03% increase in RMSSD (Table 3). Between-group (DG vs CG) comparison: Post-intervention analysis between the DG and CG (38.50 ± 21.88 vs 46.06 ± 32.10) showed no statistically significant difference in RMSSD between the groups (p = 0.633). However, the percentage change and effect size were larger in the DG compared to the CG, indicating a potential trend that may be more evident in larger samples (Table 4). 3.1.6 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Parasympathetic Reactivity Response Index (PRRx) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed an increase in the mean ± SD of Parasympathetic Reactivity Response Index (PRRx) from 10.68 ± 10.09 to 15.14 ± 17. 00. However, this change was not statistically significant (p = 0.910), suggesting that the increase may be due to chance rather than the intervention effect. The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.31), with a 41.8% increase in PRRx (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), PRRx increased marginally from 21.65 ± 23.00 to 21.83 ± 22.80, which was also statistically non-significant (p = 0.955), indicating no meaningful change. The effect size was negligible (Cohen’s d = 0.00), with only a 0.83% increase in PRRx (Table 3). Between-group comparison at post-intervention showed no statistically significant difference in PRRx between DG and CG (15.14 ± 17.00 vs 21.83 ± 22.80; p = 0.694). Despite the non-significant difference, the percentage change and effect size were greater in the DG compared to the CG, indicating a modest trend favoring the intervention (Table 4). 3.1.7 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Total Power (TP) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed an increase in the mean ± SD of Total Power (TP) from 1749.25 ± 1020.93 to 2184.07 ± 1572. 22. However, this change was not statistically significant (p = 0.609), indicating that the increase in TP may have occurred by chance rather than due to the intervention. The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.32), with a 24.86% increase in TP (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), TP increased slightly from 3649.01 ± 3800.81 to 3840.05 ± 3452. 98. This increase was also not statistically significant (p = 0.865), suggesting negligible change in the absence of intervention. The effect size was negligible (Cohen’s d = 0.05), with only a 5.24% increase in TP (Table 3). Between-group comparison at post-intervention showed no statistically significant difference in TP between DG and CG (2184.07 ± 1572.22 vs 3840.05 ± 3452.98; p = 0.152). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the percentage increase and effect size were greater in the DG compared to the CG, indicating a potential trend in favor of the intervention (Table 4). 3.1.8 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Low Frequency (ms2) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed a slight decrease in the mean ± SD of Low Frequency (LF) power from 702.16 ± 325.42 to 653.66 ± 433. 29. However, this decrease was not statistically significant (p = 0.307), indicating the change may not be attributed to the intervention with confidence. The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.12), with a −6.91% reduction in LF power (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), LF power increased from 1099.50 ± 789.87 to 1293.89 ± 1470.95. This increase was statistically non-significant (p = 1.000), suggesting negligible impact without the intervention. The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.16), with a 17.68% increase in LF power (Table 3). Between-group comparison post-intervention revealed no statistically significant difference in LF power between DG and CG (653.66 ± 433.29 vs 1293.89 ± 1470.95; p = 0.078). Nonetheless, the percentage change and effect size favored the CG over the DG, though not significantly (Table 4).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==