This is the reasoning they gave: I totally agree with @wdb 's citing of that thread. School attendance was never a great outcome measure, but it's a lot better than SF36-PF and Chalder Fatigue Scale scores. Measuring the supposed efficacy of something like the Lightning Process with self-report questionnaires is just a joke. nIf they wanted a more comprehensive measure of activity, they should have used actometers. This is from the paper: Is there any evidence that these claims are true? Does LP train train individuals to recognise when they are stimulating or triggering unhelpful physiological responses, and avoiding them? Is it not unethical and repulsive to claim that it does without good supporting evidence? Here's the info that was given to the kids (they avoid mentioning the obviously quacky NLP and osteopathy): http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/smile-–-specialist-medical-intervention-and-lightning-evaluation-documents/ In these sessions, do the kids really learn about how the mind-body interacts and how thought processes can be helpful and unhelpful? Is there good evidence to support the claims that are made to them during these sessions? Or is it just misleading quackery? The Advertising Standards Authority seems to think that there's rather too much quackery in some of the claims made by Phil Parker and his followers.