Keep on Trukkin'

[Anonymous]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.

In other words, it was NOT anything that could be considrered clinical, controlled, verifiable research/statistics. This is more of an informal survey than it is anything close to being scientifically valid.   That's ok.  There never has been.  Just admit it.

[Anonymous]

Thus, in five years there should have been 150 to 180 grads.  Where are those missing AARCies

Its called a sample plan.  They dont test everyone, just like they dont "crash test" every car.  A sample of a 100 is a very hefty sample if there were only 180 grads.  Thats over a 50% sampled. 

Of course not!!  That' would mean they could be held accountable for what they advertise.   Please educate yourself on what constitutes valid, verifiable studies and clinical research before you start railing on things you quite obviously have very little knowledge about.


Remeber.  HONESTY is the first and most important rule!

[TheWho]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.

[Anonymous]

Drop out rate?  Total # of students v. control group?


Thought not.






Surveys don't count

[TheWho]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.

[Anonymous]

Control group?  Dropout rate?

[TheWho]

Best debate of the day and sound bite:

The crash test studies are invalid because they never tested my car, there is not a dent on it, which proves I am right

Ha,Ha,Ha you got to love this place.  Bottom line is AARC conducted a study which was done by a specialist.  It cannot be disproven unless you speak to Mr. Patton directly and review the raw data and boundary conditions, sample plan etc. he choose and understand why. 

It is useless to try to pick apart the results without reviewing the raw data.  Its fun watching you guys though.


...

[Anonymous]

All we're asking for is CREDIBLE research that *proves* the outlandish claims that have been made here. 



Key words:  credible, clinical, randomized, controlled.   OBJECTIVE

[ajax13]

The one hundred grads were consecutive in five years, meaning there are no others from that period.  52% had resumed alcohol or other drug use within that period.  Most had not been out for five years, and many less than one, thus the claim that 85% were sober after five years is not substantiated by the study. 

[TheWho]

The one hundred grads were consecutive in five years, meaning there are no others from that period.  52% had resumed alcohol or other drug use within that period.  Most had not been out for five years, and many less than one, thus the claim that 85% were sober after five years is not substantiated by the study. 

No, you are wrong.  You need to review the study to make determinations like that, you are drawing conclusions on  summary data, you need to look at the raw data to do that.  here is a summary:

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.

[Antigen]

Uh, slap? I think maybe the good doctor, or most likely whoever is quoting him, may have momentarily forgotten the first and most impotent rule. Remember, folks, PhD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

[ajax13]

No, you don't need the raw data to make determinations like that.  The study was conducted in 2003, of grads from 1998 to 2003.  It is impossible for all the grads to have been out for five years.  Thus it is ridiculous to claim that the study showed that 85% of the grads in the study were sober after five years. 

[TheWho]

No, you don't need the raw data to make determinations like that.  The study was conducted in 2003, of grads from 1998 to 2003.  It is impossible for all the grads to have been out for five years.  Thus it is ridiculous to claim that the study showed that 85% of the grads in the study were sober after five years. 

You obviously do not understand how to read the study.

[ajax13]

Even though the study was done in 2003, involving clients who graduated in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, they had all been graduated for five years in 2003.  My mistake.  Thanks for pointing that out.

[TheWho]

Even though the study was done in 2003, involving clients who graduated in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, they had all been graduated for five years in 2003.  My mistake.  Thanks for pointing that out.

The report never stated the sample population had been graduated for 5 years.  Their time after graduation ranged from 8 months to 5.5 years.  This study was a snapshot in time.  What I believe you were thinking is that they interviewed 100 people after they had been out of AARC for 5 years, which is not the case.  This study took 100 sequential graduates.



...