ocaBy Mark Shreffler

There is probably no more misunderstood technology in our arsenal than the Oxford Capacity Analysis.  This was not created by Ron, but was ordered by him as he needed, back in the heady days of Phoenix, Arizona, an accurate tool for determining changes in the cases he was researching at the time.

For this task he turned to one of his highly trained auditors, a woman named Julia Salmen Lewis, to create an examination that would generate a profile of a PC.  She was uniquely suited to this task as her prior experience to Scientology was as a psychologist designing profiles.  She set out to create a test that would satisfy Ron’s needs for an exterior viewpoint of a case, and the result was the Oxford Capacity Analysis.

Well, actually it was called the American Standard, but when they went to England the English had a hard time taking a test with the word “American” on it – certainly for reasons revealed by the test itself!

The accumulated materials concerning the correct evaluation of this test speak to its many applications, but there was never created an actual training lineup that took an aspiring test evaluator “through the paces” to a point of mastery until very recently.

It is interesting to note that earlier on the track the only real applications of this test were conducted in the Church of Scientology, which never trained its personnel in its use as a dissemination tool. For reasons that bring one to question the motives of such an omission, they also changed the content of the test without any notion of how this would affect the accuracy of the resulting profile.

Of course, the effect was disastrous to the dissemination lines of the church and to the technical results it achieved – since programming of cases also utilized this tool as an indicator of “case state.”  

Because no one had been told of the changes in the test , nor had the correct understanding of its evaluation, no one looked at the test as the reason for this sudden shift in results.  This was in the mid-80’s.  The church began to institute all sorts of unusual solutions to compensate for the upsets occurring for bad test evaluations, and the entire scene went in to a decline from which it has not recovered.

There is now a movement to recover this piece of lost technology, and restore it to its former stature as the primary tool for grasping the needs of people, and designing effective programs to help them resolve their issues.

Stay tuned!


18 thoughts on “The OCA: Its use in dissemination

  1. Wow. That is a major outpoint. I always wondered why it showed things that I didnt agree with. Look forward to the new tests.

    • DivSixer!

      Wait no longer! You can go to Perfectprofiler.com and see the original test and even use the test on the site for your public. Let me know if you need any assistance!



  2. The OCA is a great tool for evaluating cases.

    My only beef with this area is that there are those who use this tool to screen potential employees. It’s one thing when you come into a place to learn more about yourself. You will tend to tell the truth in your answers. It’s quite another to take this test as a potential employee. You will lie to put yourself in the best light.

    As a former Distrib Sec (my wife was also a PES), I know what an OCA typically looks like from someone off the street. My experience was from the late 70s, hers from the mid-80s. We’ve also seen examples from people trying to get jobs some place, where they used this test as a “filter”. The differences are stark. The scores across the board were generally much higher for potential employees than for those showing up in an Org to take the test. That means one of two things. Either a) people taking the test for pre-employment screening are generally in much better shape than people coming into an Org, or b) they’re lying.

    Just my observation on the *use* of the OCA, not on the OCA itself.

    • Hi Paul,

      You’re right, there are a million ways t use this stuff incorrectly, and I guess between the two of us we have seen them all! The fact is, in hiring the primary factor is the candidates production history – his documented and verifiable stats from earlier jobs. Also, the “High OCA” is not necessarily a good thing. For example, the “Theetie Weetie Graph” is the worst thing that could happen. Also, any test with a majority of points above the “D” trait can be trouble a capital T. Many people don’t realize that the OCA is actually ten separate tests, each with it’s own scale of grading. A “High” Activity trait, for example, is plus 90. A “High” Responsibility trait is plus 40. If you get a plus 80 on responsibility it is a very dangerous indicator that immediately has you looking t other traits to find out of this guy a devil or an angel!

      In any case, the person’s history of getting products is the thing. And, by the way, bill collectors and IRS officials can be VERY good at their jobs but their Empathy traits SUCK and even their children don’t like them!

      Thanks for your comments, Paul.



  3. Fascinating time to be around a “new born”, don’cha think Mark? I mean all these amazing people from far’n wide show up here to give the “new arrival” the greatest blessings in starting out in this “new life.” ….Christened “MS2”,.. & now responding with resilience and vitality, after having had a somewhat traumatic entry to this life, just a short while ago!

    Speaking of amazing people, I can’t think of a finer person to be acting as a “God – Father,”
    then the irrepressible Sir Mark Shreffler, himself. And you bring a priceless gift, to make growth, spiritual strength & health for the rapidly expanding Indie family, an attainable
    reality for all . Can’t wait to see the re-introduction of the OCA tests again!

    Nothing like taking the serious issues of life, and showing how they can be addressed, and resolved, without costing an arm, a leg & a SOUL. And then, surprise, surprise, to go on
    and discover the whole process, ( though dealing with perplexing problems, ) is actually a whole lot of fun too! Just as it was in the early days, under the watchful eye of the Founder!

    We have the tools, the experience, the inside KRC & the ARC, but most importantly, we
    have the strong resolve & purpose to make this a success, Let’s have a blast!

    ML, Calvin.

    • Hey Calvin,

      Good to hear your blast, brother. Yer right, it was a rocky beginning but an excellent demonstration of what happens when a Safe Point is not achieved before doing NE!

      Read an interesting article from Ron the other day about Scientologists who criticize other Scientologists. The irony is, those who attacked are not the public of MS 2 anyway!

      Stay in touch, Calvin!


  4. I don’t know how good this article in Wikipedia is, but it has a quote from Lewis.


    My use of the OCA is to get some idea of the case state of a PC, and LRH did say it was a first step sizing up who you are dealing with. It was squirreled? Wonderful. I wonder if there is anything that hasn’t been. When was it changed? How long can it possibly take to train someone how to score and look at a graph? Does training get into C/Sing? Where will the original version be available, together with the original scoring template?

    Sounds like we need some standard to apply KSW to, instead of bitching about it all.

    • Yes, darlin. But the good news is it is still available for use, and even the training you need to use it, at perfectprofiler.com Hell we should do an OCA Boot Camp in LA and I GUARANTEE you will be a believer at the end!

      Good luck, honey – and well done on your field practice!



  5. In the early 90s I was a PCS (Public Contact Secretary) and Div 6 Reg at my Org. I never did like the OCA with it’s “patter”. Someone told me the test and evaluation patter that printed out were developed by LRH. I tried it for a while, but I got bad reactions from the patter so I started toning it down a bit ,just going over the different areas and signing them up for a course. I don;t know why you would tell a new person they are “cold blooded and heartless”. I mean, I get the concept- what it said in the materials, but it just didnt fit my personality or something. Also, I did find that the test didnt seem to be very accurate. Sometimes people would agree with points and sometimes they would react as though it was way off. A lot of times it would accurately register PTS “rollercoastering”. You would ask them about that and they would often say “yeahh..I do that a lot…”. And you sign them up for the Ups & Downs.

    As far as an evaluation tool for auditing or staff or anything that has repeated use I felt doing the same test over and over even though there were two versions could not possibly give good results. The person taking it is always going to try to do “better” on it than last time right? Same thing with the IQ test. The first time I took it I did ok, but after taking the same two tests ten times each I could do it with ten minutes to spare and either get all correct of one wrong depending on the version. Doing the same questions over and over is obviously going to give inaccurate results. If there was something on the test I didnt understand it would stick with me like an MU and I would end up clearing it on course or somewhere later on. I remember clearing up a few things on my Method One. So did I really get more intelligent or did I just clear up some words?

    • Hi Chris,

      The OCA is definitely not an IQ test. If you do an IQ test – which is timed- repeatedly you will get better. The OCA cannot be fooled. It’s quite a genius examination of the person in ten fundamentals. People who answer the test “the way they think they should answer it” are still showing what they feel are good answers and thus reveal themselves. I’ve had OT’s tell me “Yeah, well, I’m an OT so they don’t “work” on me.” This person has not a clue what this things is – and in this respect he’s in the same boatd with anyone who was not around in the 70’s when we were actually trained on it’s use. You are right, just reading thr traits one at a time is an instruction given by some management dude with no clue how to evaluate an OCA. That is the fastest route to evaluation that there is, and you are guaranteed to ARC break your public. It is in the syndromes (the combination of points) where the genius of this test is revealed.

      Keep looking, brother, and you will find gold. Go to perfectprofiler.com.



    • Hi Paul,

      Thank you very much for your input. We have gathered everything that is out there, I think, and have a thousand pages of data. We are collating and boiling it down so as not to be repetitious, and will have it on the site as it becomes available.

      Best regards,


  6. The 1978 OCAs along with test sheets and results are available out here in the Indie Zone. Same with the IQ tests.

  7. Read the admin tech. The OCA was a marketing tool, pure and simple. It doesn’t exist to help people; it exists to find a reason to hard-sell them Scientology. Div 6 all the way. And the name “Oxford Capacity Analysis” (now used in the US) is simply to get people to associate it with Oxford University (see HCO PL 30 January 1979 POSITIONING, PHILOSOPHIC THEORY, which by the way gets Trout and Reis’ concept of positioning (HCO PL 13 September 1988R) totally wrong.

    • Yes, you are correct. This is the way it is being used today by the church, and I agree with you it is a travesty and a waste of an incredible tool. It has not been used for it’s original purpose since the early 80’s.

      Best regards,


  8. Jaw,
    Thanks so much for evaluating for me/us. My turn–stick to Trout and Reis’
    concept of positioning– since it seems to have measured your “altitude”
    as a more “Desirable State” than that of us “mere” Independent scientologists.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s