Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[DannyB II]

Yeah, Anne, don't pay attention to the Canyon Research employee!  He has no idea what happened.

Oh would you just rest, DJ. The Prosecution rests.
Let it Go....

[Troll Control]

Well, not quite.  

I also find it deeply disturbing that Mount Bachelor Academy was one of the Aspen facilities included in this study.  I wonder how it could be concluded that this program helps kids when it was forcibly closed for child abuse?  I think that taints the researcher, the methods and the conclusions.  

This is one reason why this study has never been submited for peer review, in my opinion.  It's a fairly devastating indictment of one's research methods when the research concludes that MBA is effective at helping children when the fact is that it was closed for abusing children.

[Troll Control]

Content moved to this thread from inappropriate venue...

This work used two self-report surveys, the YSR (Youth Self Report), and the CBCL (Child Behavior Check List), each of which consist of a ten minute checklist.  These checklists were given to the kids (YSF) and parents (CBCL) while the kids were still in the program which is poor methodology to say the least, especially considering many of these kids were abused and neglected in the programs and self-preservation would motivate them to say anything to get out and the parents had no routine ability to observe and report on their child's behavior.  

These facts are readily admitted by the researchers.  For example, they state that youth and parents have tendencies to underreport problems.  That is, the kids "fake it to get out,"  and the parents need to justify the expenditure.

...parents are often confronted  by clinical staff if they discharge an adolescent against program advice, they, along with their adolescent,  may have a conscious or unconscious motivation to underreport problems.

The majority of subjects were in programs only six months, that is, pulled early against program protestations.

Additionally, the YSR and CBCL are both data acquisition tools that are exempt from continuing review under 45 CFR 46 101(b), so these findings have never been reviewed or analyzed.

Considering that several of these facilities have also been charged with child abuse and neglect, the survey results are unreliable.  This is likely why this study has never been reviewed or published except as a marketing tool for Aspen Education.

[Troll Control]

Content moved from inappropriate venue...

A number of issues warrant further research attention...this study did not use a control group.

No control group?  What did they measure against?

Future research in private residential treatment needs to address the question of post-discharge maintenance of treatment gains.  The residential treatment literature indicates that a significant portion of adolescents who function well at discharge subsequently experience a decline when transferred to a lower level-of-care (Curry, 1991; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005).  The second phase of this study will explore that issue using the private residential data of the present study as the point of comparison.

It has been almost six years since this study was performed.  Why has the "second phase" never been conducted?

Aspen got the marketing tool it wanted from the first, deeply flawed project which has no scientific validity, as admitted in the work itself.  Just read it.  Why would they pay for a second phase when they know the kids take a nose-dive after the program (e.g. Whooter's daughter, et al)?

[Whooter]

Interesting Tidbit from the study:

An important secondary finding is that very few adolescents decline in functioning over the
course of treatment. This finding is significant when considered in light of research that has
raised the possibility that group-based adolescent treatment can lead to deterioration, in certain
instances. Specifically, some research has found that association with deviant peers in therapy
may increase problematic behaviors, such as externalizing behavior and substance use (Dishion,
McCord, & Poulin, 1999)

[Ursus]

Interesting Tidbit from the study:

An important secondary finding is that very few adolescents decline in functioning over the course of treatment. This finding is significant when considered in light of research that has raised the possibility that group-based adolescent treatment can lead to deterioration, in certain instances. Specifically, some research has found that association with deviant peers in therapy may increase problematic behaviors, such as externalizing behavior and substance use (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999)

Of course, Aspen Ed wants to try to discredit the findings of Dishion, McCord, & Poulin... given that their research showed the negative affects that Guided Group Interaction ultimately had on certain participants. And GGI and its variants is pretty much what this whole industry is based on.

Problem is, Behrens cherry-picked her sample so overtly, it's impossible to ignore the shallowness of her data. So, I'm afraid I don't find her finding so significant, whatever light she asks us to consider it in!  

[Troll Control]

Declined in functioning compared to what, anyway?  There's no control group.

[DannyB II]

Well, not quite.  

I also find it deeply disturbing that Mount Bachelor Academy was one of the Aspen facilities included in this study.  I wonder how it could be concluded that this program helps kids when it was forcibly closed for child abuse?  I think that taints the researcher, the methods and the conclusions.  

This is one reason why this study has never been submited for peer review, in my opinion.  It's a fairly devastating indictment of one's research methods when the research concludes that MBA is effective at helping children when the fact is that it was closed for abusing children.

[Whooter]

Interesting Tidbit from the study:

An important secondary finding is that very few adolescents decline in functioning over the course of treatment. This finding is significant when considered in light of research that has raised the possibility that group-based adolescent treatment can lead to deterioration, in certain instances. Specifically, some research has found that association with deviant peers in therapy may increase problematic behaviors, such as externalizing behavior and substance use (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999)

Of course, Aspen Ed wants to try to discredit the findings of Dishion, McCord, & Poulin... given that their research showed the negative affects that Guided Group Interaction ultimately had on certain participants. And GGI and its variants is pretty much what this whole industry is based on.

Problem is, Behrens cherry-picked her sample so overtly, it's impossible to ignore the shallowness of her data. So, I'm afraid I don't find her finding so significant, whatever light she asks us to consider it in!  

One of the great things about living in this country is the freedom to believe what we want.  They have been putting out studies for decades, on the effects of tobacco and a large segment of our population still dont believe the findings and will argue tooth and nail against them  (like many here do) and tobacco is still made available to them because it is their choice.  Its a natural occurrence.



...

[Ursus]

Interesting Tidbit from the study:

An important secondary finding is that very few adolescents decline in functioning over the course of treatment. This finding is significant when considered in light of research that has raised the possibility that group-based adolescent treatment can lead to deterioration, in certain instances. Specifically, some research has found that association with deviant peers in therapy may increase problematic behaviors, such as externalizing behavior and substance use (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999)

Of course, Aspen Ed wants to try to discredit the findings of Dishion, McCord, & Poulin... given that their research showed the negative affects that Guided Group Interaction ultimately had on certain participants. And GGI and its variants is pretty much what this whole industry is based on.

Problem is, Behrens cherry-picked her sample so overtly, it's impossible to ignore the shallowness of her data. So, I'm afraid I don't find her finding so significant, whatever light she asks us to consider it in!  

One of the great things about living in this country is the freedom to believe what we want.  They have been putting out studies for decades, on the effects of tobacco and a large segment of our population still dont believe the findings and will argue tooth and nail against them  (like many here do) and tobacco is still made available to them because it is their choice.  Its a natural occurrence.

In a democratic society, psychological coercion and propaganda take the place of more overt and physically brutal means of controlling and exploiting others.

[Whooter]

Interesting Tidbit from the study:

An important secondary finding is that very few adolescents decline in functioning over the course of treatment. This finding is significant when considered in light of research that has raised the possibility that group-based adolescent treatment can lead to deterioration, in certain instances. Specifically, some research has found that association with deviant peers in therapy may increase problematic behaviors, such as externalizing behavior and substance use (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999)

Of course, Aspen Ed wants to try to discredit the findings of Dishion, McCord, & Poulin... given that their research showed the negative affects that Guided Group Interaction ultimately had on certain participants. And GGI and its variants is pretty much what this whole industry is based on.

Problem is, Behrens cherry-picked her sample so overtly, it's impossible to ignore the shallowness of her data. So, I'm afraid I don't find her finding so significant, whatever light she asks us to consider it in!  

One of the great things about living in this country is the freedom to believe what we want.  They have been putting out studies for decades, on the effects of tobacco and a large segment of our population still dont believe the findings and will argue tooth and nail against them  (like many here do) and tobacco is still made available to them because it is their choice.  Its a natural occurrence.

In a democratic society, psychological coercion and propaganda take the place of more overt and physically brutal means of controlling and exploiting others.

I agree,  If I still smoked cigarettes I would light up to that!!



...

[Troll Control]

Funny, once Whooter got pinched linking to Google Docs and saying it was WIRB's website and also got caught quoting a sample form on Google Docs and attributing it to the WIRB website and insisting that human research studies aren't covered under 45 CFR 46 (he said only "high school tests" were federally regulated, not studies lols) even though it's stated right on the wesite he claimed to be quoting he was glad to abandon the other thread.  Got caught fibbing and fabricating yet again...

I just explained data recording versus information obtained.  Go back and read again if you missed it.  If you did read it, then you're too dumb to understand it and should look for a new hobby.

As far as continuing review...none was done and none claimed by the researcher.

The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

That's all it means.  Nothing more.  Straight from the WIRB site.  Take note, this is their policy statement not a sample clinical trial form which has nothing to do with a self-report survey study.  The consent form was approved before the study and the study was never submitted for review.

We also have links to WIRBs' own process which shows they continue to observe the study.

No, we don't.  We have a link to a sample form for a clinical trial from "Google Docs" and not the WIRB website.  You are trying to mislead people by saying this is from the WIRB website.  As stated above the Certificate of Approval, by WIRB policy, is the approval of the consent form.

WIRB Statement of Compliance

Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) is duly constituted, has written procedures for initial and continuing review of clinical trials; prepares written minutes of convened meetings, and retains records pertaining to the review and approval process; all in compliance with requirements of FDA regulations 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56, HHS regulations 45 CFR 46, and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E6, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), as applicable. WIRB is registered with OHRP/FDA; our IRB registration number is IRB00000533, parent organization number is IORG0000432 (effective through September 16, 2012).

"Continuing review" is explicitly stated to be for "clinical trials" and clinical trials only.  Funny what you see when you view the source and not sample forms from Google docs.

 :roflmao:  What a phony.

[Whooter]

Funny, once Whooter got pinched linking to Google Docs and saying it was WIRB's website and also got caught quoting a sample form on Google Docs and attributing it to the WIRB website and insisting that human research studies aren't covered under 45 CFR 46 (he said only "high school tests" were federally regulated, not studies lols) even though it's stated right on the wesite he claimed to be quoting he was glad to abandon the other thread.  Got caught fibbing and fabricating yet again...

Oh, the desperation grows and the truth hurts DJ.  Anyone can click on the link and know it is WIRBs' site lol

 The quote was from WIRBs' website :

What is an IRB and what does it have to do with research?

........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).

So based on WIRBs own practices Standard procedure is that WIRB continues to review the ongoing study after it reviews the consent form and gives them a  "Certificate of approval"

You shot yourself in the foot, DJ, You wanted so desperately to prove there was no oversight for this study.  But your work actually proved my point that the studies contained the childrens' names and that disqualified them from exemption.  If you had been honest up front you would not be in this situation right know.

 If you want me to produce the study forms again just let me know and we can go over it again.


...

[Whooter]

So, DJ, explain to us again how this study didnt receive oversight from WIRB!  lol



...

[Troll Control]

It's really simple.  This is the WIRB policy.  Here, take a look at WIRB's compliance statement which explicitly states continuing review is for clinical trials and clinical trials only.  Survey research is not reviewed as stated in their policy.

WIRB Statement of Compliance

Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) is duly constituted, has written procedures for initial and continuing review of clinical trials; prepares written minutes of convened meetings, and retains records pertaining to the review and approval process; all in compliance with requirements of FDA regulations 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56, HHS regulations 45 CFR 46, and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E6, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), as applicable. WIRB is registered with OHRP/FDA; our IRB registration number is IRB00000533, parent organization number is IORG0000432 (effective through September 16, 2012).

Simple question: Is Behrens' work a clinical trial?  If the answer is "no" then there is no continuing review.  If you have a problem with WIRB's compliance procedures you'll have to ask them why they only review clinical trials.

Or I guess you could link to Aspen Education again and say that's WIRB policy. :rofl: