Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[Dysfunction Junction]

This "study" has been so thoroughly debunked that Whooter has resorted to posing as a research scientist to support its findings.  This, people, is what industry people do when they can't sustain a coherent argument: they impersonate someone who appears to have gravitas and use that sockpuppet to make their point that they already lost.

Don't be fooled by Whooter.  He's just an industry troll looking to discredit abuse victims to promote the industry.

Whooter has been busy impersonating a research scientist from Canyon Research.  Too much!

Are there any other groups anyone can suggest which would be help translate what Mark witnessed (fraud) by Aspen Education Group into a criminal or civil action?

This would be a good idea and would force many of these organizations like heal, issacorp,cafety and fornits to face the truth about what these studies have uncovered. If there were a civil suit then the studies could no longer be ignored by these people.

It amazes me why they chose to ignore information like this.  Their position is getting weaker and weaker as the industry grows yet they stay on their present course.  Why not try to get out and help some of these kids and their families.  It is a much more satisfying than trying to deceive people and tear them down.

It is because they work in half truths.  they dont want to accept the studies because it goes against what they are working towards.  Any type of study is going to damage them because the studies show the industry to be effective and safe every time.  
If you called Heal or the others and told them you were abused in a program they would take you at face value and report it as truth.  But on the other hand if you provide them with facts and studies they reject it and the information never gets reported.

Thank you for clearing this up. I will not continue to post here if the trolling doesn’t stop.  I came to fornits to discuss the canyon research study and no one here seems to be interested.  The other sites didn’t want the truth either.  Part of me thinks these sites are behind the trolling.  The study is valid and shows the programs to be extemely effective.

Mark DeGroot I couldn’t log in

Even signing "Mark DeGroot" at the bottom.

And again:

MARK: PLEASE CONTACT ISAC, HEAL, AND CAFETY.

I tried all of those organizations and none of them were interested in talking to me.  It seems they only wanted to hear negative things about the industry and disregarded any facts that I presented.  Then I come here to fornits and feel I am getting pushed out by all the trolling.
Why is this?  Why not have a valid discussion?

Mark DeGroot

Link

And here he's claiming again to be "Mark DeGroot" and feigning interest in Dave Marcus' book which he has pimped here for ears, but as "Mark DeGroot" he is keen to this "fresh information."  LOLS.

Try making a few posts that you were abused in a program and then try making a few posts that says you were helped by one or introduce a study. See if you are welcomed equally
Interesting to say the least.

Maybe it's time to move the only positive program reviews away from the referral pimp sites and just push it all out onto yelp. The good, the bad, the whatever.


Might as well. Consumer reviews and feedback are always fun to read.

Try looking at it from our point of view

Wow. Irony.

Imagine if a Pulitzer prized author decided to investigate the Industry and joins a peer group and lives at a program 24/7 for over a year and then writes a book about his findings.  Wouldn’t you think this would be valuable information?  Do you think it

I don’t understand why people would try to impersonate me and twist my words.  The last post used my name but was not written by me.  I thought by getting a user name this would stop.
The research done by Canyon Research and Consulting was a good solid study.  The people working there are dedicated and professional.  This attempt to damage their reputation and the results is appalling and void of any truth or bases.

And he even squeals with delight as a guest claiming "Whooter is watching from the sidelines."  How rich this is.

You're not fooling anyone, Whooter.  Every time you try to say "Brucie did it" it's a dead giveaway you're lying.  

Let's be clear:  TheWho stole Mark DeGroot's identity here on Fornits.  The guy guy logging in as "Mark DeGroot" is TheWho and then he tries to blame it on "Bruce".  Don't be scammed by TheWho.  And TheWho is John Reuben, so John Reuben does post here, he just does it posing as several other people, the latest is "Mark DeGroot" whose identity he assumed in the name of "adding balance to the discussion".

Sorry Bruce, but your writing style gives you away every time.  You always try to blame all the guest posts on thewho, aka Cindy, aka Rueben.  If it werent so funny it would be sad.
But I am with the other poster.  It is fun to watch and I am sure Whooter is getting a hoot watching all of this from the sidelines lol

Link

Don't get scammed by Whooter's sockpuppets.  He has used (and been caught) over FIFTY different aliases here on Fornits.

[Dysfunction Junction]

Peer review and publication are only required if the study is to be taken seriously.  This one is rife with problems and obviously would fail a peer review, so it was never submitted for one.

Phase 2 was supposed to be one year follow up and was never done.  It's four years overdue already.  It's pretty clear this was done for marketing purposes only.  It isn't scientifically valid in any way.

This is the proper thread for continuing discussion of the Behrens marketing brochure.

[Whooter]

Peer review and publication are only required if the study is to be taken seriously.  This one is rife with problems and obviously would fail a peer review, so it was never submitted for one.

Phase 2 was supposed to be one year follow up and was never done.  It's four years overdue already.  It's pretty clear this was done for marketing purposes only.  It isn't scientifically valid in any way.

This is the proper thread for continuing discussion of the Behrens marketing brochure.

Bringing out a few of your sockpuppets?  Troll Control, Dysfunction junction and Watchful Yeoman etal.  You must take comfort in that you always agree with each other and support each others posts.  Why do you need so many log-in names?



...

[Dysfunction Junction]

This is the proper thread for continuing discussion of the Behrens marketing brochure.

We can discuss Whooter's 50 seperate aliases on another thread if he likes.  It should be in the OFFA where it belongs though.  The mods shouldn't have to clean up his trolling messes in every thread just because he keeps getting caught lying and pwned.  That's not fair.

[Dysfunction Junction]

I guess its pretty apparent in industry circles that the Behrens marketing brochure is not scientifically valid.

Aspen, to its great credit, commissioned an extensive outcome study blanketing its schools, excluding its wilderness programs. A problem arises when the study is used to convince others of the effectiveness of one school or treatment center, ignoring the fact that the results of many schools have been lumped together.

Ellen Behrens, Ph.D. conducted the study.   Dr.  Behrens is well known to us at FamilyLight sm.  We have utmost confidence in her competence and integrity.  To all appearances the study was intended to address and counteract the impact of prior research that indicated that residential treatment is no more effective than outpatient treatment.  Apparently a parallel design was used so the comparison to the earlier research would be "apples to apples" and  “oranges to oranges” and not “apples to oranges.”  

If the purpose had been to best document long term effectiveness of the schools and treatment centers at issue, we can think of various designs that would have yielded higher powered results. But that is not a criticism.  The purpose appeared to be to provide a strong basis for comparison to the earlier research, a purpose well served with the design followed and, we believe, the study itself served that purpose extremely well.  So far, kudos to Aspen and to Dr. Behrens.

Our problem is not with the study itself or with the result for the purpose intended. So far we agree.   Our problem is with the uses to which Aspen’s marketing effort has applied the results of the study.  In general, Aspen has used the results of the study to lead readers to believe that the study proves effectiveness of individual schools that participated in the study. This is simply not what the study is about.

Aspen might make the argument that the programs are similar enough that it is a fair conclusion to draw.   Ok, that seems to us to be a bit of a stretch but we would also know how to defend that – if the programs really are similar.  The problem is, they are not (similar).  The programs ranged from recently defunct Mt. Bachelor Academy, an “emotional growth school” to the clinically intensive Youth Care.  At Mt. Bachelor Academy, the school took pride in their history of emphasizing an “emotional growth” curriculum as opposed to primary use of credentialed therapists to effect change, as opposed to Youth Care which is hospital-like in its clinical intensity and its emphasis on psychiatry.  

That is a general problem.  We are specifically disturbed by the use of the study on the website of Turn-About Ranch (as of March, 2010).  This is typically a 100 day program compared to all of the others which were intended to serve clients primarily (and in most cases only) in much longer term stays.  To suggest that this study addresses success specifically at Turn-About Ranch in any meaningful way is simply misleading.  That is the worst example.  But when we have heard the study described at conferences, the point was made with some emphasis that [sie=150]it does not document success in ANY specific treatment program.[/size]

Remember: The point of the study was to demonstrate that for certain populations in residential treatment in general – not enrollment in any particular school – had an impact greater than home based family treatment.  This was an “apples to apples” and "oranges to oranges" comparison to an earlier study suggesting that home based family treatment yielded superior outcomes to residential treatment.  

On that point, the results are legitimate and convincing.   There are very legitimate questions about whether the reporting methods of either the Aspen study or the study (ies) it was meant to refute produced reliable outcome data for any program or group of programs.  What it did reliably and factually was to negate the conclusion of the prior studies claiming that outpatient work produces better results than residential.

Clever wording has, in general, avoided making objectively false claims in writing or on the web, while leading unsophisticated readers to conclusions not supported by the study.   However, we had occasion to bring to Aspen executives an incident in which the then admission director (now former admission director) represented the study as an outcome study specifically about Turn-About Ranch, claiming the percentages of young people functioning better a year later were specifically results of Turn-About Ranch. That was outright falsehood. We do not claim that even Aspen was that outrageous over a period of time, but it did occur at least once.  In fairness, we also believe that the Aspen executive we informed about this acted swiftly and firmly.   But the web site entry is still in place today (3/18/2010) without sufficient clarification about what the study really says and does not say.  Turn-About Ranch is an anomaly within the group studied.

These criticisms are very troubling.  I believe others in this thread are even worse, but these are coming directly from an indusrty person, so they hit even harder.

[Whooter]

The "Outcome study" DJ is talking about can be found right here:

Outcome Study



...

[Anne Bonney]

The "Outcome study" DJ is talking about can be found right here:

Outcome Study

That was bought and paid for by Aspen.  It's called a conflict of interest.

[Whooter]

The "Outcome study" DJ is talking about can be found right here:

Outcome Study

That was bought and paid for by Aspen.  It's called a conflict of interest.

Not according to the oversight committee and review board who oversaw the study and approved it.  But you are entitled to your own opinion.  I think most of us can agree that the main thing is to get people to read the study and decide for themselves.  Getting the study in front of peoples eyes is most of the battle.

Outcome Study




...

[Dysfunction Junction]

Even Aspen's lapdogs reject the findings.  Never published, never peer reviewed and even their own slakeys blow holes in it.

I guess its pretty apparent in industry circles that the Behrens marketing brochure is not scientifically valid.

Aspen, to its great credit, commissioned an extensive outcome study blanketing its schools, excluding its wilderness programs. A problem arises when the study is used to convince others of the effectiveness of one school or treatment center, ignoring the fact that the results of many schools have been lumped together.

Ellen Behrens, Ph.D. conducted the study.   Dr.  Behrens is well known to us at FamilyLight sm.  We have utmost confidence in her competence and integrity.  To all appearances the study was intended to address and counteract the impact of prior research that indicated that residential treatment is no more effective than outpatient treatment.  Apparently a parallel design was used so the comparison to the earlier research would be "apples to apples" and  “oranges to oranges” and not “apples to oranges.”  

If the purpose had been to best document long term effectiveness of the schools and treatment centers at issue, we can think of various designs that would have yielded higher powered results. But that is not a criticism.  The purpose appeared to be to provide a strong basis for comparison to the earlier research, a purpose well served with the design followed and, we believe, the study itself served that purpose extremely well.  So far, kudos to Aspen and to Dr. Behrens.

Our problem is not with the study itself or with the result for the purpose intended. So far we agree.   Our problem is with the uses to which Aspen’s marketing effort has applied the results of the study.  In general, Aspen has used the results of the study to lead readers to believe that the study proves effectiveness of individual schools that participated in the study. This is simply not what the study is about.

Aspen might make the argument that the programs are similar enough that it is a fair conclusion to draw.   Ok, that seems to us to be a bit of a stretch but we would also know how to defend that – if the programs really are similar.  The problem is, they are not (similar).  The programs ranged from recently defunct Mt. Bachelor Academy, an “emotional growth school” to the clinically intensive Youth Care.  At Mt. Bachelor Academy, the school took pride in their history of emphasizing an “emotional growth” curriculum as opposed to primary use of credentialed therapists to effect change, as opposed to Youth Care which is hospital-like in its clinical intensity and its emphasis on psychiatry.  

That is a general problem.  We are specifically disturbed by the use of the study on the website of Turn-About Ranch (as of March, 2010).  This is typically a 100 day program compared to all of the others which were intended to serve clients primarily (and in most cases only) in much longer term stays.  To suggest that this study addresses success specifically at Turn-About Ranch in any meaningful way is simply misleading.  That is the worst example.  But when we have heard the study described at conferences, the point was made with some emphasis that [sie=150]it does not document success in ANY specific treatment program.[/size]

Remember: The point of the study was to demonstrate that for certain populations in residential treatment in general – not enrollment in any particular school – had an impact greater than home based family treatment.  This was an “apples to apples” and "oranges to oranges" comparison to an earlier study suggesting that home based family treatment yielded superior outcomes to residential treatment.  

On that point, the results are legitimate and convincing.   There are very legitimate questions about whether the reporting methods of either the Aspen study or the study (ies) it was meant to refute produced reliable outcome data for any program or group of programs.  What it did reliably and factually was to negate the conclusion of the prior studies claiming that outpatient work produces better results than residential.

Clever wording has, in general, avoided making objectively false claims in writing or on the web, while leading unsophisticated readers to conclusions not supported by the study.   However, we had occasion to bring to Aspen executives an incident in which the then admission director (now former admission director) represented the study as an outcome study specifically about Turn-About Ranch, claiming the percentages of young people functioning better a year later were specifically results of Turn-About Ranch. That was outright falsehood. We do not claim that even Aspen was that outrageous over a period of time, but it did occur at least once.  In fairness, we also believe that the Aspen executive we informed about this acted swiftly and firmly.   But the web site entry is still in place today (3/18/2010) without sufficient clarification about what the study really says and does not say.  Turn-About Ranch is an anomaly within the group studied.

These criticisms are very troubling.  I believe others in this thread are even worse, but these are coming directly from an indusrty person, so they hit even harder.

[Whooter]

The study that has everyone up in arms is this one here:

Outcome Study


Seems everyone is talking about it.



...[/quote]

[Dysfunction Junction]

... a sampling bias could have potentially have had a large
impact on the results of this study, the excuses I heard not to participate had to do with
behavioral breakdowns as often as they had to do with too many after school
commitments and other measures of success ...

So basically out of 190 families scheduled to graduate, only 125 families graduated (65 did not).  So right there, there are 65 failures.  Out of those 125 who graduated, 25 could not be contacted. That leaves us with 25 unknown, 65 failures.  Out of the 100 left, only 30 responded.  Those 30 reported well due to sampling bias.  That leaves 30 successes, 25 unknown, 65 failures.  Out of the 70 remaining, half were still having "issues".  The other half I'll give you generously as "successes".  That leaves 65 successes (only 30 of which responded to a survey), 25 unknown, and 100 failures. (out of 190 scheduled to graduate).  Hardly stellar, even if the numbers are accurate.

Great breakdown.

[Whooter]

The study DJ is talking about can be found here:

Outcome Study


Seems everyone is talking about it.



...

[Dysfunction Junction]

I believe repetitive posting of a website URL advertising ASPEN is a violatoin of the "anti-Spam" rules here. Everyone saw it the first time it was posted. It's still there. Repeating the posting isn't adding to the conversation. Several serious ASPEN criticisms were levelled and we should discuss those rather than Spam this thread.

[Whooter]

I believe repetitive posting of a website URL advertising ASPEN is a violatoin of the "anti-Spam" rules here. Everyone saw it the first time it was posted. It's still there. Repeating the posting isn't adding to the conversation. Several serious ASPEN criticisms were levelled and we should discuss those rather than Spam this thread.

There are several studies, DJ.  If you are going to refer to a study in your post I think it should be made clear to the readers which one you are referring to in each case.  Is this the long term study or the short term study you are talking about?



...

[Anne Bonney]

... a sampling bias could have potentially have had a large
impact on the results of this study, the excuses I heard not to participate had to do with
behavioral breakdowns as often as they had to do with too many after school
commitments and other measures of success ...

So basically out of 190 families scheduled to graduate, only 125 families graduated (65 did not).  So right there, there are 65 failures.  Out of those 125 who graduated, 25 could not be contacted. That leaves us with 25 unknown, 65 failures.  Out of the 100 left, only 30 responded.  Those 30 reported well due to sampling bias.  That leaves 30 successes, 25 unknown, 65 failures.  Out of the 70 remaining, half were still having "issues".  The other half I'll give you generously as "successes".  That leaves 65 successes (only 30 of which responded to a survey), 25 unknown, and 100 failures. (out of 190 scheduled to graduate).  Hardly stellar, even if the numbers are accurate.

Great breakdown.

 :tup:  :notworthy: