Author Topic: Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG (Read 48414 times)

Pile of Dead Kids · « **Reply #315 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:41:13 PM »

Oh my fucking... I finally bothered to read this crap.

This is based on self-reporting and parent-reporting bullshit; there's no qualitative study here at all. This "study" isn't even measuring anything on an objective scale. It's based on what program parents and their victim-children believe. There's no objective measure of anything in this entire mess.

And that's assuming that there wasn't any fudging.

No wonder there wasn't a follow-up. Once it wore off by 2007 the results were not what they wanted to report!

Whooter · « **Reply #316 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:46:18 PM »

Thats funny, I didnt make it up. I have been posting it along with a link and page number:

Here is the whole quote:

First, reliable change and recovery were assessed using the male adolescents’ report of symptoms
on the YSR. Of the 155 males who completed the YSR at admission and discharge, 81% of
adolescent males reported some amount or degree of symptom reduction. Of that, 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 (<28 raw score
points).

so what this means is 81% of the kids reported some degree of symptom reduction... of these 81% , 31% reported improvement that exceeded the 2 standard deviation... 2 standard deviations is 95.5%... so 31% of the kids did extremely well and exceeded expectations. 50% reported improvement below the 2 standard deviation mark (which is below 95.5%).

50% + 31% = 81%

So 81% of the kids reported a reduction in symptoms and of these 31% did extremely well, 50% did as was expected.

Page 9:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

...

Whooter · « **Reply #317 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:47:39 PM »

I think the true measure of reliability is to see how well these kids do after they return home and looking a year or more out.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #318 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:54:09 PM »

Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"

Oh my fucking... I finally bothered to read this crap.

This is based on self-reporting and parent-reporting bullshit; there's no qualitative study here at all. This "study" isn't even measuring anything on an objective scale. It's based on what program parents and their victim-children believe. There's no objective measure of anything in this entire mess.

And that's assuming that there wasn't any fudging.

No wonder there wasn't a follow-up. Once it wore off by 2007 the results were not what they wanted to report!

Yes, Pile. Behrens admitted when she interviewed for StrugglingTeens that they scrubbed the data of all kids who didn't do well and needed to be removed from the program. She also said her research on the follow up was nearly complete and would be finalized in 2007. Then they never released it or mentioned it again...never.

Right in the study she also admits the positive bias of parents and kids who didn't finish the program. The average stay was 8.6 months, well below the 16 month average program length, so most of these reports were biased, as she said right in the work.

And Whooter doesn't know what he's talking about with the numbers. 31% had reliable change while still inside the program and 50% had unreliable, statistically irrelevent change (below 2 SD's, the watermark for reliability). They were "treatment failures" before they ever left the program. Of course they don't want to look at it one year out.

When I asked Whooter for the follow up data, he lied and said 81% improved. There is no follow up data.

Whooter · « **Reply #319 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:58:46 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

When I asked Whooter for the follow up data, he lied and said 81% improved. There is no follow up data.

If I did say that the 81% was follow-up data then you are correct. I said that in error.

This is what I was referring to just to clear that up:

81% of adolescent males reported some amount or degree of symptom reduction.

Page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

...

Pile of Dead Kids · « **Reply #320 on:** July 30, 2010, 08:01:55 PM »

In other words, you're throwing out quotes from a bogus source, because it's all you have.

Troll Control · « **Reply #321 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:08:13 PM »

This GEM belongs over here in this thread...

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Quote from: "Whooter"
Anyone who has great study results on their product would be crazy not to leverage the information and get it out there. I cant think of one study which wouldn't.

And thusly you have proven my point.

Phase two of Behrens was completed in 2007 and never published or presented anywhere. Therefore, either Aspen marketing is crazy, or they have a study with bad results.

They ain't crazy. They have a study that they'd be crazy to release.

Finally the truth comes to the surface of all of your BS spam-trolling.

:cheers: :jamin: :rocker:

Whooter · « **Reply #322 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:18:21 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

This GEM belongs over here in this thread...

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Anyone who has great study results on their product would be crazy not to leverage the information and get it out there. I cant think of one study which wouldn't.

And thusly you have proven my point.

Phase two of Behrens was completed in 2007 and never published or presented anywhere. Therefore, either Aspen marketing is crazy, or they have a study with bad results.

They ain't crazy. They have a study that they'd be crazy to release.

Finally the truth comes to the surface of all of your BS spam-trolling.
:cheers: :jamin: :rocker:

Well, cant say I agree with you, you need to consider who they are trying to get to read the study. They presented it to the professional community and now they are presenting it to the people who will benefit most from it.. parents with troubled kids. I never referred to journals when I was considering placement. If publishing it in journals would benefit them then I am sure they would do it. If they felt it wasnt any good then they would not have it on their web sites or have presented it at the APA Convention.

I think you need to step back and look at what is in everyone's best interest. Always remember who the customer is and who is buying.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #323 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:21:29 PM »

Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.

If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.

Whooter · « **Reply #324 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:25:53 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.

If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.

I am just talking about Phase I....

If you saw the amount of marketing they did for new drugs towards doctors vs towards the people who will use it you would be surprised. They have sales people standing at the doctors office door to pedal their new drug. Doctors read scientific journals so they advertise in them also.

If programs were required to get a referral from a licensed therapist prior to accepting a child do you think Aspen would be only advertising on the internet and on brochures and edcons? They would be advertising in Psychology today and spending a fortune getting their studies into every journal that sits in front of a shrink.

You need to leverage the studies where they will bring the biggest bang for your buck.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #325 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:30:08 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.

If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.

Phase two has been complete for over three years. Obviously it's results would be bad for business, so it has been self-censored by Aspen after building it up and hyping it for years. First one looked real enough to pass the uneducated eye, but this one obviously looks really bad or they'd be "crazy not to release it" according to Whooter.

Whooter · « **Reply #326 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:38:24 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.

If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.

Phase two has been complete for over three years. Obviously it's results would be bad for business, so it has been self-censored by Aspen after building it up and hyping it for years. First one looked real enough to pass the uneducated eye, but this one obviously looks really bad or they'd be "crazy not to release it" according to Whooter.

It is possible, yes, that they were disappointed with the results. Maybe they had a goal of 60% success rate after 12 months and the results fell short. Maybe they pulled the funding because they were not satisfied with Behrens work. Maybe it is still being worked on...... I dont know anyone who has the answer.

But right now we really dont know. If you hear toss up a link, I would be interested.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #327 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:51:47 PM »

I think we already know the answer. Aspen's marketing is ruthless and deceptive and if they had anything, anything at all, that even looked like a positive outcome it would be all over the internet. It's obvious.

Whooter · « **Reply #328 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:06:02 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

I think we already know the answer. Aspen's marketing is ruthless and deceptive and if they had anything, anything at all, that even looked like a positive outcome it would be all over the internet. It's obvious.

Until if and when it is released we can only speculate. My guess would be that it didnt live up to expectations. They want to keep working the business until they can see a sustained percentage that they like. At that point they will do another study and release the findings.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #329 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:07:51 PM »

Yep, another way to say that is "it showed the program doesn't work."

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry