Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[Troll Control]

Let's have a look at Behrens' numbers from her report:

31% reported improvement that exceeded the 2 standard deviation cut-off for reliable change (>28 raw score points) and 50% reported improvement below the cut-off for reliable change.

So, after up to two years of being at Aspen programs, the reliable change data rate for participants is a mere 31% compared to 60-80% for traditional inpatient treatment.  And this is self-report data that Behrens admits is biased to make the kids look better than they actually are to justify their being discharged.  Unbiased data would show a much lower number.

No wonder Whooter doesn't want to talk about Behrens!  He only wants to talk about the other researchers who studied traditional treatment and try to conflate the two.

Aspen - up to 2 years and up to $175K for a 31% positive change self-report with no follow up to assess permanency of change

Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials

[Whooter]

Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials

I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.

Lets take another look:

Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.



...

[Anne Bonney]

Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials

I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.

Lets take another look:

Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.

[Troll Control]

Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials

I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.

Lets take another look:

Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.



...

Look up these references:

Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991.  

You will find source material in the biblio and you can read it yourself.

Bottom line: Behrens' study showed a 31% "success rate" for Aspen Education programs.  Her study has nothing to do with the ones listed above.

[Whooter]

Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials

I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.

Lets take another look:

Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.



...

Look up these references:

Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991.  

You will find source material in the biblio and you can read it yourself.

Bottom line: Behrens' study showed a 31% "success rate" for Aspen Education programs.  Her study has nothing to do with the ones listed above.

Thanks I checked and they didnt exclude Aspen Programs in the study.  It specified "Residential Treatment"...not "Residential Treatment except Aspen" lol.



...

[Troll Control]

Studies don't exclude things.  They include things.  Only the facilities inlcuded are in those studies, which you clearly did not even look at or read.  There are close to a thousand pages in those docs and you just claimed to read them in ten minutes.  Sure, Whooter.  We believe that.

Let's play fantasy for moment though.  If Aspen were included, it would have dragged the results down.  Aspen's 31% success rate would kill the average of 60-80%.  So we could conclude, using your logic, programs other than Aspen would have even a higher sucess rate than 60-80%.

Behrens studied Aspen directly and found a 31% success rate.  No avoiding that fact.

[Whooter]

Studies don't exclude things.  They include things.

I think we agree,

Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.



...

[Troll Control]

Studies don't exclude things.  They include things.

I think we agree,

Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.



...

Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991.  Can you provide the text from any of these studies that shows Aspen Education was studied?  They clearly don't mention any Aspen programs.

However, Behrens' work is only about Aspen programs and she concluded that Aspen was 31% successful compared to up to 80% for non-Aspen facilities.  Non-Aspen facilities were two and a half times more successful than Aspen facilities.  Wow.  

No wonder Whooter doesn't want to talk about Aspen anymore.  Now he's advocating non-Aspen facilities!  He has converted.  It's a miracle.  Whooter now agrees that Aspen has little success compared to others.  So little, in fact, that he has abandoned the Behrens study completely!  

I guess he'll need to find some other Holy Grail for Aspen marketing.  This one is destroyed beyond repair.

[Whooter]

Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.

"longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.

Besides the 60 - 80% success rate some of the other Study findings:

In general, both adolescents and
parents reported a significant decline in symptoms from admission to discharge, on all scales of
the YSR and CBCL.



...

[Troll Control]

Which study is that, Whooter?  It's not Behrens!  And you phonied up your last quote of me.  I never said this in that post, but you slipped it in there to make it look like I did: "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates"  Such a liar, Whooter.  Shame on you!

You quit referring to it now.  But it's too late.  It's the #1 hit in Google now - "Programs in Behrens Study Charged with Abuse."  The more you respond, the further up these topics go.  

Your obsession is killing your masters' income.  Bain/CRC/Aspen will be unhappy that you aren't upholding your FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY to them.  You're killing their bottom line with your mental illness. :rofl:

Check this out: Latest on Aspen Programs

Together we can make this the new top hit on Google when you search Aspen Education!

[Whooter]

Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.

    Behrens wrote:Though reported outcomes vary widely,
    ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
    residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).

So you see we agree on the overall industry success rate.   You are just still struggling with the results of the Behrens study.

I found this interesting also:

These analyses suggest adolescents with low grade point averages reportedly had a
relatively higher amount of externalizing behavior at admission, coupled with a greater degree of
change on externalizing behavior during treatment, leading them to discharge with externalizing
scores within the normal range and comparable to those with high grade point averages.

So the kids with the lower GPA and high behavior issues improve the most.



...

[Troll Control]

Which study is that, Whooter?  It's not Behrens!  And you phonied up your last quote of me.  I never said this in that post, but you slipped it in there to make it look like I did: "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates"  Such a liar, Whooter.  Shame on you!

You quit referring to it now.  But it's too late.  It's the #1 hit in Google now - "Programs in Behrens Study Charged with Abuse."  The more you respond, the further up these topics go.  

Your obsession is killing your masters' income.  Bain/CRC/Aspen will be unhappy that you aren't upholding your FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY to them.  You're killing their bottom line with your mental illness. :rofl:

Check this out: Latest on Aspen Programs

Together we can make this the new top hit on Google when you search Aspen Education!

Even Ed Cons stop referring to Aspen because they only care about profit, as evidenced by their marketing paper dressed up as a "study" that has never been reviewed or published (except on Scribd, lols).  Why doesn't that study appear in any scientific journals, I wonder?  Why no peer review?  Why no follow up?  Why are all the programs in it getting charged/shut down for abuse?

[Whooter]

lol, this study really gets to you.  I am the only one supporting my posts with links.

 Here lets take another look:


Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.

So we can see  66 -78% success by this measurement alone.

I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

Let's have a look at Behrens' numbers from her report:

31% reported improvement that exceeded the 2 standard deviation cut-off for reliable change (>28 raw score points) and 50% reported improvement below the cut-off for reliable change.

So, after up to two years of being at Aspen programs, the reliable change data rate for participants is a mere 31% compared to 60-80% for traditional inpatient treatment.  And this is self-report data that Behrens admits is biased to make the kids look better than they actually are to justify their being discharged.  Unbiased data would show a much lower number.

No wonder Whooter doesn't want to talk about Behrens!  He only wants to talk about the other researchers who studied traditional treatment and try to conflate the two.

Aspen - up to 2 years and up to $175K for a 31% positive change self-report with no follow up to assess permanency of change

Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials

Only 31% show statistically relevent change.  Not good results compared to 60-80% for publicly funded treatment.

[Whooter]

Notice DJ doesn't supply any links

 Here lets take another look and quote the study itself:


Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.

So we can see  66 -78% success by this measurement alone.

I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.


Reference Page 9 of the study:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...