Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[DannyB II]

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:

WoW, you waited all weekend and until you saw whooter come on line, to say this. I bet you feel better now. Ya, this will shut Whooter up. You got him now.

[Troll Control]

Ummm...Danny?  Have you ever heard of a little thing called a "calendar"?  Maybe you've heard of a "time stamp"?  That was posted last week (the post you quoted was written "Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:38 pm"), dum dum.  :agree:  

Perhaps if you stopped trolling for just a moment, you might have seen that we've moved on now to this important topic:

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.

[Whooter]

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.

Exactly, we agree here.  The study cannot insure peoples safety outside the boundaries of the study itself.  If children are being harmed by their parents, a school teacher etc. the IRB isnt going to necessarily detect this nor are they designed to.  The IRB is there to insure that the study itself doesn't bring harm to the participants in the form of drug interactions, testing, personal identifications and information being mishandled etc.



...

[Troll Control]

Exactly.  And in this case the kids were being harmed by Aspen Education programs that have been charged with or even shut down for systematic child abuse.  Interestingly, the entire study is predicated on the idea that harming children is "effective."  You're damn right it is.  Deadly effective and extremely destructive.

Sure, I could get my dog to stop jumping on the couch if I just kicked her in the face every time she did it and Ms. Behrens and Aspen Education would promote this as "DJ's program is proven effective at reducing bad behaviors.  His study was overseen by an independent third party."

[SUCK IT]

[Whooter]

Sure, I could get my dog to stop jumping on the couch if I just kicked her in the face every time she did it and Ms. Behrens and Aspen Education would promote this as "DJ's program is proven effective at reducing bad behaviors.  His study was overseen by an independent third party."

If we did a study of before and after and never looked at the process (kicking the dog in the face) then it would be proven to be effective.  The oversight committee would be there to oversee the study to insure the dog was not abused at all by collecting data via dangerous methods or feeding it unsafe drugs etc.

But the oversight committee isnt there to oversee the process of the behavior change.

DJ, if you have been involved in research like you claim you have been, why wouldnt you know all of this?  IRBs are not there to insure prison inmates are not harmed or raped while they are in prison(if they were studying prisoners).  They only oversee the study itself and insure the study process doesnt bring harm to them, the data is collected accurately.

Imagine you were performing a study to insure that goalies face masks were safe and effective.  You would set up a study based on face masks and travel from school to school maybe, interviewing students to see if they were hurt by the hockey puck and there would be an oversight committee to insure your study did not harm anyone or expose the children to identity loss.
If one of the school coaches was abusing the kids or an uncle of one of the kids or if the team was beaten at the end of each game or forced to endure LGATs.. this would not show up in your study, nor would the oversight committee detect this.  It is outside the scope of both processes.



...

[Troll Control]

I just wanted to see you write it out so everyone can see that the programs abused these kids and there was no oversight of their methods and no review of the study's conclusions.  I wanted to see you admit that and now you have.

But the oversight committee isnt there to oversee the process of the behavior change.

In other words, the "third party oversight" invoked by Aspen's marketing is just window dressing and no methods used to force behavior change were ever overseen or reviewed by anyone.  I just want to be crystal clear on that point.

So here are the obvious conclusions:

1.  Kids were abused during the study
2.  Kids were highly motivated to self-report positive change in order to make the abuse stop
3.  Behrens concluded that child abuse is effective at inducing positive self-reporting
4.  There was no oversight or review of program methods
5.  There was never any follow up
6.  All data gathered was collected while kids were detained in programs

[DannyB II]

Sure, I could get my dog to stop jumping on the couch if I just kicked her in the face every time she did it and Ms. Behrens and Aspen Education would promote this as "DJ's program is proven effective at reducing bad behaviors.  His study was overseen by an independent third party."

If we did a study of before and after and never looked at the process (kicking the dog in the face) then it would be proven to be effective.  The oversight committee would be there to oversee the study to insure the dog was not abused at all by collecting data via dangerous methods or feeding it unsafe drugs etc.

But the oversight committee isnt there to oversee the process of the behavior change.

DJ, if you have been involved in research like you claim you have been, why wouldnt you know all of this?  IRBs are not there to insure prison inmates are not harmed or raped while they are in prison(if they were studying prisoners).  They only oversee the study itself and insure the study process doesnt bring harm to them, the data is collected accurately.

Imagine you were performing a study to insure that goalies face masks were safe and effective.  You would set up a study based on face masks and travel from school to school maybe, interviewing students to see if they were hurt by the hockey puck and there would be an oversight committee to insure your study did not harm anyone or expose the children to identity loss.
If one of the school coaches was abusing the kids or an uncle of one of the kids or if the team was beaten at the end of each game or forced to endure LGATs.. this would not show up in your study, nor would the oversight committee detect this.  It is outside the scope of both processes.



...

Now does that cover it, DJ.

[Troll Control]

No, it doesn't.  

If Whooter's little analogy included that one school's hockey masks were known to be defective and kids were routinely hurt while using them and the coach beat the shit out of every kid who didn't say "these masks are great and really help keep me safe!" then it would be accurate.

Right now, this is what "covers it," Danny:

I just wanted to see you write it out so everyone can see that the programs abused these kids and there was no oversight of their methods and no review of the study's conclusions.  I wanted to see you admit that and now you have.

But the oversight committee isnt there to oversee the process of the behavior change.

In other words, the "third party oversight" invoked by Aspen's marketing is just window dressing and no methods used to force behavior change were ever overseen or reviewed by anyone.  I just want to be crystal clear on that point.

So here are the obvious conclusions:

1.  Kids were abused during the study
2.  Kids were highly motivated to self-report positive change in order to make the abuse stop
3.  Behrens concluded that child abuse is effective at inducing positive self-reporting
4.  There was no oversight or review of program methods
5.  There was never any follow up
6.  All data gathered was collected while kids were detained in programs

[Whooter]

No, it doesn't.  

If Whooter's little analogy included that one school's hockey masks were known to be defective and kids were routinely hurt while using them and the coach beat the shit out of every kid who didn't say "these masks are great and really help keep me safe!" then it would be accurate.

Right now, this is what "covers it," Danny:

I just wanted to see you write it out so everyone can see that the programs abused these kids and there was no oversight of their methods and no review of the study's conclusions.  I wanted to see you admit that and now you have.

But the oversight committee isnt there to oversee the process of the behavior change.

In other words, the "third party oversight" invoked by Aspen's marketing is just window dressing and no methods used to force behavior change were ever overseen or reviewed by anyone.  I just want to be crystal clear on that point.

So here are the obvious conclusions:

1.  Kids were abused during the study
2.  Kids were highly motivated to self-report positive change in order to make the abuse stop
3.  Behrens concluded that child abuse is effective at inducing positive self-reporting
4.  There was no oversight or review of program methods
5.  There was never any follow up
6.  All data gathered was collected while kids were detained in programs

I sense the reason you are so angry here, DJ, is it became obvious that you have no idea how studies are conducted.  Why would the Review Board spend time inside the programs understanding the schools process when their scope only includes a study taking place at intake and outtake?
How many studies have you been involved in?

How would the oversight committee know that the hockey masks are defective prior to the embankment of the study, why would they even care?  The IRB is in the business of Studies (not Hockey Masks).  The study would be structured in such a way as to keep the identities of the kids confidential so that they can be free to speak openly about the safety of the masks (outside of the realm of the coach).  Do you see what I am saying?

If there were staff people there, (at Outtake) like you said, to beat the shit out of any kids who said the program was bad, then this would be picked up.  This would be within the scope of the study.  The oversight committee insured that the kids and parents were kept safe during this process.

So you are mistaken again and dont understand the scope of the Review Board.



...

[Troll Control]

Why would the Review Board spend time inside the programs understanding the schools process when their scope only includes a study taking place at intake and outtake?

(Actually, just a self-survey at intake and exit, but why quibble over a settled point?)

This is precisely my point.  There is no review of program methods and Aspen's marketing group, you included, just keeps repeating "third party oversight, third party oversight" as if that actually means something in regard to program practices.  You have proven my point twice now.  

One of the programs studied was shut down for systematic child abuse.  How did abusing those kids help them?  Please explain.

Angry?  Hardly.  I have no vested interest in Aspen Education.  Why would I be angry about the fact that they sponsored a work that is completely invalid?  I think you may be a bit angry at having to defend it, but not me.  Remember, you're the one with a fiduciary interest in Aspen programs, not me.

So here are the obvious conclusions:

1. Kids were abused during the study
2. Kids were highly motivated to self-report positive change in order to make the abuse stop
3. Behrens concluded that child abuse is effective at inducing positive self-reporting
4. There was no oversight or review of program methods
5. There was never any follow up
6. All data gathered was collected while kids were detained in programs

The above reasons are probably why this study was never peer reviewed or published.  It doesn't show anything other than that if kids are abused they'll say whatever it takes to make it stop.  That is, positive self-reporting can get them out of the program.  Negative self-reporting, on the other hand, could easily lead to further detention.

[DannyB II]

No, it doesn't.  

If Whooter's little analogy included that one school's hockey masks were known to be defective and kids were routinely hurt while using them and the coach beat the shit out of every kid who didn't say "these masks are great and really help keep me safe!" then it would be accurate.

Right now, this is what "covers it," Danny:

I just wanted to see you write it out so everyone can see that the programs abused these kids and there was no oversight of their methods and no review of the study's conclusions.  I wanted to see you admit that and now you have.

But the oversight committee isnt there to oversee the process of the behavior change.

In other words, the "third party oversight" invoked by Aspen's marketing is just window dressing and no methods used to force behavior change were ever overseen or reviewed by anyone.  I just want to be crystal clear on that point.

So here are the obvious conclusions:

1.  Kids were abused during the study
2.  Kids were highly motivated to self-report positive change in order to make the abuse stop
3.  Behrens concluded that child abuse is effective at inducing positive self-reporting
4.  There was no oversight or review of program methods
5.  There was never any follow up
6.  All data gathered was collected while kids were detained in programs

I sense the reason you are so angry here, DJ, is it became obvious that you have no idea how studies are conducted.  Why would the Review Board spend time inside the programs understanding the schools process when their scope only includes a study taking place at intake and outtake?
How many studies have you been involved in?

How would the oversight committee know that the hockey masks are defective prior to the embankment of the study, why would they even care?  The IRB is in the business of Studies (not Hockey Masks).  The study would be structured in such a way as to keep the identities of the kids confidential so that they can be free to speak openly about the safety of the masks (outside of the realm of the coach).  Do you see what I am saying?

If there were staff people there, (at Outtake) like you said, to beat the shit out of any kids who said the program was bad, then this would be picked up.  This would be within the scope of the study.  The oversight committee insured that the kids and parents were kept safe during this process.

So you are mistaken again and dont understand the scope of the Review Board.



...

I waited patiently for your clarification, Whooter. As you can see I did not jump in this time.
Now DJ, does this now cover "it".

[Troll Control]

Why would the Review Board spend time inside the programs understanding the schools process when their scope only includes a study taking place at intake and outtake?

(Actually, just a self-survey at intake and exit, but why quibble over a settled point?)

This is precisely my point.  There is no review of program methods and Aspen's marketing group, you included, just keeps repeating "third party oversight, third party oversight" as if that actually means something in regard to program practices.  You have proven my point twice now.  

One of the programs studied was shut down for systematic child abuse.  How did abusing those kids help them?  Please explain.

Angry?  Hardly.  I have no vested interest in Aspen Education.  Why would I be angry about the fact that they sponsored a work that is completely invalid?  I think you may be a bit angry at having to defend it, but not me.  Remember, you're the one with a fiduciary interest in Aspen programs, not me.

So here are the obvious conclusions:

1. Kids were abused during the study
2. Kids were highly motivated to self-report positive change in order to make the abuse stop
3. Behrens concluded that child abuse is effective at inducing positive self-reporting
4. There was no oversight or review of program methods
5. There was never any follow up
6. All data gathered was collected while kids were detained in programs

The above reasons are probably why this study was never peer reviewed or published.  It doesn't show anything other than that if kids are abused they'll say whatever it takes to make it stop.  That is, positive self-reporting can get them out of the program.  Negative self-reporting, on the other hand, could easily lead to further detention.

We're working on it, Danny.  Whooter is a bit sclerotic to the facts at hand due to his financial stake in Aspen Education.  He doesn't really want to look at the facts, he just wants to try to spin for Aspen's benefit.

[Whooter]

This is precisely my point. There is no review of program methods and Aspen's marketing group, you included, just keeps repeating "third party oversight, third party oversight" as if that actually means something in regard to program practices. You have proven my point twice now.

You keep mixing up program methods with study methods.  The IRB isn’t involved in the program methods.  They oversaw the Study Methods.

As far as your obvious conclusions, I don’t agree with them.  If you really feel kids were abused in the programs then you have the right to think this, this is an open forum.  I personally agree with the conclusions based on the results of the independent study itself which received third party oversight from an independent Review Board.  The kids and their parents concurred (from their own accord) that up to 80% of them felt the program was successful for them and they improved as a result of their stay there.

If you find this abusive then you are welcome to your interpretation.

I have a neighbor up the street who feels spanking a kid is abusive and that is his right to think that way, but that doesn't mean that spanking is abusive.  Do you see the difference?



...

[Troll Control]

Interpretation?  MBA was included in this study and was shut down by Oregon authorities for child abuse and neglect.  ASR was also cited for child abuse.  It has nothing to do with interpretation.  It's documented fact.

I'm not confusing anything.  There was no review of methods, which consist of proven child abuse.

Why do you try to sweep this under the rug?  It's public information.

Why did Behrens study proven abusive programs and declare them "effective"?