Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[Whooter]

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"?

We have a study which was independently conducted.  We have a 1,000 kids and parents who were involved in this study and they reported that the program was effective for them.  This cannot (and should not) be swept under the carper either.

If its public information then it is not getting swept under the rug.  Its out there for everyone to see along with the studies,  the APA was made aware of the studies also.  I think parents need to read all the information and decide for themselves if these programs are safe or not,(I think we can all agree).  We need to show them the details on programs like MBA and also those of programs like ASR.  Have them speak with their local therapist, parents who have sent their children there, etc.

The key is to educate the parents as much as we can with the pros and the cons of the industry and have them make a healthy and informed choice for their family.  Information should not be filtered to show them just the negative or positive sides of the industry.



...

[Troll Control]

In other words, there's no rebuttal for these facts.

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]

In other words, there's no rebuttal for these facts.

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

  This is your list, DJ, not mine.  I didnt conclude this.  People are free to say what they like.  My conclusions are based on independent studies and the studies say differently.

Take a look at the study again.



...

[Troll Control]

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

In other words, again, there is no rebuttal of the above-listed facts.  These are undisputed and incontrovertible, hence no attempt to rebut.

[Whooter]

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

In other words, again, there is no rebuttal of the above-listed facts.  These are undisputed and incontrovertible, hence no attempt to rebut.

Exactly, I can say the moon is purple.  Okay no rebuttal, I must be correct then. lol

You are not making any sense, DJ, you can add another 10 line items to your list, but what is the point?  We were discussing a study with very well defined boundary conditions.  You are trying to define conditions that may apply to some kids , but not to others, how do you differentiate between them?

Were kids abused at the school they attended?  Maybe, maybe not.  Chances are there was a child who committed suicide during the course of our conversation this afternoon.  But that doesn't change the fact that 80% of the kids attending the selected programs improve as a result of their stay.  Maybe the other 20% were abused.  You have to read the study and stay with the facts.



...

[Troll Control]

Lols, but you're the false analogy rebuttal queen of Fornits.  If you have no rebuttal, then there's none to be made, even if stretched paper thin or even false on its face.  The bottom line is that this study does not speak to methods, programs included in the study are proven to be abusive, there's no control, no follow up, no peer review and it's never been published.  It's not even junk science.  It's no science at all.  Just junk.

[Whooter]

Lols, but you're the false analogy rebuttal queen of Fornits.  If you have no rebuttal, then there's none to be made, even if stretched paper thin or even false on its face.  The bottom line is that this study does not speak to methods, programs included in the study are proven to be abusive, there's no control, no follow up, no peer review and it's never been published.  It's not even junk science.  It's no science at all.  Just junk.

So I take it you have no facts so the study stands as is.  The APA had no problems with it, it received oversight from a third party independent review board,  but DJ feels all the study participants were abused and therefore it should be thrown out. lol

Who should we believe?  Hmmm.....



...

[Troll Control]

Or maybe we should believe the fiduciary of Aspen Education about the veracity of this unpublished, non-peer reviewed study about Aspen Education?  Lols.

[Troll Control]

I would just like to say that it is very difficult to have a conversation here. The above post is not mine. All the research done at canyon has been nothing but professional and thorough. It seems people don’t like to hear the truth here on fornits.
Why are you keeping your heads in the sand like this? Why not move forward and listen to different points of view and solicit open thinking? I would think many here could contribute to change rather than obstruct it.
The studies will always have a positive effect whether they are good or bad because they provide information and insight for those faced with making critical decisions for their families. I hope in time you will all come to see the benefits of research on the industry and how it determines future direction.Mark DeGroot.

 
Thanks for the user name suggestion, By the way, I have contacted all the groups you suggested and they were not interested in anything I had to say.  They only wanted information which was negative towards the industry and even tried to twist my words and refused to take any factual info I provided.
Why is everyone like this?  Why do you screen all the information here?

Mark,  Sometimes the ends just don't justify the means.  You can beat someone into submission... just b/c you have and it quiets them downs, doesn't make it an experience worth instituting.  There's teh question of human rights to be addreseed.  

With that said, there are NUMEROUS problems with this studys methodology that make even the claim that its a study laughable in its bias. More details to come to critique.  aspen should be ashamed of themselves.

Just wanted to say it again.  The poster logged in with my name is your (fornits') troll called "TheWho".  After I posted a couple of times he registered my name as a username and has been impersonating me since then.  

I agree with others here that the project is not substantive, many parts of the data have been falsified and that it is a biased, uncontrolled survey.

Or maybe we can believe an employee of Canyon Research who blew the whistle.  Of course, Whooter tried to assume his identity afterward.  Yeah, Whooter's really credible alright. :roflmao:

"Biased survey" says the Canyon employee...

[Whooter]

Or maybe we should believe the fiduciary of Aspen Education about the veracity of this unpublished, non-peer reviewed study about Aspen Education?  Lols.

Ha,Ha,Ha  okay, I'll take take that response as your way of saying you don't have a study to back up your claims.  I know you have a passion for believing that all programs are abusive.  But at the same time it is important to stick with the facts, follow the studies and reports and try to give a clear indication to parents on what the industry can provide.
Giving parents an example like MBA is fine as long as it is balanced with examples like ASR and the studies that have been conducted.  This gives parents a better opportunity to see if these programs are the right fit for their child.

There is typically never a good reason to withhold information and facts.



...

[Troll Control]

Giving parents an example like MBA is fine as long as it is balanced with examples like ASR

Bad example there, Whootie.  Both these programs have been charged with abusing kids.  I guess when the best "balance" you can find is one program shut down for abuse "balanced" with another charged with abuse, you're in bad shape.  You're in bad shape.

The Surgeon General's longitudinal clinical study concluded that aggregating distressed teens makes them worse.  So do several studies related to encounter groups.  And they're published, peer reviewed studies conducted by people other than Aspen employees and NATSAP board members, ala Behrens.

[Whooter]

Giving parents an example like MBA is fine as long as it is balanced with examples like ASR

Bad example there, Whootie.  Both these programs have been charged with abusing kids.  I guess when the best "balance" you can find is one program shut down for abuse "balanced" with another charged with abuse, you're in bad shape.  You're in bad shape.

The Surgeon General's longitudinal clinical study concluded that aggregating distressed teens makes them worse.  So do several studies related to encounter groups.  And they're published, peer reviewed studies conducted by people other than Aspen employees and NATSAP board members, ala Behrens.

So you feel that distressed teens should be isolated away from their friends?  which is it?  lol

Whoops, you forgot your link... still got mine.  This is an independent outcome study which covered a 1,000 kids and their parents in 2006.  Maybe there has been something since then.  We will have to wait and see, but until then lets take a look at a study which shows up to 80% of the kids who have improved during their time in a program (The programs are mentioned in the study):

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

You're like Golem, roaming Middle Earth, a slave to your precious.  Only your precious is Aspen Education.  

The Surgeon General's study has been posted here many times as well as the others.  You were just discussing them the other day in the "Group therapy makes teens worse" thread.  Go back and have another read.  I'm not here to do your busywork, fool.

BTW, skipping the part about both ASR and MBA being charged with abuse was an inartful and revealing dodge.

[Whooter]

You're like Golem, roaming Middle Earth, a slave to your precious.  Only your precious is Aspen Education.  

The Surgeon General's study has been posted here many times as well as the others.  You were just discussing them the other day in the "Group therapy makes teens worse" thread.  Go back and have another read.  I'm not here to do your busywork, fool.

BTW, skipping the part about both ASR and MBA being charged with abuse was an inartful and revealing dodge.

So a little name calling to throw off the readers to the fact that you dont have any link to provide.  Oh wait maybe you just forgot. lol  we were just talking about it, that's good enough.

Lets take another look at the study while we are all thinking about your reference from a week ago.


Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

Sure, let's do, shall we?  Have a look below.

There appears to be continued confusion around the study conducted by Ellen Behrens. While she and other industry pundits claim it was an Independent Study, nothing could be further from the truth.

1999 Behrens Clinical Director for Youth care
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens

2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html

2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm
 
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml

2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml
"We also tried to eliminate all students discharged from the programs before graduation because the clinical staff thought it was actually an inappropriate placement, or when they felt the program couldn't be helpful to the child. As a result, the operating assumption of the study is that the students included in the analyzed data were those who were appropriately placed."

http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5494.shtml
Comment: ....It would be helpful to know more about Dr. Behren’s research design and methodology. I presume she drew a random sample for the study; otherwise, the results cannot be generalized to the school/residential population at large.
Jerry W Clark
Dba Behavioral Services Ltd
Reno, NV

No Jerry, she didn't. Families from 9 Aspen programs participated in her "study". She and all her staff have links to Aspen programs.
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887

Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement:  Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc

2006 Behrens is a contributor to NATSAPs "Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5456.shtml

ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP APPLAUDS STUDY
(April 26, 2007) According to an article on PRNewswire, Elliot Sainer, President of Aspen Education Group (AEG), Cerritos, CA, announced "AEG is extremely pleased to learn of the very positive findings from the final phase of our industry's first long-term, multi-year clinical study on the effectiveness of private therapeutic residential programs for adolescents. AEG will continue to advocate for new industry research that will further illustrate and promote the best practices and methodologies and enhance our industry's abilities to produce positive and long-lasting results in adolescent therapeutic education."

I guess he was pleased. He paid her to present AEG in the best possible light.