TimeWaver Studies
What Shows Up in the Information Field
Four pilot studies, honestly examined
Can working in the information field be captured in numbers at all? TimeWaver tried — with four randomised studies on healthy people, standardised questionnaires and a control group. Here is what came out — and how to read the results.
Why studies at all?
In this field a lot is claimed and little is shown. That is exactly why it is unusual to find real studies here — with a clean design of the kind you also see in well-being research.
Honesty matters to me: these are pilot studies, run by TimeWaver itself, not by an independent university. They prove nothing conclusively. But they are a genuine first step — and their results are clear enough to be worth a look.
How it was measured
Each study ran for 14 days and split participants at random into two groups: one with analysis and harmonisation in the information field, a control group with analysis only. Before and after, everyone filled in the same recognised questionnaires:
WHO-5
Well-being — an established questionnaire from the World Health Organization.
SOC-9
Sense of coherence — how consistent and manageable one's own life feels.
MYMOP
Self-named everyday burdens — here a lower value is the better one.
WEMWBS
Mental well-being — additionally measured in the coaching study.
To describe how strong an effect is, research uses “Cohen's d”: from 0.5 it is called a medium, from 0.8 a large and from 1.0 a very large effect. Several of these studies reach values above 1.0 for well-being.
The results
Every bar shows the change after 14 days compared with the starting value. Teal = group with harmonisation, blue = control group (analysis only).
Meridian module
N = 275Randomised · 14 days · with control group
Largest effect: Well-being: Cohen's d = 1.2 (very large)
Coherence module
N = 97Randomised · 14 days · with control group
Largest effect: Well-being: Cohen's d = 1.39 (very large)
Database analysis
N = 151Randomised · 14 days · with control group
Largest effect: Well-being: Cohen's d = 1.09 (very large)
The coaching study
Coaching module
N = 127This study went a step further and compared four groups: full coaching with and without harmonisation, shortened coaching with and without harmonisation. That makes it possible to see what contributes what.
For general and mental well-being this group was clearly ahead too, with effect sizes up to Cohen's d ≈ 1.17 (very large).
The telling pattern: the combination of coaching and harmonisation worked more strongly than either part alone. Coaching sets the direction, working in the information field amplifies it.
Curious how it feels for you?
The best way to weigh this up is your own experience. Start with a free first analysis — three personal impulses from your information field, within 48 hours.