Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[Troll Control]

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.

Direct quote from the summary Whooter keeps linking to.  Same link.  He just doesn't want anyone to see that he's not reporting statistically relevent items from the paper.  He's cherry-picking bits and pieces without context, as the above shows.

Ask him about the phase two findings that were complete in 2007.  Why were they not published?  Hmmm...?

[Whooter]

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.

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.




...

[Troll Control]

No, 31% showed "reliable change" and 50% did not.

Got that 2007 follow up for us yet?  I'd like to see how well they did after a year.

[Whooter]

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.




...

[Troll Control]

Of that, 31% reported
improvement that exceeded the 2 standard deviation cut-off for reliable change

"Reliable change" here is defined by two SD's above the mean.  31% met that standard.  50% did not meet reliable change standards because they were too near the mean.  And this is after the data was scrubbed of in-program failures.

What was the reliable change rate at one year post-program?  That would be included in the 2007 follow up.  Do you have that for us?

[elangraduate]

WHOOTER FUCK YOU!!!

[Whooter]

Of that, 31% reported
improvement that exceeded the 2 standard deviation cut-off for reliable change

"Reliable change" here is defined by two SD's above the mean.  31% met that standard.  50% did not meet reliable change standards because they were too near the mean.  And this is after the data was scrubbed of in-program failures.

What was the reliable change rate at one year post-program?  That would be included in the 2007 follow up.  Do you have that for us?

Exactly and on a normal curve 2 sigma would equate to 95.5%.  31% of the kids exceeded this mark and the other 50% fell below the 95.5% mark... more towards the norm or center of the curve.

81% saw at least some reduction in symptoms.



...

[Troll Control]

With two SD'd being the watermark for reliable change.  50% showed no reliable change, that is, they were "treatment failures."  And that's after the data was scrubbed of all kids who didn't do well in the program.  

How did that hold up over time, Whooter?  What did the 2007 results show?

[Whooter]

With two SD'd being the watermark for reliable change.  50% showed no reliable change, that is, they were "treatment failures."  And that's after the data was scrubbed of all kids who didn't do well in the program.  

How did that hold up over time, Whooter?  What did the 2007 results show?

81% saw at least some reduction in symptoms.



...

[Troll Control]

Can you show that data from the follow up?  Or are you just making up figures here?  I noticed you provided no link.

What you keep quoting is data that was gathered before the kids left the program.  What happened at the follow up in 2007?

[Whooter]

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.




...

[Whooter]

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered”

page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

With two SD'd being the watermark for reliable change.  50% showed no reliable change, that is, they were "treatment failures."  And that's after the data was scrubbed of all kids who didn't do well in the program.  

How did that hold up over time, Whooter?  What did the 2007 results show?

Don't forget to include the data on reliability.  Only 31% showed reliable change after the data was manipulated to remove the kids that didn't do well.

And we don't know really how reliable that 31% success rate is unless we see a follow up.

[Whooter]

With two SD'd being the watermark for reliable change.  50% showed no reliable change, that is, they were "treatment failures."  And that's after the data was scrubbed of all kids who didn't do well in the program.  

How did that hold up over time, Whooter?  What did the 2007 results show?

Don't forget to include the data on reliability.  Only 31% showed reliable change after the data was manipulated to remove the kids that didn't do well.

And we don't know really how reliable that 31% success rate is unless we see a follow up.

The one year follow-up could show 81% sustained.  But until the study is released we don't know that.



...

[Troll Control]

In other words, you admit you made up the data.  

It could show that Bigfoot mating is 81% successful.  But you posted it as if it were a fact, which it is not.  The bottom line is you don't have a shred of data gathered outside the program walls and that's a big problem for your position.  Instead of admitting this study has no validity outside the program walls, you just make up data to suggest it does or try to pass off other studies as Behrens' study.  

You're dishonest.  You keep proving that.  If you had a case you'd make your case, but instead you just spam troll with made up figures, as you just admitted.