Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[Troll Control]

Sooo...in other words...you got nothing.  Just generic FAQ's about "what IRB's do" and otherwise, zippo.  

Come on back when you find something that says "WIRB does continuing review for surveys" and you'll be gold.

You skipped this also:

Whoops!  Whooter just made up some new facts:

If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.

Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter.  This ought to be interesting.  Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!

I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat:  :rofl:

Avoiding this still?  You lied about this, too.

[Whooter]

Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter.  This ought to be interesting.  Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!

I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat:  :rofl:

Avoiding this still?  You lied about this, too.

Right here:

The Study was presented at the Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA)

Link



...

[Ursus]

Sooo...in other words...you got nothing.  Just generic FAQ's about "what IRB's do" and otherwise, zippo.  

Come on back when you find something that says "WIRB does continuing review for surveys" and you'll be gold.

You skipped this also:

Whoops!  Whooter just made up some new facts:

If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.

Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter.  This ought to be interesting.  Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!

I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat:  :rofl:

Avoiding this still?  You lied about this, too.

Right here:

The Study was presented at the Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA)

Link

Oooops!  :seg:  ... psychiatric ? psychological

My guess is that is probably just a simple error, not a deliberate lie. But look at how cleverly Whooter chose to construct his post ... to avoid having to admit that error!  

[Troll Control]

That's right, Ursus.  He's so arrogant and fragile he'd rather troll for a week (or five years, ha, ha, ha) than to admit he lied or doesn't know what he's talking about, which he clearly does not.  Kinda like how he equates his daughter taking five years to finish high school with being "well ahead of her peers academically."  Which peers?  The ones who took SIX years to graduate? :agree:

You claimed it was presented to the American PSYCHIATRIC Association, Whooter.  Why did you make that up?  Why are you trying to mislead people by saying this?  What else have you been fibbing about?  Do tell.

Or is it that you don't know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist?  You're either a complete liar or a complete idiot.  Which one is it?  We'd like an answer.  

I really don't think anyone believes what you say considering you don't understand the difference between clinical trials and survey studies or a psychologist and a psychiatrist.  You're a pretty ignorant guy.  You shouldn't try to pass yourself off as some kind of academic.  That's just laughable. :roflmao:

[Whooter]

Oooops!  :seg:  ... psychiatric ? psychological

My guess is that is probably just a simple error, not a deliberate lie. But look at how cleverly Whooter chose to construct his post ... to avoid having to admit that error!  

Ahhh  lol,  Boy I guess I have to give DJ one today.  Yes, I meant the APA  and wrote psychiatric instead of psychological......  my bad.



...

[Troll Control]

That's just one of the blatant "mistakes" (read: intentional lies) you've made in this thread, Whootie.  You're batting below the Mendoza line on this subject.  You should get a pinch hitter and bench yourself because you're sinking your team, the Aspen Marketers.

In the program you'd be on work assignments daily and in an isolation cell nightly for this pack of lies and your lengthy denials and deflections.  Aspen's cadre of slope-browed staff would love to get their hands on a little manipulating liar like you!

Why don't you give us a ten page writing assignment on why you're such a little liar and manipulator.  You're on bans from Fornits for two months also.  You can't handle the freedom.

[Whooter]

That's just one of the blatant "mistakes" (read: intentional lies) you've made in this thread, Whootie.  You're batting below the Mendoza line on this subject.  You should get a pinch hitter and bench yourself because you're sinking your team, the Aspen Marketers.

In the program you'd be on work assignments daily and in an isolation cell nightly for this pack of lies and your lengthy denials and deflections.  Aspen's cadre of slope-browed staff would love to get their hands on a little manipulating liar like you!

Why don't you give us a ten page writing assignment on why you're such a little liar and manipulator.

Ha,Ha,Ha  Wow  you are a sore looser (or is that loser? lol oops I made another typo).  In all fairness I thought it was a good discussion,DJ.  We really hashed out the whole study and how it came to be.  At some point we should discuss the the findings of the study itself.  There were a lot of positive and negative points brought out about the industry.



...

[SUCK IT]

Why don't you give us a ten page writing assignment on why you're such a little liar and manipulator.

Why would he waste his time, when there are people like you who spend their entire life dedicated to documenting the "lies" of Whooter?  

Don't you have a job or maybe, something better to do than trolling Whooter, dysfunctional junction?

Whooter, being the titan of the troubled teen industry that he is, or so I've heard on this forum, well it's no wonder he has the cash to retire and spend his time as he wishes. But what about an ex-abuser for pay (according to your own descriptions of treatment programs), how can you afford to spend all the working day dedicated to whining to Whooter?

Hey I wonder if the family you and your extremist buddies terrorized now sleep with a loaded shotgun under their bed? It would be rather ironic, don't you think?  :rofl: Thanks for the laughs dysfunctional but you might want to get some help for your severe case of W.D.S.
Back to the real world for me, hope you are having a great summer Whooter! Sorry you have to deal with the constant trolls of psychos like dysfunctional, fornits would be a much better discussion w/o losers like him.  :cheers:

[Troll Control]

Whooter gets pinched in multiple lies...denies, denies, denies...more lies...more pinches...and...OUT COME THE SOCKPUPPETS right on cue!

Make that three month's bans from Fornits and a twenty page writing assignment! :feedtrolls:  :agree:

SUCK IT:  "I am leaving Fornits because I got a job and won't have time to post."

That job didn't last very long, SUCK IT!  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :flip:  :agree:  I'm sure McDonald's is still hiring burger flippers.  Don't lose hope!  According to Whooter, you're well qualified for Burger King, too! :nods:  :jerry:

[Whooter]

Whooter gets pinched in multiple lies...denies, denies, denies...more lies...more pinches...and...OUT COME THE SOCKPUPPETS right on cue!

Make that three month's bans from Fornits and a twenty page writing assignment! :feedtrolls:  :agree:

SUCK IT:  "I am leaving Fornits because I got a job and won't have time to post."

That job didn't last very long, SUCK IT!  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :flip:  :agree:  I'm sure McDonald's is still hiring burger flippers.  Don't lose hope!  According to Whooter, you're well qualified for Burger King, too! :nods:  :jerry:

Hey, DJ, calm down, dont take it too hard.  You did catch me on that typo remember?  So technically it was a mistake, (so I will give you that), so you can call it a victory.  You put up a good fight buddy.  Read the study and see what you think  (it doesnt matter if you feel it received oversight or not), its still a completed study and worth looking at.



...

[Troll Control]

I read the whole thing, several times, years ago and also recently.  I have also shared it with my colleagues who run human subject research for our firm.  With unanimity, like most people who have commented here, we believe it's complete and utter garbage.  

It is deeply flawed, biased, cherry-picked samples, no control group, conflicts of interest galore, completed while kids were in the program and their responses could lead to longer detention, no follow up, etc., etc., etc.  This work would not pass the most cursory examiniation in peer review and has never been published, indicating the authors know it doesn't pass muster.

In summation, it's bunk.  The very first post in this thread completely invalidates the work.

[Whooter]

We have come a long way.  A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research.  They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.

Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB).  From WIRB’s documents:

The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study) for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1
Sample 2

at the bottom of page 2 it states:

Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction feels that WIRB (a Review Board)  didnt review the study.



...

[Troll Control]

I read the whole thing, several times, years ago and also recently.  I have also shared it with my colleagues who run human subject research for our firm.  With unanimity, like most people who have commented here, we believe it's complete and utter garbage.  

It is deeply flawed, biased, cherry-picked samples, no control group, conflicts of interest galore, completed while kids were in the program and their responses could lead to longer detention, no follow up, etc., etc., etc.  This work would not pass the most cursory examiniation in peer review and has never been published, indicating the authors know it doesn't pass muster.

In summation, it's bunk.  The very first post in this thread completely invalidates the work.

Here's the question I'd like answered about this study:  If it were reviewed, don't you think a review board would discover that the facilities being studied were charged with abusing children; that is, the researcher's main conclusion is that child abuse is "effective" in helping children?

The review board's primary job is to insure the safety of human subjects.  Why didn't they know that children were being abused, neglected, maimed, raped and killed in Aspen programs?  That just doesn't pass even the lowest bar for review.  

Think about it: MBA was closed down for systematically abusing children, hundreds of them.  The state of Oregon found in their investigation that the very program model rose to the level of child abuse.  

How is it possible that this study could conclude that MBA "helped" children, when it clearly harmed them?  Based on this documented, undeniable fact, it is proven that this study is complete garbage.  The data are obviously deeply flawed or totally fabricated.  There's no way around that.  Hence, no peer review, no publication and no follow-up after six long years.  Follow up should have been completed one year out, but the researcher just dropped the project.

Everything about this study fails the smell test.

[Whooter]

I can see what you are saying.  I have some understanding of how studies are conducted, so I might be able to help here.   I think you need to take a look at the boundary conditions of the study itself to determine what is within the Review boards’ scope and control.  The Review board is there to insure that the study itself doesn’t bring harm to any people.  For example if the people are required to take any medications, wear any devices, do physical activites and also insure that the identities of the people partaking in the study kept safe, is the data being collected properly and stored in such a way as to keep people identities safe.  Is the study being conducted the way it was designed to be.... etc.

I don’t think the review board can insure that the children are not being raped by a teacher or their Uncle Larry.  Studies are conducted with Prison inmates all the time and in public schools and abuse occurs there on a daily basis from what I have read.  Being responsible for keeping all these people safe goes beyond the scope of the oversight committee.

My take on it is that the Review Board oversees the study to insure that in the process of studying human subjects that they are not harmed by the study process itself.  They cant insure that people are not harmed outside of their control or oversight range.



...

[Troll Control]

OK, so I had to play a little coy to elicit this important response:

My take on it is that the Review Board oversees the study to insure that in the process of studying human subjects that they are not harmed by the study process itself. They cant insure that people are not harmed outside of their control or oversight range.

I just wanted to illustrate the point that even if this study were reviewed by an IRB, none of the study's conclusions or the safety of the participants in the program would ever be reviewed or overseen.

The takeaway?  Just because someone may tell you a study was "overseen by an independent third party" (which may or may not be true) it doesn't mean that the program's methods are overseen in any way, shape or form.

In this particular case, the programs that were examined by Ms. Behrens have been charged with child abuse for running "LifeSteps" seminars and for various and sundry other abuses.  Ms. Behrens' study concludes that abusing children is an effective way to make them self-report feeling better.  Obviously, any kid enduring systematic abuse for up to two years will be highly motivated (biased) to report "The program helped me, I'm fixed now!" in order to get out and make the abuse stop.

Everyone should be clear on this fact and that this study is based on this method.  Everyone should also be aware that the highly touted and advertised "Phase 2" (a one year follow-up of these kids) was never done and that this study doesn't reflect any kid's feelings about the program when they weren't currently detained in one.  

In other words, this study is completely useless and invalid.  All it tells us is that kids will be highky motivated to self-report positive change if it means being able to get away from their abusers.