Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Aspen Education Group => Topic started by: Anonymous on October 04, 2009, 02:48:03 AM
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
-
Correction: The Disclaimer is here
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
-
Correction: The Disclaimer is here
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
I think we would agree that the results of 9 programs would be representative of the entire industry, since most here agree that all programs are the same.
We need to keep these studies going. Great information everyone, I also heard that programs have been extremely successful in helping kids with moderate to severe depression, which I actually found suprising. I hope the next study covers this also, it would be nice to get some more detail.
-
Behavior modification techniques of contingency management and token economies are often effective, as many of the children in treatment facilities were never exposed to consistent and adequate systems of discipline at home (Kolko, 1992). An increase in structure that is recognized as fair and predictable motivates young people to pursue rewards and fear negative consequences (Kolko, 1992). Many of these treatment modalities are implemented concurrently within an individual, and in those cases, research is unable to demonstrate which methods are most greatly contributing to treatment success (Kolko, 1992).
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
This so-called "study" is pure bologna. Methods are bad, all kinds of conflicts, lead "researcher" failed to disclose working for the study target, etc., etc., etc. This industry won't allow scientific examination of it because it would then be proven to be totally ineffective and against ethical and professional standards. Plain and simple. This is why they try to pass off drivel like Behrens' as "research" rather than have a real study done.
-
I think we all expected this response once the studies started to get done and released. We all knew that the programs are very effective but now that the proof is on the table the scramble in on to discredit them, but they wont go away dispite the denials. Lets take a look at a few of the results again:
Independent Long-Term Outcome Study Results
Conducted by: Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc
Mental health issues including stress, depression and anxiety are significantly improved. OBH treatment helped reduce stress, depression and anxiety in teens, especially in those with more extreme levels, with continued reduction shown at the six-month follow-up assessment.
Substance abuse and dependence is significantly reduced, with results lasting through the 12-month follow-up. Students experienced substance-related pathology within the clinically significant and elevated range pretreatment, but symptoms fell within a normal range upon graduation. Most importantly, these results were sustained through the three and 12 month follow-up assessments.
-
Thank you, Guest, for the very informative post, once and for all putting this issue to bed. Your post has been bookmarked and filed under "Fornits troll answers". Stick around. Kickass research that was.
:notworthy:
-
Thank you, Guest, for the very informative post, once and for all putting this issue to bed. Your post has been bookmarked and filed under "Fornits troll answers". Stick around. Kickass research that was.
:notworthy:
You welcome, I expect that as more and more studies come out showing the effectiveness of some of these programs the more resistance we will see here on fornits. Originally many were asking for just studies, then independent studies, then long term indpendent studies. Now that the studies are independent long term the critisicim move torwrds the authors and demand for longer term. Each time a study emerges the criteria for acceptance here on fornits changes lol.
Heart studies are done by doctors who have a background and knowledge in the area. I dont think we could find a drug study or medical study performed by someone who knew nothing about the area they are testing or lacked a background.
These studies should be completed by people who have a background and knowledge in the area.
If the results showed that the programs were ineffective then they would be accepted at face value as are the various stories we read about here. But they are not.
There was an independent study which was published in a journal a few years back and that was rejected by fornits regulars also because it showed the schools to be effective.
-
Look, Guest, you are partually right, but you need to realize that any type of study is going to be a threat to the way of thinking here. You could keep throwing them on the table and they will find a way to discredit them in their minds so they can stay with the belief that all programs are alike and they are all abusive.
Without that fornits ceases to exist. Studies of any kind can never be accepted here period, never will.
A survivors description of the program is equally biased because they were sent there by force and therefore will never admit it was good for them. The only unbiased account would be from a child who attended through their own free will. You can tell these accounts because they tell it like it is..ie. the food was okay, some of the staff was good others were not so good. We all know the drill, read the stories and they are written off as drinking the koolaid.
So it will always be the same stock answers, stock thinking as long as forints exists because it is the only way it can. But dont be discouraged there are many people who come here to read and you can reach them so dont give up.
-
Question, who is suppose to pay for the cost of the testing? Drug companies develop new drugs and need to finance all the testing themselves (that’s part of what makes them so expensive). All the other industries hire outside firms to do the testing or studies or they do it themselves.
There are no free testing firms that I am aware of. Anyone know who would pay to have another companies testing done?
-
.....Most clinical studies that bring new drugs from bench to bedside are financed by pharmaceutical companies
-
Question, who is suppose to pay for the cost of the testing? Drug companies develop new drugs and need to finance all the testing themselves (that’s part of what makes them so expensive). All the other industries hire outside firms to do the testing or studies or they do it themselves.
There are no free testing firms that I am aware of. Anyone know who would pay to have another companies testing done?
I know that. You know that and the readers know that. But there is no way in hell fornits regulars are going to accept any studies regardless of the outcome (unless it were extremely negative). That door is closed. If you roll in here with a story of how you were abused you will be treated like royalty and if you come in here with a story of how the program helped you you will be walked out the door because you drank the Kool-Aid. There is no middle road or room for discussion. There has been only one agenda and always will be.
But keep the studies coming, don’t be dissuaded, because there are many readers who are open minded and not tainted by hatred who could benefit from the latest research and studies.
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
This so-called "study" is pure bologna. Methods are bad, all kinds of conflicts, lead "researcher" failed to disclose working for the study target, etc., etc., etc. This industry won't allow scientific examination of it because it would then be proven to be totally ineffective and against ethical and professional standards. Plain and simple. This is why they try to pass off drivel like Behrens' as "research" rather than have a real study done.
qft, brother. don't believe the hype.
-
Question, who is suppose to pay for the cost of the testing? Drug companies develop new drugs and need to finance all the testing themselves (that’s part of what makes them so expensive). All the other industries hire outside firms to do the testing or studies or they do it themselves.
There are no free testing firms that I am aware of. Anyone know who would pay to have another companies testing done?
I know that. You know that and the readers know that. But there is no way in hell fornits regulars are going to accept any studies regardless of the outcome (unless it were extremely negative). That door is closed. If you roll in here with a story of how you were abused you will be treated like royalty and if you come in here with a story of how the program helped you you will be walked out the door because you drank the Kool-Aid. There is no middle road or room for discussion. There has been only one agenda and always will be.
But keep the studies coming, don’t be dissuaded, because there are many readers who are open minded and not tainted by hatred who could benefit from the latest research and studies.
Look hooter, you are being hosed. No one here really cares about studies or testing. Half the shit they smoke, snort or put in their arms have only been tested in some kids basement.
Where is the outrage of lack of long term clinical studies on that shit?
-
^The best a worn-down, fact-free troll can offer^ The decline and fall of TheWho is complete.
-
Thank you, Guest, for the very informative post, once and for all putting this issue to bed. Your post has been bookmarked and filed under "Fornits troll answers". Stick around. Kickass research that was.
:notworthy:
You welcome, I expect that as more and more studies come out showing the effectiveness of some of these programs the more resistance we will see here on fornits. Originally many were asking for just studies, then independent studies, then long term indpendent studies. Now that the studies are independent long term the critisicim move torwrds the authors and demand for longer term. Each time a study emerges the criteria for acceptance here on fornits changes lol.
Heart studies are done by doctors who have a background and knowledge in the area. I dont think we could find a drug study or medical study performed by someone who knew nothing about the area they are testing or lacked a background.
These studies should be completed by people who have a background and knowledge in the area.
If the results showed that the programs were ineffective then they would be accepted at face value as are the various stories we read about here. But they are not.
There was an independent study which was published in a journal a few years back and that was rejected by fornits regulars also because it showed the schools to be effective.
The above post was mine, sorry for the confusion.
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
This was a marketing gig paid for by AEG. Behrens failed even to disclose AEG was her employer. Anti-intellectual nonsense, which is worshipped by program parents as the "holy truth" *YAWN* Next, please, this one is dead.
-
Thank you, Guest, for the very informative post, once and for all putting this issue to bed. Your post has been bookmarked and filed under "Fornits troll answers". Stick around. Kickass research that was.
:notworthy:
You welcome, I expect that as more and more studies come out showing the effectiveness of some of these programs the more resistance we will see here on fornits. Originally many were asking for just studies, then independent studies, then long term indpendent studies. Now that the studies are independent long term the critisicim move torwrds the authors and demand for longer term. Each time a study emerges the criteria for acceptance here on fornits changes lol.
Heart studies are done by doctors who have a background and knowledge in the area. I dont think we could find a drug study or medical study performed by someone who knew nothing about the area they are testing or lacked a background.
These studies should be completed by people who have a background and knowledge in the area.
If the results showed that the programs were ineffective then they would be accepted at face value as are the various stories we read about here. But they are not.
There was an independent study which was published in a journal a few years back and that was rejected by fornits regulars also because it showed the schools to be effective.
Not a problem. Thanks for posting this again.
-
The above post was mine, sorry for the confusion.
No need to bother, everyone knows you are the only poster that can use "guest" as a username, whotter.
-
Thank you, Guest, for the very informative post, once and for all putting this issue to bed. Your post has been bookmarked and filed under "Fornits troll answers". Stick around. Kickass research that was.
:notworthy:
You welcome, I expect that as more and more studies come out showing the effectiveness of some of these programs the more resistance we will see here on fornits. Originally many were asking for just studies, then independent studies, then long term indpendent studies. Now that the studies are independent long term the critisicim move torwrds the authors and demand for longer term. Each time a study emerges the criteria for acceptance here on fornits changes lol.
Heart studies are done by doctors who have a background and knowledge in the area. I dont think we could find a drug study or medical study performed by someone who knew nothing about the area they are testing or lacked a background.
These studies should be completed by people who have a background and knowledge in the area.
If the results showed that the programs were ineffective then they would be accepted at face value as are the various stories we read about here. But they are not.
There was an independent study which was published in a journal a few years back and that was rejected by fornits regulars also because it showed the schools to be effective.
I think I remember that Study. It was independent and showed that programs can be very effective. Do you have a link? I would like to read it again.
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
This was a marketing gig paid for by AEG. Behrens failed even to disclose AEG was her employer. Anti-intellectual nonsense, which is worshipped by program parents as the "holy truth" *YAWN* Next, please, this one is dead.
Ahhh, yes. Now I remember where I saw this study. This is the bogus one done by AEG about AEG programs with no scientific structure. Thanks for posting the links!!
-
Thank you, Guest, for the very informative post, once and for all putting this issue to bed. Your post has been bookmarked and filed under "Fornits troll answers". Stick around. Kickass research that was.
:notworthy:
You welcome, I expect that as more and more studies come out showing the effectiveness of some of these programs the more resistance we will see here on fornits. Originally many were asking for just studies, then independent studies, then long term indpendent studies. Now that the studies are independent long term the critisicim move torwrds the authors and demand for longer term. Each time a study emerges the criteria for acceptance here on fornits changes lol.
Heart studies are done by doctors who have a background and knowledge in the area. I dont think we could find a drug study or medical study performed by someone who knew nothing about the area they are testing or lacked a background.
These studies should be completed by people who have a background and knowledge in the area.
If the results showed that the programs were ineffective then they would be accepted at face value as are the various stories we read about here. But they are not.
There was an independent study which was published in a journal a few years back and that was rejected by fornits regulars also because it showed the schools to be effective.
I think I remember that Study. It was independent and showed that programs can be very effective. Do you have a link? I would like to read it again.
Here is the link. When I get time I'll run through with everyone.
Link to Study (http://http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/VShapiro.pdf)
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
This was a marketing gig paid for by AEG. Behrens failed even to disclose AEG was her employer. Anti-intellectual nonsense, which is worshipped by program parents as the "holy truth" *YAWN* Next, please, this one is dead.
Ahhh, yes. Now I remember where I saw this study. This is the bogus one done by AEG about AEG programs with no scientific structure. Thanks for posting the links!!
Yeah, I re-read it again. I'm generally pro-program, but this document falls far short of being scientific or statistically valid in any way. AEG should have had an independent researcher that didn't work for AEG do the study. Then it would have meant something, but this surely does not.
-
Here is one of many findings in the independent study.
Psychiatric medication was used by 60% of the student sample prior to ASR, and only 46% of the student sample after ASR. Before treatment, the average ASR student was suspended 1.5 times and ran away from home 1.1 times, but has done neither since.
Link to Study (http://http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/VShapiro.pdf)
Kids do much better post program and are integrated back into their home lives and schooling. Amazing success.
-
Trying to throw off the trail now? Abondoned the industry shill piece by Behrens? Now linking to a student paper to try to salvage something of your argument? Very sad attempt. Th bait and switch didn't work, Whooter. A student paper is not an "independent study." You've lost again and I know how frustrated you get, but this is just dishonest.
-
... 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.
-
Very interesting. This marketing material gets pretty flimsy when you start to examine the data. They leave out anything that might look negative. This is not the way studies are done.
-
... 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.
Thanks everyone, there is no better way to valid a study then to start using it as a reference for discussion. Lets all take a closer look, shall we?
One hundred percent of parents and students that participated in this study said that they would recommend ASR to others. In addition, all participants were asked to rate how much impact ASR had on the different aspects of the child’s present behavior. With 1 being an extremely negative influence, and 7 being an extremely positive influence, the average parental rating across psychopathology scales was a 5.4 and across positive adaptation scales a 5.3. The average student ratings were likewise high, being both a 5.6 on psychopathology and positive adaptation scales.
-
Very interesting. This marketing material gets pretty flimsy when you start to examine the data. They leave out anything that might look negative. This is not the way studies are done.
Yes, I worked for Canyon Research during this study and we were all told that the results had to be positive. Many people quit because, as scientists, that's not the way we behave. We should be data-driven, not trying to support predrawn conclusions. This study was rigged before it ever started.
-
Thanks everyone, there is no better way to valid a study then to start using it as a reference for discussion. Lets all take a closer look, shall we?
One hundred percent of parents and students that participated in this study said that they would recommend ASR to others. In addition, all participants were asked to rate how much impact ASR had on the different aspects of the child’s present behavior. With 1 being an extremely negative influence, and 7 being an extremely positive influence, the average parental rating across psychopathology scales was a 5.4 and across positive adaptation scales a 5.3. The average student ratings were likewise high, being both a 5.6 on psychopathology and positive adaptation scales.
If the study was as useless as you say then you wouldnt be putting so much energy into dismissing it...lol
A few more results:
Substance abuse and dependence is significantly reduced, with results lasting through the 12-month follow-up. Students experienced substance-related pathology within the clinically significant and elevated range pretreatment, but symptoms fell within a normal range upon graduation. Most importantly, these results were sustained through the three and 12 month follow-up assessments.
-
Very interesting. This marketing material gets pretty flimsy when you start to examine the data. They leave out anything that might look negative. This is not the way studies are done.
Yes, I worked for Canyon Research during this study and we were all told that the results had to be positive. Many people quit because, as scientists, that's not the way we behave. We should be data-driven, not trying to support predrawn conclusions. This study was rigged before it ever started.
Thanks for weighing in, Mark. Most reasonable people already understood this fact, but as someone who worked for Canyon, you make the point very hard to dismiss, although some will still try.
-
Thanks for weighing in, Mark. Most reasonable people already understood this fact, but as someone who worked for Canyon, you make the point very hard to dismiss, although some will still try.
I tend to agree, James. Here are some more results
Social conflict and aggressive behaviors decrease. Reduction of these self-defeating behaviors continues post-graduation, with greatest improvement shown at the 12-month follow-up assessment.
These results suggest that Aspen Education Group’s wilderness therapy programs are
teaching important emotion regulation skills, as well as providing a climate for adolescents to rehearse newly acquired strategies to manage negative emotions such as worry, sadness, and anger. Overall findings provide considerable support for the use of wilderness therapy programs in treating resistant adolescents.
Research conducted by: Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc.; Sarah (Salli) Lewis, Ph.D. and Ellen Leen-Feldner, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy and Arkansas Institute of Developmental Science; Keith Russell, Ph.D., Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative, University of Minnesota
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
That's pretty definitive.
-
I seem to have troll about me today. Here are some further research results. We are presently conducting a longer term research on the outcome of TBS's. The results to date look very favorable and should be a boast to the industry. Times ahead look to be very prosperous, we are encouraged.
Substance abuse and dependence is significantly reduced, with results lasting through the 12-month follow-up. Students experienced substance-related pathology within the clinically significant and elevated range pretreatment, but symptoms fell within a normal range upon graduation. Most importantly, these results were sustained through the three and 12 month follow-up assessments
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
I posted this, but am again being trolled by someone trying to impersonate me. Is this how 'program parents' behave here? I've been on other forums where they are respectful even if they disagree. This person represents the worst type of person: the ones who only seek to stifle dialog, like the one everyone calls 'The Who' here.
Someone before said the guy trolling me is him. If so, why doesn't he just make some sort of factual argument to rebut what I've said instead of playing games like a little kid?
I worked at Canyon Research, so just ask if you want to know the truth about their business. this other person pretending to be me obviously is some sort of marketer wanting to change the subject when it gets ugly, just like at Canyon.
-
Because he has a monetary interest in defending the "programs" he gets money for referring kids to. Easy: always follow the money :nods:
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
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.
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
thank you, mark. the person impersonating you is believed to be John d Reuben. He is quite certainly the industry troll thewho. The level of his dishonesty in impersonation of you are very indicative of the conning, cultic nature of the organizations he represents.
Please post in the future. I recommend getting a Log in and avatar so thewho cannot impersonate you as easily.
Better yet, contact the following groups with what you witnessed. What Aspen is doing is illegal--and they need to forward your info to the proper authorities, and coordinate some kind of action.
http://www.isaccorp.org/ (http://www.isaccorp.org/)
http://www.heal-online.org/ (http://www.heal-online.org/)
http://www.cafety.org/ (http://www.cafety.org/)
fornits.com is a forum for those tortured by Aspen Education Group, CEDU, SYNANON and like gulag torture cults. Many die from the torture they are subjected to at these organizations, both on site, and afterward.
Please contact these groups and speak for us, the ones suffering from the effects of torture / brainwashing, and the ones no longer living because of it.
-
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?
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
thank you, mark. the person impersonating you is believed to be John d Reuben. He is quite certainly the industry troll thewho. The level of his dishonesty in impersonation of you are very indicative of the conning, cultic nature of the organizations he represents.
Please post in the future. I recommend getting a Log in and avatar so thewho cannot impersonate you as easily.
Better yet, contact the following groups with what you witnessed. What Aspen is doing is illegal--and they need to forward your info to the proper authorities, and coordinate some kind of action.
http://www.isaccorp.org/ (http://www.isaccorp.org/)
http://www.heal-online.org/ (http://www.heal-online.org/)
http://www.cafety.org/ (http://www.cafety.org/)
fornits.com is a forum for those tortured by Aspen Education Group, CEDU, SYNANON and like gulag torture cults. Many die from the torture they are subjected to at these organizations, both on site, and afterward.
Please contact these groups and speak for us, the ones suffering from the effects of torture / brainwashing, and the ones no longer living because of it.
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?
-
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.
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
I posted this, but am again being trolled by someone trying to impersonate me. Is this how 'program parents' behave here? I've been on other forums where they are respectful even if they disagree. This person represents the worst type of person: the ones who only seek to stifle dialog, like the one everyone calls 'The Who' here.
Someone before said the guy trolling me is him. If so, why doesn't he just make some sort of factual argument to rebut what I've said instead of playing games like a little kid?
I worked at Canyon Research, so just ask if you want to know the truth about their business. this other person pretending to be me obviously is some sort of marketer wanting to change the subject when it gets ugly, just like at Canyon.
I'm not going to engage in baby games with this John Reuben guy. I wrote the above, but none of the other posts and now that guy has made a username of MY NAME. That still does not make him me. He obviously knows nothing about Canyon and doesn't know any of the people there. I do. But you people can handle your own trolls here, I have better things to do with my time than engage'The Who' in juvenile games. But, just so everyone is clear, I DO NOT have a username and the person posting as username "Mark DeGroot" is not me.
That's right, it was, guess "who"? Mr. Whooter. Caught again impersonating a research scentist this time after assuming his name. Sweet.
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?
Pinched impersonating yet another person.
-
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.
-
[quote="John D Reuben]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?[/quote]
Quoted for correct attribution.
New readers, I propose that this Aspen Education Group 's representative 's impersonation of a whistle blower, an act that is cynically intended to confuse the most credulous of you, is evidence of the lack integrity and dishonesty in the cultic organization.
The campaign of dishonesty and fraudulence undertaken by the Aspen Education Group is similar to that undertaken by the Landmark or Scientology cultic groups, though neither aforementioned group rises to the level of organized criminality of Aspen.
MARK: PLEASE CONTACT ISAC, HEAL, AND CAFETY.
DON'T LET THE ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP get away with their fraud-- which is utilized to further their crimes of abduction, torture, imprisonment and brainwashing.
The who is john reuben. Everyone can see that he is impersonating you. No worries there.
-
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?
Quoted for correct attribution.
New readers, I propose that this Aspen Education Group 's representative 's impersonation of a whistle blower, an act that is cynically intended to confuse the most credulous of you, is evidence of the lack integrity and dishonesty in the cultic organization.
The campaign of dishonesty and fraudulence undertaken by the Aspen Education Group is similar to that undertaken by the Landmark or Scientology cultic groups, though neither aforementioned group rises to the level of organized criminality of Aspen.
MARK: PLEASE CONTACT ISAC, HEAL, AND CAFETY.
DON'T LET THE ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP get away with their fraud-- which is utilized to further their crimes of abduction, torture, imprisonment and brainwashing.
The who is john d reuben. Everyone can see that he is impersonating you. No worries there.
-
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.
-
DJ, quit your trolling
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
thank you, mark. the person impersonating you is believed to be John d Reuben. He is quite certainly the industry troll thewho. The level of his dishonesty in impersonation of you are very indicative of the conning, cultic nature of the organizations he represents.
Please post in the future. I recommend getting a Log in and avatar so thewho cannot impersonate you as easily.
Better yet, contact the following groups with what you witnessed. What Aspen is doing is illegal--and they need to forward your info to the proper authorities, and coordinate some kind of action.
http://www.isaccorp.org/ (http://www.isaccorp.org/)
http://www.heal-online.org/ (http://www.heal-online.org/)
http://www.cafety.org/ (http://www.cafety.org/)
fornits.com is a forum for those tortured by Aspen Education Group, CEDU, SYNANON and like gulag torture cults. Many die from the torture they are subjected to at these organizations, both on site, and afterward.
Please contact these groups and speak for us, the ones suffering from the effects of torture / brainwashing, and the ones no longer living because of it?
Yes, Please. Do. And don't waste your time with your impersonator, The Who, Aspen Education Group propagandizer.
-
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
I have tried them too in the past and they work only off of negative propaganda towards the industry. Facts are not important to them, just a spin that will serve their purpose. You can try again but you will get the same response.
-
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
I have tried them too in the past and they work only off of negative propaganda towards the industry. Facts are not important to them, just a spin that will serve their purpose. You can try again but you will get the same response.
I think one of the reasons why I just don't get into deeper debates with industry people on this forum as much as I used to is because it kind of feels the same way as watching some stupid 24 hour news channel (pick any of them, it's not just fox) that makes you want to yell at the television because of how blatant the hypocrisy and double standards are.. and then you remember that they can't hear you, because they are in a picture box.
Probably why I limit myself to more relevant and hard-hitting material such as project runway, monsters inside me, and whatever is on the history channel.
-
Heal, isac, cafety supply documentations of legitimate scientific inquiry into Lifespring (est), Synanon and their derivative cultic gulags posing as "schools," sworn testimony, links to the federal investigation (GAO) of the same, copies of lawsuits, paperwork related to criminal investigation: info bearing on reality. That is not propaganda. Propaganda is the manipulative use of deceptions and / or falsities to "sway" and influence.
An example of propaganda can be seen where you, John D Reuben, impersonate the canyon researcher, knowing full well you are not him, in order to influence (dumb, credulous) readers of this forum.
Literally sacrificing your first born to the Synanon - Est cult, Academy At Swift River and SUWS wilderness programs (Aspen education Group) was not enough of a sacrificial gesture for you. You continue to sacrifice any ounce of integrity you have with your constant, intentional lies on this forum.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl= ... BQQqwQwAA# (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&resnum=0&q=gao+investigation+teen+residential+programs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=Zk3SSqiVKNDAlAe1suSoCg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQqwQwAA#)
Mark, contact ISAC, CAFETY, HEAL, ASTART,
Fican http://ficanetwork.net/ (http://ficanetwork.net/)
-
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
I have tried them too in the past and they work only off of negative propaganda towards the industry. Facts are not important to them, just a spin that will serve their purpose. You can try again but you will get the same response.
I think one of the reasons why I just don't get into deeper debates with industry people on this forum as much as I used to is because it kind of feels the same way as watching some stupid 24 hour news channel (pick any of them, it's not just fox) that makes you want to yell at the television because of how blatant the hypocrisy and double standards are.. and then you remember that they can't hear you, because they are in a picture box.
Probably why I limit myself to more relevant and hard-hitting material such as project runway, monsters inside me, and whatever is on the history channel.
Try looking at it from our point of view. Any study that is tossed on the table is rejected for any reason that can be found, i.e. author was too close to the industry, author didn’t know anything about the industry. The results are rarely discussed.
Take the programs themselves. No one will discuss any positive aspects of a program, ever. This is why the survivor stories need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you have ever had a conversation with someone outside of fornits you get a balanced discussion i.e the food was okay, some staff members were nice, the school sucked never got anything out of it, but the teachers were cool. You never get that here because there is an agenda which drives everything negative which prevents people from telling the whole truth.
The position here is that every program is the same and nothing has changed since 1972. If someone says the staff are okay then you get a story about a 300 pound staff member sitting on a student. If you say the program you attended didn’t isolate you from others you get a photo of “The Hobbit” and a story from 1978 insinuating that it still happens.
If you try to have an adult conversation here you get teen speak and stories of Gulags, detainees, kidnappings, prison guards and murders.
If you say that programs are safe you get arguments that kids kill themselves 8 years after leaving a program and therefore is the fault of the program. Yet they can rarely show any kids who are actually killed in a program or abused.
It is a dance and a perception that is kept alive by denying that anything has changed since the 1970’s and if anyone tries to break thru that perception then the squad comes out and squashes the idea. Fornits is a group think bigger than anyone on the inside realizes.
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.
-
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.
-
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 would be discussed here?
Well it all happened and the book was tossed aside here at fornits because no abuse was found and the reality didn’t fit with the fornits perception. We all see the books being offered at the top of each page here yet this one was withheld. Something to think about.
If fornits was about transparency and honesty then why is information constantly withheld or omitted ?
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
I posted this, but am again being trolled by someone trying to impersonate me. Is this how 'program parents' behave here? I've been on other forums where they are respectful even if they disagree. This person represents the worst type of person: the ones who only seek to stifle dialog, like the one everyone calls 'The Who' here.
Someone before said the guy trolling me is him. If so, why doesn't he just make some sort of factual argument to rebut what I've said instead of playing games like a little kid?
I worked at Canyon Research, so just ask if you want to know the truth about their business. this other person pretending to be me obviously is some sort of marketer wanting to change the subject when it gets ugly, just like at Canyon. Hmmm...
I'm not going to engage in baby games with this John Reuben guy. I wrote the above, but none of the other posts and now that guy has made a username of MY NAME. That still does not make him me. He obviously knows nothing about Canyon and doesn't know any of the people there. I do. But you people can handle your own trolls here, I have better things to do with my time than engage'The Who' in juvenile games. But, just so everyone is clear, I DO NOT have a username and the person posting as username "Mark DeGroot" is not me.
Thanks for sharing what you know about this so-called study, Mark. Industry people hate it when insiders spill the beans about what they don't want to become public. They turn on, and eat, their own with vigor. It's a sign that they know they're losing ground or have lost the argument.
This TheWho fellow that has created a log in name with your name is typical of this. You can see he abandoned rational debate and went right on to ad hominems and impersonating you. He couldn't refute your information, nor does he know anything about Canyon, or even studies for that matter. He's basically mindless, only present to disrupt. All he wants to make sure of is that nothing gets discussed.
Impersonating you is the way he deals with the fact that he lost this argument. But don't feel special. He lost this argument several years ago to a woman named Deborah who exposed him as a fraud. He's so venomous and bitter about this that he still brings her up to this day, even though most people don't know who she is, as she hasn't posted in years.
Programs are hurting. The economy is weak and killing their revenue. They have been exposed legally in many states and have lost millions upon millions in lawsuits. They're shutting down left and right. And places like Fornits expose the workers who help to break the law and hurt kids so that they can't work with kids if employers check.
Like the child abuser who recently got hired and fired from a school district. He was exposed by Fornits to show his criminal history and outstanding charges of battering a child and he was fired right away. This incenses people like TheWho that support child abusers and even refer children to be abused by them, like he did his own two sons. The older one is dead now from an overdose. The younger one said in his groups at HLA that he thought his father caused his mother's death. This is one screwed up person you're dealing with here, Mark. Plus he runs a feeder group that uses government juvenile justice money to send delinquents to Aspen Education Group programs.
He's deeply invested and will fight dishonestly, tooth and nail, to keep his piece of the pie. He is actually the only poster that disagrees with you on this thread, but he spends a lot of time posting as various people and trolling anyone who brings substance, as you did by exposing Canyon as the fraud that it truly is.
-
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 would be discussed here?
Well it all happened and the book was tossed aside here at fornits because no abuse was found and the reality didn’t fit with the fornits perception. We all see the books being offered at the top of each page here yet this one was withheld. Something to think about.
If fornits was about transparency and honesty then why is information constantly withheld or omitted ?
I never knew there was someone who wrote a book about being programs. Give me the name of it, I would like to take a look.
-
Wouldn’t you think this would be valuable information?
No. There are plenty of books/films/interpretive dance in the works on both sides of this issue, and as far as Im concerned, it's just another personal anecdote, regardless of what kind of dog license you keep behind your desk, and regardless if it's pro, con or in between. I'm sure it would most likely be compelling and interesting, and it would probably something I would be interested in reading. I agree with the above poster that I would absolutely be into checking out this book.
However, it's absolutely devoid of science, and as such, totally worthless in establishing any variance or deviation to any sort of control or standard.
According to you, this book is kind of an "embedded reporter" first-person account of their own experience. The data I think we should all be interested in is what happens after the program... 5, 10, 20 years out, and the data should have the format of a census, not a story.
-
For the record, I did NOT write the above. It appears the poster is so weak of mind and evidence he or she feels the need to impersonate me to try to prove a point. Obviously, this person has conceded that I have credibility and he/she doesn't, or he/she wouldn't be trying to convince people he/she is me. Just goes to show this person has no credibility.
I worked for Canyon and it's an "inside business" creating marketing materials for programs, mostly Aspen programs. Most Aspen programs don't even offer any treatment and all of the ones Canyon looked into provided no therapy or treatment plan, which was the concern of legitimate researchers on our staff. It quickly became clear that this exercise was purely for marketing and sales, not science, so roughly 75% of Canyon employees resigned due to this ethical problem.
It didn't stop Canyon from collecting AEG's money, plus "royalties" for every kid sent to Aspen where the intake revealed the parents relied on this information. Canyon is essentially making referral fees or lasting royalties based on Aspen enrollment, so of course Canyon will make Aspen look successful, even if the data don't suggest that at all.
Ellen was the director of an Aspen program and failed to disclose tht fact to us or to critics of the study. It's a massive red flag in research science.
I posted this, but am again being trolled by someone trying to impersonate me. Is this how 'program parents' behave here? I've been on other forums where they are respectful even if they disagree. This person represents the worst type of person: the ones who only seek to stifle dialog, like the one everyone calls 'The Who' here.
Someone before said the guy trolling me is him. If so, why doesn't he just make some sort of factual argument to rebut what I've said instead of playing games like a little kid?
I worked at Canyon Research, so just ask if you want to know the truth about their business. this other person pretending to be me obviously is some sort of marketer wanting to change the subject when it gets ugly, just like at Canyon. Hmmm...
I'm not going to engage in baby games with this John Reuben guy. I wrote the above, but none of the other posts and now that guy has made a username of MY NAME. That still does not make him me. He obviously knows nothing about Canyon and doesn't know any of the people there. I do. But you people can handle your own trolls here, I have better things to do with my time than engage'The Who' in juvenile games. But, just so everyone is clear, I DO NOT have a username and the person posting as username "Mark DeGroot" is not me.
Thanks for sharing what you know about this so-called study, Mark. Industry people hate it when insiders spill the beans about what they don't want to become public. They turn on, and eat, their own with vigor. It's a sign that they know they're losing ground or have lost the argument.
This TheWho fellow that has created a log in name with your name is typical of this. You can see he abandoned rational debate and went right on to ad hominems and impersonating you. He couldn't refute your information, nor does he know anything about Canyon, or even studies for that matter. He's basically mindless, only present to disrupt. All he wants to make sure of is that nothing gets discussed.
Impersonating you is the way he deals with the fact that he lost this argument. But don't feel special. He lost this argument several years ago to a woman named Deborah who exposed him as a fraud. He's so venomous and bitter about this that he still brings her up to this day, even though most people don't know who she is, as she hasn't posted in years.
Programs are hurting. The economy is weak and killing their revenue. They have been exposed legally in many states and have lost millions upon millions in lawsuits. They're shutting down left and right. And places like Fornits expose the workers who help to break the law and hurt kids so that they can't work with kids if employers check.
Like the child abuser who recently got hired and fired from a school district. He was exposed by Fornits to show his criminal history and outstanding charges of battering a child and he was fired right away. This incenses people like TheWho that support child abusers and even refer children to be abused by them, like he did his own two sons. The older one is dead now from an overdose. The younger one said in his groups at HLA that he thought his father caused his mother's death. This is one screwed up person you're dealing with here, Mark. Plus he runs a feeder group that uses government juvenile justice money to send delinquents to Aspen Education Group programs.
He's deeply invested and will fight dishonestly, tooth and nail, to keep his piece of the pie. He is actually the only poster that disagrees with you on this thread, but he spends a lot of time posting as various people and trolling anyone who brings substance, as you did by exposing Canyon as the fraud that it truly is.
Even the research staff won't support this obvious fraud! Geez.
-
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.
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
Was it this Rueben guy impersonating me? I dont think I could sue him for that but I hope someone does if thats what he does here.
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
Was it this Rueben guy impersonating me? I dont think I could sue him for that but I hope someone does if thats what he does here.
I don’t think it was the Rueben guy. No one is even sure if he posts here or not . You are being trolled because you are backing the study results. Most of the people here don’t want to hear anything positive said about teen programs. I am glad you came forward to clarify that the study was valid. There are many of us who like to hear from both sides of the issue and are open minded. Thanks for taking the time to post here,Mark.
-
It's coming Reuben. The press is going to get a hold of the fact that you're shilling for tough love and your son, a product of tough love, is dead from an overdose. You can't control yourself because you're a psycopath, and you're going to burn for it. You will be sued when it comes to light that you are responsible for sending people into harmful programs, and the fact that you shill via your workplace is going to come back on you as well.
-
It's coming Reuben. The press is going to get a hold of the fact that you're shilling for tough love and your son, a product of tough love, is dead from an overdose. You can't control yourself because you're a psycopath, and you're going to burn for it. You will be sued when it comes to light that you are responsible for sending people into harmful programs, and the fact that you shill via your workplace is going to come back on you as well.
Lol, I love when your type gets all riled up and your panties in a knot over placement services. It makes my day. You were probably a prime candidate to be placed but decided to take the road towards self destruction which was your bad. You are stuck with your life, not me (I am happy for myself!!) Now instead of getting pissed at yourself for your choices you choose to get pissed at Educational Consultants and other placement services hoping other kids don’t get any help so you will have lots of company in your misery.
Your a strong argument for why parents should seek help for their teens and that is why I recommend fornits to some parents.
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
Was it this Rueben guy impersonating me? I dont think I could sue him for that but I hope someone does if thats what he does here.
In retrospect, this thread is easier to understand with Whooter's impersonations out there in plain view. :eek: :cheers:
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
Was it this Rueben guy impersonating me? I dont think I could sue him for that but I hope someone does if thats what he does here.
Funny you're talking about "impersonating" after assuming my identity. You are one really desperate internet message board troll.
If you have any questions for the guy who actually worked for Canyon, that's me. The above poster stole my identity so to speak at Fornits.
Ha,Ha,Ha Bruce you are too much..... who says fornits isnt fun. Its a hoot watching you pretend to be this DeGroot guy and then the real DeGroot is Blaming Rueben who doesnt even post here!! lol. classic.
-
It's coming Reuben. The press is going to get a hold of the fact that you're shilling for tough love and your son, a product of tough love, is dead from an overdose. You can't control yourself because you're a psycopath, and you're going to burn for it. You will be sued when it comes to light that you are responsible for sending people into harmful programs, and the fact that you shill via your workplace is going to come back on you as well.
-
It's coming Reuben. The press is going to get a hold of the fact that you're shilling for tough love and your son, a product of tough love, is dead from an overdose. You can't control yourself because you're a psycopath, and you're going to burn for it. You will be sued when it comes to light that you are responsible for sending people into harmful programs, and the fact that you shill via your workplace is going to come back on you as well.
Yes, but I think most of us would agree that until that time comes we should try to enjoy ourselves as much as possible and keep building those off shore accounts.... if you catch my drift (no pun intended).
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
Was it this Rueben guy impersonating me? I dont think I could sue him for that but I hope someone does if thats what he does here.
Funny you're talking about "impersonating" after assuming my identity. You are one really desperate internet message board troll.
If you have any questions for the guy who actually worked for Canyon, that's me. The above poster stole my identity so to speak at Fornits.
Ha,Ha,Ha Bruce you are too much..... who says fornits isnt fun. Its a hoot watching you pretend to be this DeGroot guy and then the real DeGroot is Blaming Rueben who doesnt even post here!! lol. classic.
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".
-
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 ;D
-
You're going to get sued Reuben, but in the interim we can all hope that your employers get wind of your psychopathic activities on Fornits.
Was it this Rueben guy impersonating me? I dont think I could sue him for that but I hope someone does if thats what he does here.
Mark, Some people think Rueben is Thewho, but it really doesnt matter now that you have registered. No one can use your name, they can only troll you as a guest or other names and you can ignore them.
-
What will the press make of you Reuben, when it comes to light that your kid is dead of an overdose after going through a tough-love program and your other kid, who also went through a tough-love program, is estranged from you? You are going to be publicly disgraced. Then, odds are good that you will be sued for your role in sending people into the programs.
-
What will the press make of you Reuben, when it comes to light that your kid is dead of an overdose after going through a tough-love program and your other kid, who also went through a tough-love program, is estranged from you? You are going to be publicly disgraced. Then, odds are good that you will be sued for your role in sending people into the programs.
The problem you are struggling with is that you worry too much about events that have not occured yet. "What if this happens".... "what if that happens". Like I said lets enjoy today. Try to relax and enjoy life. If you were not having fun you would not be here. Everyone has a plan "B" and a back door, lets not sweat the stuff we have no control over. Be happy my friend, go for a jog and sweat the bad stuff out of you, you seem to be filled with debis today. There is nothing that a good run cant resolve..... even if that run is to the Cayman Islands lol (wink).
-
More of your gibberish, Reuben. You're a psychopath, so you can only form an intellectual approximation of what human beings experience emotionally. It's an advantage for you in some circumstances, but you aren't able to control yourself the way human beings are, so you're vulnerable. You don't really understand what goes on in the minds of humans, so you're prone to serious errors in judgement. You're an atavism, which is why your offspring was not viable. In the particular conditions in which you find yourself Reuben, it's not biologically advantageous for you to be a psychopath because you're not smart enough.
-
More of your gibberish, Reuben. You're a psychopath, so you can only form an intellectual approximation of what human beings experience emotionally. It's an advantage for you in some circumstances, but you aren't able to control yourself the way human beings are, so you're vulnerable. You don't really understand what goes on in the minds of humans, so you're prone to serious errors in judgement. You're an atavism, which is why your offspring was not viable. In the particular conditions in which you find yourself Reuben, it's not biologically advantageous for you to be a psychopath because you're not smart enough.
Excellent, so you see how easy it is to diagnose someone online. There has been intense criticism for years that this isn’t accurate or effective. Many ed-cons develop a good sense about people and are able to make accurate assessments (just like you have) without having to meet the child face to face.
This cuts down on the parents expenses by having to travel to vists. This way they save a couple of grand in travel expenses so in effect they get services for free.
-
More gibberish, Reuben. You get off here by antagonizing people by playing on what you perceive to be their emotions. Often, it works for you because the folks you're dealing with don't know what a psychopath is. They incorrectly believe that you are capable of empathizing with their emotions, so they're pawns for you. Where you encounter difficulty is in dealing with someone who recognizes what particular type of creature you are. People try to get you to understand their point of view because they think that you're operating with the same emotional and intellectual set-up they are, but you're not. Your satisfaction from manipulating reactions out of people here is all you're after, and a lot of the posters don't understand that. But again, because you truly do not understand what human beings experience, and you cannot control yourself, you've put yourself in a position where you're going to fail, and you'll have to abandon this set of pawns and move onto something else. You're not smart enough to be able to control everyone. You're just an aberration and a one-trick pony.
-
I will take that as "we agree" on my last post. I think you did hit on a little truth and that is nothing is forever and opportunities end and new ones begin. The main thing is that we all feel we are contributing to a good cause. We all want what is best for the kids.. we each just see and take a different path. So I believe your intent is good although you cannot experience hard fast results as I can. When you see the results of a child who is placed back on a healthy path and is happy again, reunited with their family it makes you want to do more...... it is a sickness or an addiction ….that we can agree on. Someday you may get to see a child in need get the help they deserve... until then keep up the good work and I will keep letting you know how it feels to succeed!!
-
Failure, Reuben. You got used to people recoiling from your taunts, and it gave you the reptilian gratification you crave, but what to do when someone doesn't react? The only move you had was to provoke enragement. If you don't get the rage response, you don't have another tactic. You just aren't smart enough.
-
Failure, Reuben. You got used to people recoiling from your taunts, and it gave you the reptilian gratification you crave, but what to do when someone doesn't react? The only move you had was to provoke enragement. If you don't get the rage response, you don't have another tactic. You just aren't smart enough.
Your right, guest. I would guess he goes out for a long jog to shake out the tension. Its hard to break old habits, people trolling him and taunting him and labeling him a Nazi on his user name. He is use to the angry response and has grown to expect it. So this is refreshing and new to him. Being the only pro program parent on a forum like fornits probably took its toll over the years.
-
I felt a connection developing there.
-
You're boring, Reuben. You exhausted your repertoire and you aren't smart enough to add anything new.
-
You're boring, Reuben. You exhausted your repertoire and you aren't smart enough to add anything new.
Well, you can always go back to trolling smart people who can keep your interest. Stick with what you do best and within your comfort zone and you will do fine.
-
More drivel, Reuben. You wanted to play Sophist, but you're too dumb. If you were smart, you could have made arguments that played on ambiguities and argued in favor of tough-love, really playing the posters here. You're too stupid to establish and back-up a sound argument, so you resorted to your extremely limited range of responses, and you made yourself look like a fool. Worse than a psychopath, you're a poseur.
-
More drivel, Reuben. You wanted to play Sophist, but you're too dumb. If you were smart, you could have made arguments that played on ambiguities and argued in favor of tough-love, really playing the posters here. You're too stupid to establish and back-up a sound argument, so you resorted to your extremely limited range of responses, and you made yourself look like a fool. Worse than a psychopath, you're a poseur.
I think that is one of the strengths the open forum here on fornits. It allows you to get your anger out and really lay into someone you disagree with. At the end of the day everyone has had a chance to speak their mind and feels happy. No one goes home angry. I guess maybe that is why I am drawn to this site... sort of like a program, everyone gets to talk about their issues and feels better when they are done. Never really thought of it that way before today...... this has been a good discussion, guest, seems we both were able to gather a new perspective.
-
More drivel, Reuben. You wanted to play Sophist, but you're too dumb. If you were smart, you could have made arguments that played on ambiguities and argued in favor of tough-love, really playing the posters here. You're too stupid to establish and back-up a sound argument, so you resorted to your extremely limited range of responses, and you made yourself look like a fool. Worse than a psychopath, you're a poseur.
100% agree. Plus he poses as all sorts of people. TheWho (Reuben) is the previous poster as well. He has over fifty separate identities here at Fornits. Don't be fooled by his nonsense.
-
Again. This is not a few years ago, this is last year, we should take another look at the dates on the lawsuit. It seems we may be able to encourage if not effect litigation on this forum.
http://web.archive.org/web/200802241410 ... r-edu.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20080224141058/www.aspeneducation.com/Outdoor-edu.html)
SUWS of the Carolinas - Old Fort, North Carolina
SUWS of the Carolinas is a therapeutic wilderness program with a focus on clinical intervention and assessment. The program uses the outdoors as an alternative to conventional treatment environments, while engaging students using traditional therapeutic methods. The wilderness setting removes modern distractions, simplifies choices and teaches valuable lessons. As a result, students begin to accept responsibility for personal decisions, address individual and family issues, and become invested in their own personal growth. Since 1981, SUWS programs have provided essential guidance and support to thousands of misdirected and at-risk adolescents. SUWS of the Carolinas specializes in the assessment and treatment of students ages 13-17.
Great post, thanks. This is what I am talking about, this is current information. I believe they also have a better than 90% success rate at SUWS of the carolinas. Many of these kids are turned around within a few weeks which is great option for many families and kids who do not need the benefit of a longer termed program or boarding solution.
Link (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/)
While you are on-line check out their independent studies on Wilderness programs. It is quite impressive.
-
Again. This is not a few years ago, this is last year, we should take another look at the dates on the lawsuit. It seems we may be able to encourage if not effect litigation on this forum.
http://web.archive.org/web/200802241410 ... r-edu.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20080224141058/www.aspeneducation.com/Outdoor-edu.html)
SUWS of the Carolinas - Old Fort, North Carolina
SUWS of the Carolinas is a therapeutic wilderness program with a focus on clinical intervention and assessment. The program uses the outdoors as an alternative to conventional treatment environments, while engaging students using traditional therapeutic methods. The wilderness setting removes modern distractions, simplifies choices and teaches valuable lessons. As a result, students begin to accept responsibility for personal decisions, address individual and family issues, and become invested in their own personal growth. Since 1981, SUWS programs have provided essential guidance and support to thousands of misdirected and at-risk adolescents. SUWS of the Carolinas specializes in the assessment and treatment of students ages 13-17.
Great post, thanks. This is what I am talking about, this is current information. I believe they also have a better than 90% success rate at SUWS of the carolinas. Many of these kids are turned around within a few weeks which is great option for many families and kids who do not need the benefit of a longer termed program or boarding solution.
Link (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/)
While you are on-line check out their independent studies on Wilderness programs. It is quite impressive.
I thought this place was in Idaho?
-
Here this kid mentions Idaho:
"I went through your program when I was 15 yrs old, I am now 32. I truly believe in this program and wanted to share with any reluctant parent out there my experience. I was a run away, rebelious teen with a major attitude and respect problem when I was shipped to a little town called Bliss in Idaho. After going through this program, I had a 100% turn around. Today, I have a wonderful family, and a good life. I look back fondly on those days and wouldn't trade it for the world. I believe I wouldn't be who I am today if my parents didn't send me there."
~SUWS Student
-
(http://http://thesimplefrontporch.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/waffles.jpg)
-
One of the questions I have with this:
Aspen Education Group has participated in multiple independent research studies to ensure that we provide the most cutting-edge, evidence-based therapeutic practices and clinical models within each of our programs. As the leading provider of therapeutic education programs for youth and young adults, we feel it is our responsibility to measure the effectiveness of our methods and the sustainability of our results.
Has anyone seen the completed Studies?
-
(http://http://www.marriedtothesea.com/071006/chickenhead.gif)
-
One of the questions I have with this:
Aspen Education Group has participated in multiple independent research studies to ensure that we provide the most cutting-edge, evidence-based therapeutic practices and clinical models within each of our programs. As the leading provider of therapeutic education programs for youth and young adults, we feel it is our responsibility to measure the effectiveness of our methods and the sustainability of our results.
Has anyone seen the completed Studies?
Look further down the page where you read the above quote and you will see the study results. If not I will paste them out here for you.
-
(http://http://archives.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20050911-HAILEY.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Wow. Blast from the past. Whooter has stolen the identity of a canyon Research employee here and has been posting in his name. This guy will do anything to promote programs. Epic lols ensued.
Anyway, this claim Whooter keeps making about "third-party oversight" of Behrens' work has been thoroughly debunked, so I thought I'd post it in this thread where it belongs.
By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.
Oh, you hurt my feelings. You did a ton of responding for someone who doesn't read my posts. Is this another lie? Hmmmm. Well anyway ..
so lets recap.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study. What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire. So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
Whooter, could you possibly quote exactly where it says that the Western Institutional Review Board "approved research and audited the study?"
Perhaps I'm missing something, which is certainly possible, but the only reference I was able to find in all 21 pages of this presentation ("Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes in Private Residential Treatment," by Ellen Behrens and Kristin Satterfield; 114th Annual APA Convention; August 12, 2006) as uploaded onto Scribd.com was ... the following emphasized sentence in the Methods section (page 3):
METHOD
Participants.
The sample consisted of 993 adolescents, admitted to one of 9 programs located in the Eastern and Western United States, between August 2003 and August 2005, who, along with their parents or guardians (hereafter referred to as “parents”) agreed to participate in the study and who completed measures at admission and/or discharge. The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
The contribution of each of the 9 residential programs to the sample was relatively equal and ranged from 9% to 16%. This sample consisted of a mean of 55% (range 37-75%) of the adolescents admitted to the residential programs during the time period. Demographic information (i.e., gender, age) from admission data provided by the residential programs indicated the sample was roughly representative of students enrolled in the programs during the same time period.[/list][/list]
To tell you the truth, it isn't even clear (to *me*) whether they even had anything to do with the questionnaire, just with the participant consent/assent forms.
Again, I may be missing something. If so, I'd appreciate anyone's clarification/insight. Thanks.
Here's an interesting fact about the Certificate of Approval: it only refers to the consent/assent forms prior to the study start and has nothing to do whatsoever with the results of the study, which appear never to have been submitted to WIRB, as they have no record of the study.
The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.
So, there's the extent of the WIRB involvement - they approved the consent/assent forms and nothing more.
I've been asking for the same thing for a couple of days, Ursus. Obviously, it isn't there and Whooter made it up. You have correctly pointed out the fact that WIRB had nothing whatsoever to do with "oversight" or "auditing" of this study, as they told me when I called. They don't claim that, Canyon/Behrens don't claim that...only Whooter claims that. He got burned behind that statement and now he's just throwing a hissy.
Now he's back to claiming "third-party oversight" and he doesn't name who "oversaw" the study, of course, because that's just made up, too. He was formerly claiming it was WIRB, but that is proven false, so now he just makes the claim with no attribution whatsover.
This guy is as phony as it gets and will say anything to try to market Aspen, even if it means publicly pooping in his own pants over and over. It appears that "fiduciary interest" he has in Aspen Education has clouded his judgment. Remember, he's in it for the money, not the truth.
This issue may be closed.
-
DJ, I think we need to drop you down from your claimed PhD to a masters degree (and even that is sagging a bit). You have not done your homework on Studies and their oversight Review Board. You can make up any names you want or log in as multiple people but it wont change the facts.
Once the Study has been approved (Which WIRB did with this study). They continue to review the study and its progress.... "Oversight". Didnt you ask these questions during your phone call? Did you not read up on third party oversight by a review board?
so lets recap.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study. What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire. So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
...
-
Whoa...look out. Repetitive spam trolling is active! I guess when you can't pound the facts, you pound the table. All this effort over a few days of repetitive spam trolling is just to try to deflect that fact that nobody but Whooter and Aspen marketing claim the Behrens study was "overseen" or "audited" by a third party. The researchers don't even say this!If Whooter didn't try to embellish and stuck to the facts - that only the consent/assent forms were reviewed - he wouldn't have to jump through all these hoops.
If only repeating some debunked garbage over and over would make it true, Whooter would be in business. If not, he'll just impersonate a researcher, lol.
No matter how hard Whooter tries, those words will never appear in the study.
-
Whoa...look out. Repetitive spam trolling is active! I guess when you can't pound the facts, you pound the table. All this effort over a few days of repetitive spam trolling is just to try to deflect that fact that nobody but Whooter and Aspen marketing claim the Behrens study was "overseen" or "audited" by a third party. The researchers don't even say this!If Whooter didn't try to embellish and stuck to the facts - that only the consent/assent forms were reviewed - he wouldn't have to jump through all these hoops.
If only repeating some debunked garbage over and over would make it true, Whooter would be in business. If not, he'll just impersonate a researcher, lol.
No matter how hard Whooter tries, those words will never appear in the study.
Sorry,DJ, I think when you claimed to have called WIRB and said they told you they never heard of this study you knew you lost the argument and had to revert to making things up. It became clear to you that WIRB was involved in this study and their review Board provided independent third party over view. It is in the body of the report itself and mentioned at the bottom of a page in Aspens web site.
We can both agree that you and many here on fornits will never accept this study but I think the two of us have made it crystal clear that the study exists and was presented to the APA during their annual convention and an independent Review Board was involved. Standard protocal for approval of a study is to follow through and over see it to completion... its not a rubber stamp. You claim to be educated so I think you know this but have dug your heals in so far you cant admit it now.
...
-
It is in the body of the report itself
No, it isn't. Ursus pointed this out you after I did about fifteen times.
Here's the law:
Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
45 CFR 46 101(b)
...
2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.
...
So, despite Whooter's protestations, anybody familiar with human research knows that surveys (e.g. self-report forms) and interviews are exempt from review. It's "Research 101" and Whooter needs to register for the class.
Two days of embarassing yourself has thankfully come to an end, Whooter. Your "case" is coooked.
-
Several years of embarassing yourself will never come to an end, Whooter. Your "case" is coooked, but that's not about to stop you from posting more shit.
-
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study. What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire. So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
...
-
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.
Well, color me shocked. ::)
-
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.
Well, color me shocked. ::)
Anne, so lets see what have you got....nada. You have been impersonating yourself since you got here, so what is the big deal.
Now that's shocking....lol.
-
Yeah, Anne, don't pay attention to the Canyon Research employee! He has no idea what happened. ::)
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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)
-
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! :D
-
Declined in functioning compared to what, anyway? There's no control group.
-
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.
-
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! :D
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.
...
-
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! :D
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.
-
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! :D
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!!
...
-
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.
-
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 (http://http://www.wirb.com/content/research_subjects.aspx) :
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.
...
-
So, DJ, explain to us again how this study didnt receive oversight from WIRB! lol
...
-
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:
-
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.
I dont believe this study was a clinical trial, but WIRBs review board oversees all types of studies as is evident in the body of the study itself as presented at the American Psychological Association (APA).
Here, lets take a look
WIRBs' website Clinical and non-clinical (http://http://www.wirb.com/content/research_subjects.aspx) :
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 we can see that they provide oversight for both clinical and non-clinical studies.
...
-
^^False statement^^. I posted their compliance statement. Clinical trials only. You're posting subject information FAQ's which covers clinical trial subjects. The compliance statement reflects their actual work practice.
This study was never reviewed by an IRB, never peer-reviewed and never published, that is, it's bunk.
This is what your link goes to:
Welcome to the SUBJECT INFORMATION section of the WIRB website
That's not a policy statement. The words "clinical" or "non-clinical" DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in that document. You made it up, as usual.
The quote I provided clearly and explicitly states "clinical trials" only. You need a new talking point.
-
^^False statement^^. I posted their compliance statement. Clinical trials only. You're posting subject information FAQ's which covers clinical trial subjects. The compliance statement reflects their actual work practice.
This study was never reviewed by an IRB, never peer-reviewed and never published, that is, it's bunk.
This is what your link goes to:
Welcome to the SUBJECT INFORMATION section of the WIRB website
That's not a policy statement. The words "clinical" or "non-clinical" DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in that document. You made it up, as usual.
The quote I provided clearly and explicitly states "clinical trials" only. You need a new talking point.
Well lets take another look:
I checked the page again and it doesnt say this applies to just "Clinical trials" as you imply. If you can point it out it would help. Here is what it says:
WIRBs' website (http://http://www.wirb.com/content/research_subjects.aspx) :
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).
I think it is important to stick with what WIRB states in their own processes. I dont see where it states they only oversee clinical and not non-clinical studies. You keep making this stuff up.
...
-
DJ, This company, we are discussing, (WIRB) reviews all kinds of studies, its what they do, thats why they call themselves a "Review Board". They spell it out very clearly in their “Certificate of Approval” and also on their web page that they continue to review the studies after they are approved. (oversight)
If this only applied to just “Clinical” or “Non clinical” then they would state this. But they don’t. All studies are important and deserve oversight and that is what they provide as a service.
The study received oversight. Its all over the Review Boards’ website and paperwork.
...
-
No, they don't. You're wrong.
Their compliance statement, a legal document, clearly and explicitly states they review clinical trials. AS I pointed out before, the word "non-clinical" is never mentioned, nor would it be. Everyone in this business knows only clinical trials are reviewed.
If this only applied to just “Clinical” or “Non clinical” then they would state this. But they don’t.
Uh...yes, they do state it. Explicitly in their compliance statement that I have posted several times. Here it is again, in case you have trouble with reading it. Maybe you can point out where it states they review non-clinical studies for us.
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).
"Inititial and continuing reviews of clinical trials." Pretty simple. Right in their legal compliance statement.
-
No, they don't. You're wrong.
Their compliance statement, a legal document, clearly and explicitly states they review clinical trials. AS I pointed out before, the word "non-clinical" is never mentioned, nor would it be. Everyone in this business knows only clinical trials are reviewed.
If this only applied to just “Clinical” or “Non clinical” then they would state this. But they don’t.
Uh...yes, they do state it. Explicitly in their compliance statement that I have posted several times. Here it is again, in case you have trouble with reading it. Maybe you can point out where it states they review non-clinical studies for us.
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).
"Inititial and continuing reviews of clinical trials." Pretty simple. Right in their legal compliance statement.
Yes they comply with the requirements and regulations for initial and continuing review of clinical trials. So their review board is able to take on Clinical trial research, but they are not restricting themselves to just clinical trials, otherwise they would not be reviewing this study. Do you see what I mean?
The study states very clearly that it received the "Certificate of Approval" and if you read the "Certificate of Approval" from WIRB you will see that they continue to review the study after that. They also state in their process that they continue to review the study after they approve a study (They dont say just clinical trials). It doesn't state anywhere that this is limited to just Clinical trials.
I can provide a link to their documents and process again if you like.
...
-
Sure it does. It says right in my last post that they review clinical trials. That's what they do. That's all they do. Nowhere does it state they review survey research. Nobody does that. And their Certificate of Approval process states "the certificate of approval will indicate approval of the consent forms." That's it. That's their policy.
Just posting your same old made up stuff doesn't change their legal policy, Whooter. Like I said, take it up with them. If you want them to become the only IRB in the world to do continuing review on survey research, go ahead and pitch them your idea. Right now though, they don't and they state that explicitly in their legal docs.
-
Well lets take another look:
I checked the page again and it doesnt say this applies to just "Clinical trials" as you imply. If you can point it out it would help. Here is what it says:
WIRBs' website (http://http://www.wirb.com/content/research_subjects.aspx) :
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).
I think it is important to stick with what WIRB states in their own processes. I dont see where it states in their process that they only oversee clinical and not non-clinical studies. You keep making this stuff up.
...
-
Yeah...again...what you're linking to is a generic description of what an IRB does in clinical trials. I noticed nowhere in your little quote does it say WIRB. What the WIRB does, specifically, is this:
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).
Just point out where it says they do continuing review for survey studies and we can move on.
-
WIRB is a review board! What they do is Review Research and studies lol. and yes, they are qualified to do Clinical studies too. You are going to have a hard time convincing people that they dont review the studies, though.
I checked the page again and it doesnt say this applies to just "Clinical trials" as you imply. If you can point it out it would help.
This link is not specific to any one type of study:
WIRBs' website (http://http://www.wirb.com/content/research_subjects.aspx) :
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).
I think it is important to stick with what WIRB states in their own processes. I dont see where it states in their process that they only oversee clinical and not non-clinical studies.
If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.
...
-
Yeah...again...what you're linking to is a generic description of what an IRB does in clinical trials. I noticed nowhere in your little quote does it say WIRB. What the WIRB does, specifically, is this:
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).
Just point out where it says they do continuing review for survey studies and we can move on.
It's right here in their compliance statement. Just point out where their legal documents and not some generic description of "What do IRB's do?" say otherwise and we can get off this subject. Just quote and link to the passage in their compliance statement that says "WIRB performs continuing review of surveys" and you're all set. I think we all agree that a legal document of compliance is the final arbiter in this case. It defines all they do.
IRBs don't act outside their charters. If they did, they'd be out of compliance. Is that what you're suggesting? They're doing this outside their legal charter as a favor or something to Canyon Research?
According to your logic, they do all things not specified in their compliance docs unless they specifically say they don't. So in your world they do elevator inspections, too. Oh yeah, music reviews, too. And, bikini inspections as well."It doesn't say they don't, DJ!"
This study has no peer review and has never been published either. Hmmmm...wonder why? :roflmao:
Whoops! Whooter just made up some new facts:
If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.
Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter. This ought to be interesting. Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!
-
The paragraph you are showing us is communicating to the readers that WIRB is in compliance and meets the necessary requirements to conduct reviews of Clinical trials, DJ. I think we all agree to that. I have seen the clinical trials on line that they have overseen...Drexel University, University of California etc.
But when we look at their process and website it doesnt differentiate between Clinical and non-clinical research. It doesnt state that they treat them differently. It explains what they do as a Review Board and that is review , approve and continue to review the studies. Its all over the website and I have quoted their own process which isn't limited to either clinical or nonclinical research.
... Again WIRB is a Review Board and they were hired to Approve and Review the study. No getting around that.
...
-
Sooo...in other words...you got nothing. Just generic FAQ's about "what IRB's do" and otherwise, zippo.
Come on back when you find something that says "WIRB does continuing review for surveys" and you'll be gold.
You skipped this also:
Whoops! Whooter just made up some new facts:
If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.
Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter. This ought to be interesting. Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!
I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat: :rofl:
-
Then we can get on to these important topics:
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
Several of these programs in the survey were charged with child abuse, also. One or more have been shut down for abusing children.
Behrens concludes via her research that child abuse is beneficial to children. That is really, really sick and demented!
-
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits feels that WIRB (Review Board) was involved in the study but never provided oversight.
...
-
Sooo...in other words...you got nothing. Just generic FAQ's about "what IRB's do" and otherwise, zippo.
Come on back when you find something that says "WIRB does continuing review for surveys" and you'll be gold.
You skipped this also:
Whoops! Whooter just made up some new facts:
If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.
Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter. This ought to be interesting. Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!
I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat: :rofl:
Avoiding this still? You lied about this, too.
-
Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter. This ought to be interesting. Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!
I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat: :rofl:
Avoiding this still? You lied about this, too.
Right here:
The Study was presented at the Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA)
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Sooo...in other words...you got nothing. Just generic FAQ's about "what IRB's do" and otherwise, zippo.
Come on back when you find something that says "WIRB does continuing review for surveys" and you'll be gold.
You skipped this also:
Whoops! Whooter just made up some new facts:
If you want to believe that the "Review Board" does not review studies that is up to you. But the study presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and WIRB say differently.
Provide the link where this study was presented to the American Psychiatric Association, Whooter. This ought to be interesting. Your fibs get bigger and bigger every time you post!
I guess you made this up and that's why you're avoiding it, huh? :beat: :rofl:
Avoiding this still? You lied about this, too.
Right here:
The Study was presented at the Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA)
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oooops! :seg: ... psychiatric ? psychological
My guess is that is probably just a simple error, not a deliberate lie. But look at how cleverly Whooter chose to construct his post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&p=370601#p370600) ... to avoid having to admit that error! :D
-
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:
-
Oooops! :seg: ... psychiatric ? psychological
My guess is that is probably just a simple error, not a deliberate lie. But look at how cleverly Whooter chose to construct his post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&p=370601#p370600) ... to avoid having to admit that error! :D
Ahhh lol, Boy I guess I have to give DJ one today. Yes, I meant the APA and wrote psychiatric instead of psychological...... my bad.
...
-
That's just one of the blatant "mistakes" (read: intentional lies) you've made in this thread, Whootie. You're batting below the Mendoza line on this subject. You should get a pinch hitter and bench yourself because you're sinking your team, the Aspen Marketers.
In the program you'd be on work assignments daily and in an isolation cell nightly for this pack of lies and your lengthy denials and deflections. Aspen's cadre of slope-browed staff would love to get their hands on a little manipulating liar like you!
Why don't you give us a ten page writing assignment on why you're such a little liar and manipulator. You're on bans from Fornits for two months also. You can't handle the freedom.
-
That's just one of the blatant "mistakes" (read: intentional lies) you've made in this thread, Whootie. You're batting below the Mendoza line on this subject. You should get a pinch hitter and bench yourself because you're sinking your team, the Aspen Marketers.
In the program you'd be on work assignments daily and in an isolation cell nightly for this pack of lies and your lengthy denials and deflections. Aspen's cadre of slope-browed staff would love to get their hands on a little manipulating liar like you!
Why don't you give us a ten page writing assignment on why you're such a little liar and manipulator.
Ha,Ha,Ha Wow you are a sore looser (or is that loser? lol oops I made another typo). In all fairness I thought it was a good discussion,DJ. We really hashed out the whole study and how it came to be. At some point we should discuss the the findings of the study itself. There were a lot of positive and negative points brought out about the industry.
...
-
Why don't you give us a ten page writing assignment on why you're such a little liar and manipulator.
Why would he waste his time, when there are people like you who spend their entire life dedicated to documenting the "lies" of Whooter?
Don't you have a job or maybe, something better to do than trolling Whooter, dysfunctional junction?
Whooter, being the titan of the troubled teen industry that he is, or so I've heard on this forum, well it's no wonder he has the cash to retire and spend his time as he wishes. But what about an ex-abuser for pay (according to your own descriptions of treatment programs), how can you afford to spend all the working day dedicated to whining to Whooter?
Hey I wonder if the family you and your extremist buddies terrorized now sleep with a loaded shotgun under their bed? It would be rather ironic, don't you think? :rofl: Thanks for the laughs dysfunctional but you might want to get some help for your severe case of W.D.S.
Back to the real world for me, hope you are having a great summer Whooter! Sorry you have to deal with the constant trolls of psychos like dysfunctional, fornits would be a much better discussion w/o losers like him. :cheers:
-
Whooter gets pinched in multiple lies...denies, denies, denies...more lies...more pinches...and...OUT COME THE SOCKPUPPETS right on cue!
Make that three month's bans from Fornits and a twenty page writing assignment! :feedtrolls: :agree:
SUCK IT: "I am leaving Fornits because I got a job and won't have time to post."
That job didn't last very long, SUCK IT! :roflmao: :roflmao: :flip: :agree: I'm sure McDonald's is still hiring burger flippers. Don't lose hope! According to Whooter, you're well qualified for Burger King, too! :nods: :jerry:
-
Whooter gets pinched in multiple lies...denies, denies, denies...more lies...more pinches...and...OUT COME THE SOCKPUPPETS right on cue!
Make that three month's bans from Fornits and a twenty page writing assignment! :feedtrolls: :agree:
SUCK IT: "I am leaving Fornits because I got a job and won't have time to post."
That job didn't last very long, SUCK IT! :roflmao: :roflmao: :flip: :agree: I'm sure McDonald's is still hiring burger flippers. Don't lose hope! According to Whooter, you're well qualified for Burger King, too! :nods: :jerry:
Hey, DJ, calm down, dont take it too hard. You did catch me on that typo remember? So technically it was a mistake, (so I will give you that), so you can call it a victory. You put up a good fight buddy. Read the study and see what you think (it doesnt matter if you feel it received oversight or not), its still a completed study and worth looking at.
...
-
I read the whole thing, several times, years ago and also recently. I have also shared it with my colleagues who run human subject research for our firm. With unanimity, like most people who have commented here, we believe it's complete and utter garbage.
It is deeply flawed, biased, cherry-picked samples, no control group, conflicts of interest galore, completed while kids were in the program and their responses could lead to longer detention, no follow up, etc., etc., etc. This work would not pass the most cursory examiniation in peer review and has never been published, indicating the authors know it doesn't pass muster.
In summation, it's bunk. The very first post in this thread completely invalidates the work.
-
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction feels that WIRB (a Review Board) didnt review the study.
...
-
I read the whole thing, several times, years ago and also recently. I have also shared it with my colleagues who run human subject research for our firm. With unanimity, like most people who have commented here, we believe it's complete and utter garbage.
It is deeply flawed, biased, cherry-picked samples, no control group, conflicts of interest galore, completed while kids were in the program and their responses could lead to longer detention, no follow up, etc., etc., etc. This work would not pass the most cursory examiniation in peer review and has never been published, indicating the authors know it doesn't pass muster.
In summation, it's bunk. The very first post in this thread completely invalidates the work.
Here's the question I'd like answered about this study: If it were reviewed, don't you think a review board would discover that the facilities being studied were charged with abusing children; that is, the researcher's main conclusion is that child abuse is "effective" in helping children?
The review board's primary job is to insure the safety of human subjects. Why didn't they know that children were being abused, neglected, maimed, raped and killed in Aspen programs? That just doesn't pass even the lowest bar for review.
Think about it: MBA was closed down for systematically abusing children, hundreds of them. The state of Oregon found in their investigation that the very program model rose to the level of child abuse.
How is it possible that this study could conclude that MBA "helped" children, when it clearly harmed them? Based on this documented, undeniable fact, it is proven that this study is complete garbage. The data are obviously deeply flawed or totally fabricated. There's no way around that. Hence, no peer review, no publication and no follow-up after six long years. Follow up should have been completed one year out, but the researcher just dropped the project.
Everything about this study fails the smell test.
-
I can see what you are saying. I have some understanding of how studies are conducted, so I might be able to help here. I think you need to take a look at the boundary conditions of the study itself to determine what is within the Review boards’ scope and control. The Review board is there to insure that the study itself doesn’t bring harm to any people. For example if the people are required to take any medications, wear any devices, do physical activites and also insure that the identities of the people partaking in the study kept safe, is the data being collected properly and stored in such a way as to keep people identities safe. Is the study being conducted the way it was designed to be.... etc.
I don’t think the review board can insure that the children are not being raped by a teacher or their Uncle Larry. Studies are conducted with Prison inmates all the time and in public schools and abuse occurs there on a daily basis from what I have read. Being responsible for keeping all these people safe goes beyond the scope of the oversight committee.
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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."
-
(http://http://imgur.com/c75Eh.jpg)
-
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.
...
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
...
-
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"?
-
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.
...
-
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
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.....
...
-
Or maybe we should believe the fiduciary of Aspen Education about the veracity of this unpublished, non-peer reviewed study about Aspen Education? Lols.
-
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...
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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 (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
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.
-
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 (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
-
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.
Hmmm.... forgot about the one you were just talking about? Didnt see that study listed lol.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Oh yeah, you never heard of the Surgeon General's report, that is except when you were talking about it three years ago (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=23525&p=287681&hilit=+surgeon+general#p287681).
You didn't have any answer for it then either and were being called out as an "industry shill" back then, too. You're a tired old troll, Whooter. Your game is soooo lame. What are you getting from Aspen, 5 cents a post? Weak showing, as usual.
-
And I guess you "forgot" about these studies (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=30808&hilit=group+therapy#p370079) you were just discussing last week, too.
So, is it just a bad memory or is it that fiduciary interest in Aspen Education that drives you to behave this way? :beat: I wonder... :rofl: :roflmao:
-
And I guess you "forgot" about these studies (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=30808&hilit=group+therapy#p370079) you were just discussing last week, too.
So, is it just a bad memory or is it that fiduciary interest in Aspen Education that drives you to behave this way? :beat: I wonder... :rofl: :roflmao:
If you click on your own link you will notice that I was indeed discussing these studies. Like I said it is important to include as much information as possible when discussing the industry. The info brought to the table should not be filtered either way and should include information representing both sides of the argument.
I hope this helps
...
-
Yeah, you were discussing them alright. But just before your last post you were denying they existed to try to derail the thread. You're just a troll making a nickel a post.
-
Yeah, you were discussing them alright. But just before your last post you were denying they existed to try to derail the thread. You're just a troll making a nickel a post.
lol, okay if it makes you happy lets get back to this study. You can break open a new thread for the other studies. Lets get back on track here:
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits doesn't think the study received oversight.
...
-
Now we're back to repetitive spam trolling, a sure sign of an empty mind...
-
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 (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_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 (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/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 (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 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_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.
I'd like to see some thoughtful commentary on all of these items that invalidate this study. No repetitive spam trolling, please.
Conflicts of interest, no follow up, no peer review, never published, studied facilities shut down for systematic child abuse, no review of program methods, Behrens on Aspen payroll, Behrens on board of NATSAP, etc.
-
The information is interesting, DJ. I dont see how any of it would effect the 1,000 of parents and their kids who participated in the study. The study was independently conducted and overseen by an independent review board. If there were any conflict of interests the review board would have picked it up. That is within the scope of their oversight.
The study was also presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) annual convention. If there is any concern with conflict of interest then it should be sent to WIRB which is the institutional review board which oversaw the study. They will review and address the issues. They work with these issues all the time. I am sure doctors are involved in various studies in the medical industry, but they have conditions which define conflict of interest.
If you feel personally that the study is invalid then you have the right to not refer to it. But as far as the American Psychological Association and the rest of the professional community they have accepted the study. I haven't seen anyone come forward to challenge any of the findings to date.... well except DJ of fornits, which we will note.
...
-
American Psychological Association and the rest of the professional community they have accepted the study
:bs: :roflmao:
No peer review, no publication. Just because something is presented at a conference doesn't mean it was "accepted by the professional community." If it were accepted it would be peer reviewed and published. Didn't you say you knew someting about research? Apparently not.
-
American Psychological Association and the rest of the professional community they have accepted the study
:bs: :roflmao:
No peer review, no publication. Just because something is presented at a conference doesn't mean it was "accepted by the professional community." If it were accepted it would be peer reviewed and published. Didn't you say you knew someting about research? Apparently not.
Yes, I did!! I have worked with various studies (in many different capacities) over my professional career. Where does it state that studies need to be peer reviewed and published in a journal? The APA didnt say "Wait until your study is peer reviewed or published first"? ... they accepted the study which was done independently and was overseen by a review board. It was presented in front of the APA community.
The only one with this requirement is you. The rest of the professional community is fine with it. I havent seen anyone come forward to challenge the findings.
...
-
Hey Whooter
Have you ever noticed in dysfunctions overly obsessive signature, is this line here:
Whooter ("Children are products") is an uneducated industry shill and his credibility
I thought his uneducated obsession was with "survivors", but apparently anyone who dares question his anti treatment orthodoxy must be "uneducated". If you haven't heard, according to DJ I am "uneducated" also and work at Burger King. Would you like fries with that? Oops. thought I was at work again. I just thought it was funny he seems to have this education obsession with everyone. By the way, Whooter, I heard you get a nickel a post, how you enjoying that $67? Don't spend it all in one place, it took a year to earn that bank! :o
-
Oh, so I guess you have been helping him with his famous fast-food to program analogies..
-
Hey Whooter
Have you ever noticed in dysfunctions overly obsessive signature, is this line here:
Whooter ("Children are products") is an uneducated industry shill and his credibility
I thought his uneducated obsession was with "survivors", but apparently anyone who dares question his anti treatment orthodoxy must be "uneducated". If you haven't heard, according to DJ I am "uneducated" also and work at Burger King. Would you like fries with that? Oops. thought I was at work again. I just thought it was funny he seems to have this education obsession with everyone. By the way, Whooter, I heard you get a nickel a post, how you enjoying that $67? Don't spend it all in one place, it took a year to earn that bank! :o
This post is probably better suited for a PM, l but I will place it out here anyways.
Education is big to DJ for some reason. I think he feels he will not be taken seriously unless he can portray himself to be a person who has been educated. So he works hard to make this known to new posters like Danny and yourself and maintain that image. He gains personal pleasure in calling people dumdums or stupid. This is an open forum and people can claim to be whatever they want here, I dont really care, a discussion is a discussion.
He spends a lot of time here cleaning up his past posts so that they align themselves with a present argument. A few weeks ago he boasted of having advanced degrees while working as staff at Daytop (I believe it was) and the other poster challenged him so DJ went back 5 years and updated and edited his posts to reflect he had degrees back then. He then proceeded to present this as evidence of his education.
Here is one of them (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11098&p=121144&hilit=msw#p121144)
I dont bother with it much. We could all build footers to discredit each other but my personal feeling is if you feel confident within your own self and you believe in what you say then there is no need to continuously try to discredit others or surround yourself in degrees to participate here on fornits. Education is not a prerequisite for making a valid argument to defend your personal position or thought on any given subject.
We should all be accepted equally here regardless of educational background.
...
-
Peer review is the way the editors of academic journals attempt to keep the quality of articles in their publications high, and assure that poor or fallacious research does not get published.
Hmmmmm... The Behrens study was never published. And it's both poor and fallacious. This is why it was never published. If it could withstand peer review, the gold standard for research, it would be basically unassailable by critics. But it never was peer reviewed or published, so that speaks volumes about its validity, which apparently even the author believes is none or she would have submitted it for review. Same reason there was never a follow up done either I suppose.
I would think someone like Whooter, who is claiming to be an expert on studies when he didn't even know what CFR was last week, should understand this. Or maybe he's just a phony whose entire knowledge base consists of what he copies and pastes from Google. Probably the latter.
-
Peer review is the way the editors of academic journals attempt to keep the quality of articles in their publications high, and assure that poor or fallacious research does not get published.
Hmmmmm... The Behrens study was never published. And it's both poor and fallacious. This is why it was never published. If it could withstand peer review, the gold standard for research, it would be basically unassailable by critics. But it never was peer reviewed or published, so that speaks volumes about its validity, which apparently even the author believes is none or she would have submitted it for review. Same reason there was never a follow up done either I suppose.
I would think someone like Whooter, who is claiming to be an expert on studies when he didn't even know what CFR was last week, should understand this. Or maybe he's just a phony whose entire knowledge base consists of what he copies and pastes from Google. Probably the latter.
So no requirement then? I thought I would let you look yourself so that you would realize thats what I have been trying to tell you. So we can settle on phase I of the study and we all patiently await the outcome of Phase II.
...
-
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.
-
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.
Aw, do I sense a wee little bit of jealousy that there are study results to back up what I have been saying for years here while you are left high and dry with only hearsay to back you up?
Oh, wait ! has your hearsay been peer reviewed and published? lol
Sorry, I couldnt resist, DJ.
...
-
Hearsay? The study itself says phase 2 will be a one year follow up. It has been four years. No phase 2. No follow up. How can a one year follow up be done after four years? If you're claiming it was done, just link to it. I'd like to see what you come up with.
So all we have to go on is a non peer reviewed study that was never published and no follow up ever done. That's the fact of the matter. It's just a marketing gimmick.
-
Hearsay? The study itself says phase 2 will be a one year follow up. It has been four years. No phase 2. No follow up. How can a one year follow up be done after four years? If you're claiming it was done, just link to it. I'd like to see what you come up with.
So all we have to go on is a non peer reviewed study that was never published and no follow up ever done. That's the fact of the matter. It's just a marketing gimmick.
Sorry, DJ, phase I of the study has been completed and presented to the APA. It was independently reviewed. Nothing you can do to change this fact.
So what do you have that says these same programs are ineffective? See what I mean? Peer reviewed and published!! lol.
...
-
Surgeon General's study. Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse. Peer reviewed, longitudinal and published.
Behrens is unpublished, unreviewed, no follow up. Marketing gimmick.
-
Hmm... so we have this:
Surgeon General's study. Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse. Peer reviewed, longitudinal and published.
vs.
Up to 80% of kids in residential treatment programs improve and do well.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
Good idea, DJ, we can go with these 2 studies and let the readers and parents decide for themselves.
...
-
Yes, with a caveat that the Behrens work was never published, reviewed or had any follow up, had conflicts of interest, flawed methodology, etc while the Surgeon General study was 10 years in length, had a control group, peer review, was published and is scientifically valid.
Fine with me.
-
Hmm... so we have this:
Surgeon General's study. Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse. Peer reviewed, longitudinal and published.
vs.
Up to 80% of kids in residential treatment programs improve and do well.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
Good idea, DJ, we can go with these 2 studies and let the readers and parents decide for themselves.
Yes, with a caveat that the Behrens work was never published, reviewed or had any follow up, had conflicts of interest, flawed methodology, etc while the Surgeon General study was 10 years in length, had a control group, peer review, was published and is scientifically valid.
Damn, this image is gonna get a workout!
(http://http://a4.vox.com/6a00c225257507604a00fae8c21e94000b-500pi)
-
Hmm... so we have this:
Surgeon General's study. Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse. Peer reviewed, longitudinal and published.
vs.
Up to 80% of kids in residential treatment programs improve and do well.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
Good idea, DJ, we can go with these 2 studies and let the readers and parents decide for themselves.
Yes, with a caveat that the Behrens work was never published, reviewed or had any follow up, had conflicts of interest, flawed methodology, etc while the Surgeon General study was 10 years in length, had a control group, peer review, was published and is scientifically valid.
Damn, this image is gonna get a workout!
(http://http://a4.vox.com/6a00c225257507604a00fae8c21e94000b-500pi)
So why are you afraid to publish it here on fornits? lol
Here, lets take another look at the one presented at the APA convention:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
[quote="Whooter
So why are you afraid to publish it here on fornits? [/quote]
I'm not. Go right ahead. Just make sure DJ's caveat is there.
-
Anne, I will let you and DJ add in the disclaimers. You need to keep busy and it will keep the study results more visible this way
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.
...
-
Anne, I will let you and DJ add in the disclaimers. You need to keep busy and it will keep the study results more visible this way
Why can't you, just once, be honest about this? It's a biased "study" of Aspen, bought and paid for by Aspen with no follow up and nothing that can come even close to being termed "longitudinal". Those are the facts that you choose to leave out of your incesant peddling of that "study" (read...exit survey).
-
The "disclaimers" come right from the body of the study. The researcher comes right out and says there's self-report bias, results from kids who quit the program were tossed out, parents had strong bias, staff "confronted" parents when they tried to pull their kid, no control group, etc.
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So traditional treatment is proven to be more effective than Aspen programs, as Behrens readily admits right in the study.
-
- ex girlfriend lesbians kissing hot - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.stiffspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/ex-girlfriend-lesbians-kissing-hot.jpg)
-
Anne, I will let you and DJ add in the disclaimers. You need to keep busy and it will keep the study results more visible this way
Why can't you, just once, be honest about this? It's a biased "study" of Aspen, bought and paid for by Aspen with no follow up and nothing that can come even close to being termed "longitudinal". Those are the facts that you choose to leave out of your incesant peddling of that "study" (read...exit survey).
Because it is not biased,Anne (it received third party oversight), people are using this as an excuse because they dont like the results. You have been rejecting written papers, research written by students who had open access to the programs and individual accounts were tossed aside claiming the kids were brainwashed.
Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.
If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits). I cant publish the paper in a journal and we cant invalidate the study because one person wants it published in a journal or another wanted a different oversight done. These points need to be taken up with WIRB. No one besides people here on fornits has rejected this study... think about it.
...
-
The "disclaimers" come right from the body of the study. The researcher comes right out and says there's self-report bias, results from kids who quit the program were tossed out, parents had strong bias, staff "confronted" parents when they tried to pull their kid, no control group, etc.
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So traditional treatment is proven to be more effective than Aspen programs, as Behrens readily admits right in the study.
So we agree that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates. Has this been published in a journal? lol.
...
-
[quote="Whooter
Because it is not biased,Anne [/quote]
:rofl: :rofl: :beat:
Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.
No, there's not.
If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits).
Right. I shouldn't talk about my opinions about that biased survey you keep trying to shove down everyone's throats as a clinical, longitudinal study. Got it. ::)
-
The "disclaimers" come right from the body of the study. The researcher comes right out and says there's self-report bias, results from kids who quit the program were tossed out, parents had strong bias, staff "confronted" parents when they tried to pull their kid, no control group, etc.
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So traditional treatment is proven to be more effective than Aspen programs, as Behrens readily admits right in the study.
So we agree that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates. Has this been published in a journal? lol.
Did you hurt yourself with that one? Talk about reaching! You stretched the truth out til ya broke it!
-
Anne, I will let you and DJ add in the disclaimers. You need to keep busy and it will keep the study results more visible this way
Why can't you, just once, be honest about this? It's a biased "study" of Aspen, bought and paid for by Aspen with no follow up and nothing that can come even close to being termed "longitudinal". Those are the facts that you choose to leave out of your incesant peddling of that "study" (read...exit survey).
Because it is not biased,Anne (it received third party oversight), people are using this as an excuse because they dont like the results. You have been rejecting written papers, research written by students who had open access to the programs and individual accounts were tossed aside claiming the kids were brainwashed.
Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.
If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits). I cant publish the paper in a journal and we cant invalidate the study because one person wants it published in a journal or another wanted a different oversight done. These points need to be taken up with WIRB. No one besides people here on fornits has rejected this study... think about it.
...
- LESBIANS on top - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.clubnymphosofbr.com/LESBIANS.jpg)
-
[quote="Whooter]
Because it is not biased,Anne
:rofl: :rofl: :beat:
Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.
No, there's not.
If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits).
Right. I shouldn't talk about my opinions about that biased survey you keep trying to shove down everyone's throats as a clinical, longitudinal study. Got it. ::)[/quote][/quote][/quote]
You are not making sense. I never said this "Aspen Study" was a clinical study or longitudinal (I was quoting DJ's post taken from within the body of the study itself). Behrens focused on Aspen Programs. The 60-80% success rate was a clinical study performed on the industry as a whole at that time.. (not just Aspen).
You close your eyes to the fact that the study received third party oversight and it was presented at the APA convention. You cant change the facts Anne. If it received oversight and you feel there are conflicts of interest that they missed then you need to take it up with them. If you look at WIRB's web site you will see that they cover "Conflict of Interest" as part of their oversight. So to say there is a conflict of interest with this study is a false statement.
...
-
I never said this "Aspen Study" was a clinical study or longitudinal
Then what good is it?
-
- Patricia R. Abreu "LESBIAN TOUCH" - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://mylesbianblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/lesbian-sex-toys2-1.jpg)
-
I never said this "Aspen Study" was a clinical study or longitudinal
Then what good is it?
Read it! there were a 1,000 kids and parents involved in the study, then make up your mind. What good is a survivor story if it hasn't been published or verified by a third party or scrutinized by a professional?
See what I mean? You can reject the study if you like (anyone can). But the study stands in the professional community where it was delivered and presented. You cant change that, no one can.
...
-
The 60-80% success rate was a clinical study performed on the industry as a whole at that time.
No, that's false. They were studies performed on traditional residential treatment where long-term stays are up to 90 days, not 24 months like in programs. This 90 day model showed up to an 80% success rate. Whooter has been trying to pass off this research as Behrens' conclusions for years, but he obviously never read the study or is just flat out lying about it.
But the study stands in the professional community
No, it doesn't. It was never peer reviewed or published, so the "professional community" can't even take it seriously, if they even know about it. It has only been displayed on Aspen's marketing website and copied from there to other TTI websites, none of which have anything to do with the "professional community" whatsoever.
No phase two follow up either, which now can never be done at all because it had to be done after 12 months and it has been almost five years. It's garbage, plain and simple.
-
If there is a conflict what I like to do is go back to the original quote:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
The Behrens study was presented to the APA professional community we cannot change the facts. If you feel it has been rejected in any way feel free to post the link. But until that time the study stands as is, I will note that you feel personally that the study should be published.
...
-
Original quote? You have posted hundreds of times claiming "80% success" based on Behrens, which is a blatant lie. You have been lying about the results for years with no disclaimer or clarification. The "success rate" you keep citing has nothing to do with programs at all and it proves traditional treatment is much, much more effective than even this dopey survey by Aspen marketing claims.
-
Well maybe I was wrong then, DJ......lets take a look at what you said:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
...
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
Hmmm. I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential. Seems you are trying to change things here. Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about, Lets take another look:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
...
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
Hmmm. I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential. Seems you are trying to change things here. Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about, Lets take another look:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
...
- Whooter take a break from blogging - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.whiteleyenterprises.net/images/livingadsense/porn.jpg)
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
Hmmm. I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential. Seems you are trying to change things here. Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about, Lets take another look:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
...
- Whooter take a break from blogging - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.whiteleyenterprises.net/images/livingadsense/porn.jpg)
:tup:
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
Hmmm. I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential. Seems you are trying to change things here. Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about, Lets take another look:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
:poison: :heartbreak: :whip: :cry: :smashcomp:
...
- Whooter take a break from blogging - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.whiteleyenterprises.net/images/livingadsense/porn.jpg)
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
Hmmm. I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential. Seems you are trying to change things here. Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about, Lets take another look:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
:poison: :heartbreak: :whip: :cry: :smashcomp:
...
- Whooter take a break from blogging - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.whiteleyenterprises.net/images/livingadsense/porn.jpg)
:shamrock: :jamin: :spam:
-
Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs. 30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective. Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.
Hmmm. I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential. Seems you are trying to change things here. Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about, Lets take another look:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
...
- Whooter take a break from blogging - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
(http://http://www.whiteleyenterprises.net/images/livingadsense/porn.jpg)
Yeah, he should take a break and learn to read. Those studies were cited by Behrens and in order to actually check the reference out, you'd need to look it up in th biblio and then read the source. Whooter is just stupid and lazy.
-
Yeah, he should take a break and learn to read. Those studies were cited by Behrens and in order to actually check the reference out, you'd need to look it up in th biblio and then read the source. Whooter is just stupid and lazy.
Hmmm, Stupid and lazy. Lets take another look at DJ's own post which started this:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up, DJ summarizes that other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
...
-
AND... Whooter is too stupid and lazy to read those studies. Probably doesn't understand the bibliography is at the end of the study and the sources can be viewed with just a bit of effort. He needs to be spoonfed due to his stupidity and laziness.
The part I corrected Whooter about was the types of treatment studied by those researchers which can be found in their work not the Behrens work. Forgive him his stupidity and laziness. He'll eventually catch on.
-
AND... Whooter is too stupid and lazy to read those studies. Probably doesn't understand the bibliography is at the end of the study and the sources can be viewed with just a bit of effort. He needs to be spoonfed due to his stupidity and laziness.
The part I corrected Whooter about was the types of treatment studied by those researchers which can be found in their work not the Behrens work. Forgive him his stupidity and laziness. He'll eventually catch on.
Oh No!! I am stupid and lazy again?
Lets look at "Their work" as DJ puts it:
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
So just to clear it up, DJ summarizes that other researchers (Their work) conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.
Hmmmmm... DJ I think we are beginning to agree here.
...
-
We just have to keep in mind that Behrens looked at Aspen programs and Aspen has argued in court that they don't provide any treatment.
Only treatment facilities were studied by the researchers cited by Behrens. Aspen could not have been included since they provide no treatment and therefore Whooter's fallacious logic that Aspen falls under the other research fails the smell test. Whooter is trying mislead people into believing that other researchers studied programs, but they didn't. Behrens did and even her biased survey work concludes a much, much lower "success rate" than traditional treatment which is up to 80% effective.
Plus, if you look at those studies, they reference 30 to 90 day inpatient treatment facilities. Aspen is a 2 year behavior modification program with no treatment.
I only wonder why Whooter has posted probably more than 100 times that the Aspen programs have an 80% success rate when no data suggest that at all. Probably because of his fiduciary interest in Aspen.
-
WHOOTER STILL DEFENDING PROGRAMS THAT RAPE, BEAT, MURDER AND TORTURE CHILDREN?
-
WHOOTER STILL DEFENDING PROGRAMS THAT RAPE, BEAT, MURDER AND TORTURE CHILDREN?
Yes, he is. And he's claiming they're "effective" too. He does have a fiduciary interest in Aspen Education though, so for him it's just about the money. Dead kids are just part of his "window of loss" perspective. You have to keep this in mind otherwise what he says doesn't make any sense. Once you realize it's all about the money for Whooter, it becomes clear why he says these terrible things and calls children "products" while comparing them to McDonalds hamburgers.
-
We just have to keep in mind that Behrens looked at Aspen programs and Aspen has argued in court that they don't provide any treatment.
Only treatment facilities were studied by the researchers cited by Behrens. Aspen could not have been included since they provide no treatment and therefore Whooter's fallacious logic that Aspen falls under the other research fails the smell test. Whooter is trying mislead people into believing that other researchers studied programs, but they didn't. Behrens did and even her biased survey work concludes a much, much lower "success rate" than traditional treatment which is up to 80% effective.
Plus, if you look at those studies, they reference 30 to 90 day inpatient treatment facilities. Aspen is a 2 year behavior modification program with no treatment.
I only wonder why Whooter has posted probably more than 100 times that the Aspen programs have an 80% success rate when no data suggest that at all. Probably because of his fiduciary interest in Aspen.
Oh No!!! Aspen doesnt provide any treatment at all? Why didnt someone tell us? lol How did all these kids get better then? Were they all brain washed? Its been decades and the kids are still doing well went to college raising families, having reunions with their peer groups... what are they going to do when the brainwashing wears off?
Someone should send an email to the APA!!
DJ, I think you single handedly debunked the entire study
...
-
:tup:
-
WHOOTER FUCK YOU
-
WHOOTER IS NOT A PROGRAM PARENT, HE'S John Reuben FROM STICC.... HE USES LINGO DESPERATE PARENTS WOULD USE PRIOR TO SENDING THEIR CHILD TO A PROGRAM.... SO, WHEN PARENTS VIEW THIS WEBSITE, THEY'LL FALL HOOK LINE AND SINKER FOR WHOOTER'S POOR ADVICE....
-
WHOOTER IS NOT A PROGRAM PARENT, HE'S John Reuben FROM STICC.... HE USES LINGO DESPERATE PARENTS WOULD USE PRIOR TO SENDING THEIR CHILD TO A PROGRAM.... SO, WHEN PARENTS VIEW THIS WEBSITE, THEY'LL FALL HOOK LINE AND SINKER FOR WHOOTER'S POOR ADVICE....
I found that if it is RED it grabs peoples attention better.
...
-
REVOLT AGAINST ASPEN TODAY. CALL THEM NOW AND TELL THEM TO STOP MURDERING BABIES. THEY KILL CHILDREN. WTF... :clown:
-
The poster who is tormenting whooter right now (Elan Graduate) is non other then "Felice Eliscu" who is feeling very poorly today. She thinks if she humiliates Whooter and Danny that this will somehow help her compensate for her low self esteem, right now.
I have tried to enlighten Felice that this negative attitude only brings about more negative energy.
-
We just have to keep in mind that Behrens looked at Aspen programs and Aspen has argued in court that they don't provide any treatment.
Only treatment facilities were studied by the researchers cited by Behrens. Aspen could not have been included since they provide no treatment and therefore Whooter's fallacious logic that Aspen falls under the other research fails the smell test. Whooter is trying mislead people into believing that other researchers studied programs, but they didn't. Behrens did and even her biased survey work concludes a much, much lower "success rate" than traditional treatment which is up to 80% effective.
Plus, if you look at those studies, they reference 30 to 90 day inpatient treatment facilities. Aspen is a 2 year behavior modification program with no treatment.
I only wonder why Whooter has posted probably more than 100 times that the Aspen programs have an 80% success rate when no data suggest that at all. Probably because of his fiduciary interest in Aspen.
Oh No!!! Aspen doesnt provide any treatment at all? Why didnt someone tell us? lol How did all these kids get better then? Were they all brain washed? Its been decades and the kids are still doing well went to college raising families, having reunions with their peer groups... what are they going to do when the brainwashing wears off?
Someone should send an email to the APA!!
DJ, I think you single handedly debunked the entire study
...
Well, it's debunked alright, but I can't take all of the credit. Aspen Education Group lawyers get most of it. Here, have a look:
Aspen Education Group does not provide a therapeutic milieu that is conformative to standards, provide medically recognized therapy, medically accredited personnel, or treatment centers for mental disorder or drug abuse, Aspen's own lawyers successfully argued in Pence v. Aspen Education Group.
Good thing they got the study posted on the marketing page before this news came out! Can't study Aspen "residential treatment centers" because none exist. It's like studying Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. :rofl:
-
lol Lets take another look at the debunked Study:
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.
...
-
We just have to keep in mind that Behrens looked at Aspen programs and Aspen has argued in court that they don't provide any treatment.
Only treatment facilities were studied by the researchers cited by Behrens. Aspen could not have been included since they provide no treatment and therefore Whooter's fallacious logic that Aspen falls under the other research fails the smell test. Whooter is trying mislead people into believing that other researchers studied programs, but they didn't. Behrens did and even her biased survey work concludes a much, much lower "success rate" than traditional treatment which is up to 80% effective.
Plus, if you look at those studies, they reference 30 to 90 day inpatient treatment facilities. Aspen is a 2 year behavior modification program with no treatment.
I only wonder why Whooter has posted probably more than 100 times that the Aspen programs have an 80% success rate when no data suggest that at all. Probably because of his fiduciary interest in Aspen.
Oh No!!! Aspen doesnt provide any treatment at all? Why didnt someone tell us? lol How did all these kids get better then? Were they all brain washed? Its been decades and the kids are still doing well went to college raising families, having reunions with their peer groups... what are they going to do when the brainwashing wears off?
Someone should send an email to the APA!!
DJ, I think you single handedly debunked the entire study
...
Well, it's debunked alright, but I can't take all of the credit. Aspen Education Group lawyers get most of it. Here, have a look:
Aspen Education Group does not provide a therapeutic milieu that is conformative to standards, provide medically recognized therapy, medically accredited personnel, or treatment centers for mental disorder or drug abuse, Aspen's own lawyers successfully argued in Pence v. Aspen Education Group.
Good thing they got the study posted on the marketing page before this news came out! Can't study Aspen "residential treatment centers" because none exist. It's like studying Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. :rofl:
Let's take a look at Aspen Education's admission (after the "study") that they provide no treatment of any kind to anyone. Interesting, eh? What type of "treatment" was Behrens studying at Aspen programs, hmmm? She's probably pretty embarassed now that the lawyers completely discredited her and her work.
-
Another look at the facts to bring it back on topic:
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.
...
-
But the study is allegedly about residential treatment at Aspen. Aspen argued successfully in court that they provide none. So how does one study something that doesn't exist, I wonder?
Is Behrens a cryptozoologist (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology)?? :notworthy: :nods:
-
But the study is allegedly about residential treatment at Aspen. Aspen argued successfully in court that they provide none. So how does one study something that doesn't exist, I wonder?
Is Behrens a cryptozoologist (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology)?? :notworthy: :nods:
Maybe the kids were brainwashed by their captors in the Gulag when they answered the study questions? But how did they brainwash the parents? LGAT seminars? lol
...
-
Maybe, I couldn't say. All I can say for a fact is that Aspen doesn't provide treatment, so there can't be study about Aspen's treatment. I guess you could take it up with their lawyers though.
Tell me, when Behrens was studying the nonexistent treatment at Aspen programs, was she riding a unicorn by chance? Did she run into the Loch Ness Monster??
-
Maybe, I couldn't say. All I can say for a fact is that Aspen doesn't provide treatment, so there can't be study about Aspen's treatment. I guess you could take it up with their lawyers though.
Tell me, when Behrens was studying the nonexistent treatment at Aspen programs, was she riding a unicorn by chance? Did she run into the Loch Ness Monster??
Close your eyes and think real hard and maybe the facts will go away. Maybe there isnt a study which was independently done with third party oversight presented at the APA annual convention.
Now open you eyes !!
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Dam, the link is still there. It wont go away.
...
-
I think it worked!
Some residential programs selfidentify as “therapeutic boarding
schools,” “emotional growth academies” or “behavior modification facilities,” and market to families of youth with psychiatric diagnoses, claiming expertise in treating a variety of serious conditions.
Many of these new programs are notcurrently subject to any state licensing or
monitoring as mental health facilities.
Currently, the only information available about most of these programs comes from their own marketing efforts and there is no systematic, independently collected descriptive or outcome data on these programs[/size].
Highly disturbing reports have been published in the public media and provided
by youth and families describing financial opportunism by program operators, poor
quality education, harsh discipline, inappropriate seclusion and restraint, substandard
psychotherapeutic interventions conducted by unqualified staff, medical and nutritional
neglect, and rights violations in a number of unregulated facilities.
I wonder whom I should believe? A renowned psychologist from USF or Whooter from Aspen? :rofl:
-
I think it worked!
Some residential programs selfidentify as “therapeutic boarding
schools,” “emotional growth academies” or “behavior modification facilities,” and market to families of youth with psychiatric diagnoses, claiming expertise in treating a variety of serious conditions.
Many of these new programs are notcurrently subject to any state licensing or
monitoring as mental health facilities.
Currently, the only information available about most of these programs comes from their own marketing efforts and there is no systematic, independently collected descriptive or outcome data on these programs[/size].
Highly disturbing reports have been published in the public media and provided
by youth and families describing financial opportunism by program operators, poor
quality education, harsh discipline, inappropriate seclusion and restraint, substandard
psychotherapeutic interventions conducted by unqualified staff, medical and nutritional
neglect, and rights violations in a number of unregulated facilities.
I wonder whom I should believe? A renowned psychologist from USF or Whooter from Aspen? :rofl:
That is why they are doing studies!!
...
-
...the only information available about most of these programs comes from their own marketing efforts and there is no systematic, independently collected descriptive or outcome data on these programs.
I think the point the good doctor was making is that the study you keep referring to was not independent nor valid, but rather a marketing tool. I tend to believe bonafide psychologists over Aspen marketers.
-
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study. What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire. So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
...
-
...the only information available about most of these programs comes from their own marketing efforts and there is no systematic, independently collected descriptive or outcome data on these programs.
I think the point the good doctor was making is that the study you keep referring to was not independent nor valid, but rather a marketing tool. I tend to believe bonafide psychologists over Aspen marketers.
Repetitive spam-trolling won't make this go away. True professionals disagree with Whooter and Aspen. So do Aspen's lawyers who say Aspen provides no treatment.
The good news is that while Behrens was looking for the mythical Aspen treatment program, she found the Chupacabra and Bigfoot whilst she rode upon a unicorn with a leprechaun.
-
We have come a long way. A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research. They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.
Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB). From WIRB’s documents:
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).
WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)
at the bottom of page 2 it states:
Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study. What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire. So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
...
Do you realize that you are perhaps, the biggest liar I ever met?
Whooter, just an ordinary man, whose daughter went to a program, and now spends the rest of his life fighting for programs.. Give me a fucking break. You must think we are all the stupidest fucking people in the world.
You're like a walking infomercial.
Paul
-
:rofl:
-
Do you realize that you are perhaps, the biggest liar I ever met?
Whooter, just an ordinary man, whose daughter went to a program, and now spends the rest of his life fighting for programs.. Give me a fucking break. You must think we are all the stupidest fucking people in the world.
You're like a walking infomercial.
Paul
Right and you want us to believe your name is Pope Paul St. John. Your like a walking Catholic Church. Do you wear a Mitre to bed?
...
-
Okay, so let's say that's not my real name, which it is..
but for arguments sake, let's say not....
that makes it okay, that every thing you represent about yourself here, is a lie... I don t think so...
I think it leaves you with zero credibility....
Paul St. John
-
DANNY FUCK YOU.
-
The poster who is tormenting whooter right now (Elan Graduate) is non other then "Felice Eliscu" who is feeling very poorly today. She thinks if she humiliates Whooter and Danny that this will somehow help her compensate for her low self esteem, right now.
I have tried to enlighten Felice that this negative attitude only brings about more negative energy.
SORRY LOSER I GOT THE BOOT.
KICKED OUT
86'D
I COULD BUST OUT MY BABBELON FOR YA YOU WANT ME JUST ADMIT IT.
YOU LAY AWAKE AT NIGHT WHACKING OFF AT THE THOUGHT OF MY CARTOON CROTCH
C'MON IN JOIN THE GANG. ::evil::
I BET YOU THINK YOU ARE SOME TALENTED WIZZARD OR SOMETHING................
I DON'T GAMBLE...TOO BAD. :rose:
Well according to some other folk who were there when you were, you neither sat in the corner for as long as you said nor were kicked out for being a brat. So please Felice I choose to believe MaryJane over you.
-
Okay, so let's say that's not my real name, which it is..
but for arguments sake, let's say not....
that makes it okay, that every thing you represent about yourself here, is a lie... I don t think so...
I think it leaves you with zero credibility....
Paul St. John
Same with you, why should we believe that you are a survivor? A survivor of anything! Where is your credibility? You go around here attacking everyone and then try to make us believe you were a victim of attacks yourself. You snub your nose at the truth.... It doesnt add up. Your story is weak and filled with discrepancies that dont hold up.
I would guess you never heard of the TTI and that you are just here for the drama.
...
...
-
Okay, so let's say that's not my real name, which it is..
but for arguments sake, let's say not....
that makes it okay, that every thing you represent about yourself here, is a lie... I don t think so...
I think it leaves you with zero credibility....
Paul St. John
You really are "not so bright" when your upset, Paul. He is not questioning the validity of your name. We all know it is your name, yet you come across as the Pope of fornits (I like the Prince of Fornits, myself).
Paul, do you really believe you have the higher ground here on Fornits.
-
WHOOTER (STICC Founder John Reuben) AKA "THE WHO". ASK HIM ABOUT SENDING TWO OF HIS SONS TO PROGRAMS!!! ONE WAS Michael Joshua Reuben.....
-
Okay, so let's say that's not my real name, which it is..
but for arguments sake, let's say not....
that makes it okay, that every thing you represent about yourself here, is a lie... I don t think so...
I think it leaves you with zero credibility....
Paul St. John
Wow.. How d I miss this?
Same with you, why should we believe that you are a survivor? A survivor of anything! Where is your credibility?
You don t have to believe me.. I don t care. I think most poeple do, but if you don t want to, that s your choice. I don t care if you believe me..
I'm Just saying you you are a fucking liar.
You go around here attacking everyone and then try to make us believe you were a victim of attacks yourself. You snub your nose at the truth.... It doesnt add up. Your story is weak and filled with discrepancies that dont hold up.
I would guess you never heard of the TTI and that you are just here for the drama.
You can guess whatever you want. You are still a liar and a fraud. Although... I don t know that I attack EVERYBODY. It's more like I am an antibiotic, attacking viruses, like you.
Paul St. John
...
...
-
Okay, so let's say that's not my real name, which it is..
but for arguments sake, let's say not....
that makes it okay, that every thing you represent about yourself here, is a lie... I don t think so...
I think it leaves you with zero credibility....
Paul St. John
You really are "not so bright" when your upset, Paul. He is not questioning the validity of your name. We all know it is your name, yet you come across as the Pope of fornits (I like the Prince of Fornits, myself).
Paul, do you really believe you have the higher ground here on Fornits.
He was questioning my name idiot. He did the same thing when he posted as John McCain. (He needs to use false identities to say the things he wants to, because he doesn t want to hurt his image. )
-
That's correct, Paul. The guy who posts as "Whooter" also has several other aliases he uses on Fornits to try to disguise his lunacy and idiocy. "Whooter" is the Aspen marketing persona and he uses his other aliases to do the "dirty work" like making jokes about kids who were raped. He's really a sick, twisted person.
-
That's correct, Paul. The guy who posts as "Whooter" also has several other aliases he uses on Fornits to try to disguise his lunacy and idiocy. "Whooter" is the Aspen marketing persona and he uses his other aliases to do the "dirty work" like making jokes about kids who were raped. He's really a sick, twisted person.
LOL, but you forgot to mention that I have (on request) laid out my posts for all to see and tied them all to my user name. I have done this twice. When you were asked to do the same thing you ran away and hid.
Hmmmm..... I wonder why you wouldnt want others to see your guest posts and user names.
You always seem to leave that part out.
....
-
No, you didn't do that. The mods did it 5 years ago, but you've been posting under a dozen or so names since then. I use only one username. You recently admitted to this but refused to list your aliases. Sorry that upsets you so badly, that you're a proven phony, like the Berens study.
You're just taking a straight-up whipping here today and you're tired and cranky. I sense BAWWW coming on. :waaaa:
-
No, you didn't do that. The mods did it 5 years ago, but you've been posting under a dozen or so names since then. I use only one username. You recently admitted to this but refused to list your aliases. Sorry that upsets you so badly, that you're a proven phony, like the Berens study.
You're just taking a straight-up whipping here today and you're tired and cranky. I sense BAWWW coming on. :waaaa:
Your still afraid, DJ, or you would have had it done. You ran away twice. No getting around it.
The study has been released and presented before the APA and had third party oversight. Its fun to watch you try to bury these facts.
Famous last words Show me a study!!!... lol
...
-
WHOOTER FUCK YOU.
-
I find that if it is in RED it makes a stronger statement.
Try this out:
WHOOTER FUCK YOU.
...
-
:timeout:
-
No, you didn't do that. The mods did it 5 years ago, but you've been posting under a dozen or so names since then. I use only one username. You recently admitted to this but refused to list your aliases. Sorry that upsets you so badly, that you're a proven phony, like the Berens study.
You're just taking a straight-up whipping here today and you're tired and cranky. I sense BAWWW coming on. :waaaa:
Your still afraid, DJ, or you would have had it done. You ran away twice. No getting around it.
The study has been released and presented before the APA and had third party oversight. Its fun to watch you try to bury these facts.
Famous last words Show me a study!!!... lol
...
I'll bet that arguing with DJ is kinda like your comfort zone right now..
-
No, you didn't do that. The mods did it 5 years ago, but you've been posting under a dozen or so names since then. I use only one username. You recently admitted to this but refused to list your aliases. Sorry that upsets you so badly, that you're a proven phony, like the Berens study.
You're just taking a straight-up whipping here today and you're tired and cranky. I sense BAWWW coming on. :waaaa:
Your still afraid, DJ, or you would have had it done. You ran away twice. No getting around it.
The study has been released and presented before the APA and had third party oversight. Its fun to watch you try to bury these facts.
Famous last words Show me a study!!!... lol
...
I'll bet that arguing with DJ is kinda like your comfort zone right now..
No, not really, but it keeps this thread up at the top where people can get a glimpse of the study. DJ helps accomplish this. People would get pissed if I just kept posting the study links over and over again just to keep the thread up at the top.
Without DJ this thread would be way back on page 6 and everyone would have forgotten about the study by now. So its good that new readers get to see it.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
We just have to keep in mind that Behrens looked at Aspen programs and Aspen has argued in court that they don't provide any treatment.
Only treatment facilities were studied by the researchers cited by Behrens. Aspen could not have been included since they provide no treatment and therefore Whooter's fallacious logic that Aspen falls under the other research fails the smell test. Whooter is trying mislead people into believing that other researchers studied programs, but they didn't. Behrens did and even her biased survey work concludes a much, much lower "success rate" than traditional treatment which is up to 80% effective.
Plus, if you look at those studies, they reference 30 to 90 day inpatient treatment facilities. Aspen is a 2 year behavior modification program with no treatment.
I only wonder why Whooter has posted probably more than 100 times that the Aspen programs have an 80% success rate when no data suggest that at all. Probably because of his fiduciary interest in Aspen.
Oh No!!! Aspen doesnt provide any treatment at all? Why didnt someone tell us? lol How did all these kids get better then? Were they all brain washed? Its been decades and the kids are still doing well went to college raising families, having reunions with their peer groups... what are they going to do when the brainwashing wears off?
Someone should send an email to the APA!!
DJ, I think you single handedly debunked the entire study
...
Well, it's debunked alright, but I can't take all of the credit. Aspen Education Group lawyers get most of it. Here, have a look:
Aspen Education Group does not provide a therapeutic milieu that is conformative to standards, provide medically recognized therapy, medically accredited personnel, or treatment centers for mental disorder or drug abuse, Aspen's own lawyers successfully argued in Pence v. Aspen Education Group.
Good thing they got the study posted on the marketing page before this news came out! Can't study Aspen "residential treatment centers" because none exist. It's like studying Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. :rofl:
Still not sure how Behrens studied something that Aspen Ed says doesn't exist. It's a mystery...
-
WHOOTER ( STICC Founder John Reuben ) IS ADDICTED TO ASPEN PROGRAM BROCHURES!!! NOT GOOD, THEY HAVE MANY CHILDREN IN THEM!!! QUICK CALL MA STATE POLICE.....
:jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop:
-
Still not sure how Behrens studied something that Aspen Ed says doesn't exist. It's a mystery...
Hmmm... me too... might be voodoo!
Lets all take a look and see how it was done:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Yeah, it is a sort of voodoo, I suppose. Since Aspen Education provides no treatment, as per their sworn statements in court, Behrens' work has to be phony. Renowned psychologist Dr. Friedman of FSU says it's marketing material. He studies treatment programs professionally.
-
Yeah, it is a sort of voodoo, I suppose. Since Aspen Education provides no treatment, as per their sworn statements in court, Behrens' work has to be phony. Renowned psychologist Dr. Friedman of FSU says it's marketing material. He studies treatment programs professionally.
Why not provide a link to where he says that about the study. You lied on your last post, you shooting for 2 in a row?
Throw the link up...
Here something like this:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Dr. Friedman clearly states here (http://http://astart.fmhi.usf.edu/AStartDocs/factsheet.pdf) that:
Currently, the only information available about most of these programs comes from their own marketing efforts and there is no systematic, independently collected descriptive or outcome data on these programs.
"...no systematic, independently collected descriptive or outcome data on these programs."
None. Zip. Nada. He does this research for a living. So where's the lie? Are you now accusing Dr. Friedman of being a liar? I think I believe his word over yours, Whooter. No offense, but you're just an idiot on the internet and he's a research professional and a doctor of psychology.
-
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So traditional treatment is proven to be more effective than Aspen programs, as Behrens readily admits right in the study.
So we can agree where you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
...
-
I already said yes, we agree on that, with the caveat that Aspen programs, studied by Behrens, do not provide treatment as their lawyers stated under oath in court in a lawsuit and that the treatment studied by the researchers you are citing followed adolescents through 30 to 90 day traditional inpatient treatment.
Aspen programs aren't inlcuded in that data because they are not residential treatment, they are just residential, sort of like a secure juvenile facility.
Makes me wonder why Whooter never actually gives the "success rates" that Behrens claimed. They are significantly lower than traditional inpatient treatment and take two years plus your life savings not to mention their facilities have been charged with abuse, neglect and even killing kids - the very programs Behrens used for the study! I'd try to avoid that too if I were marketing Aspen lockups.
So, we've gone from "DJ you lied!!" to "DJ we agree" in the span of two posts. Kinda thought that would happen once Whooter got caught with his hand in the cookie jar again. :beat: :rofl:
-
I already said yes, we agree on that, with the caveat that Aspen programs, studied by Behrens, do not provide treatment as their lawyers stated under oath in court in a lawsuit and that the treatment studied by the researchers you are citing followed adolescents through 30 to 90 day traditional inpatient treatment.
No, it doesnt say that. sometimes it helps to go back to the original quotes:
Dysfunction Junction wrote:Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
Behrens wrote:Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
It doesnt mention it is limited to 30-90 day programs or excludes Aspen Programs. You may have mixed that up with another post you were reading.
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Let's have a look at Behrens' numbers from her report:
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.
So, after up to two years of being at Aspen programs, the reliable change data rate for participants is a mere 31% compared to 60-80% for traditional inpatient treatment. And this is self-report data that Behrens admits is biased to make the kids look better than they actually are to justify their being discharged. Unbiased data would show a much lower number.
No wonder Whooter doesn't want to talk about Behrens! He only wants to talk about the other researchers who studied traditional treatment and try to conflate the two.
Aspen - up to 2 years and up to $175K for a 31% positive change self-report with no follow up to assess permanency of change
Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials
-
Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials
I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.
Lets take another look:
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
...
-
Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials
I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.
Lets take another look:
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
(http://http://www.diplomastore.com/images/spindoctor.jpg)
-
Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials
I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.
Lets take another look:
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
...
Look up these references:
Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991.
You will find source material in the biblio and you can read it yourself.
Bottom line: Behrens' study showed a 31% "success rate" for Aspen Education programs. Her study has nothing to do with the ones listed above.
-
Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials
I didnt see where Traditional = up to 90 days and I also didnt see the report reference traditional.
Lets take another look:
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
...
Look up these references:
Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991.
You will find source material in the biblio and you can read it yourself.
Bottom line: Behrens' study showed a 31% "success rate" for Aspen Education programs. Her study has nothing to do with the ones listed above.
Thanks I checked and they didnt exclude Aspen Programs in the study. It specified "Residential Treatment"...not "Residential Treatment except Aspen" lol.
...
-
Studies don't exclude things. They include things. Only the facilities inlcuded are in those studies, which you clearly did not even look at or read. There are close to a thousand pages in those docs and you just claimed to read them in ten minutes. Sure, Whooter. We believe that.
Let's play fantasy for moment though. If Aspen were included, it would have dragged the results down. Aspen's 31% success rate would kill the average of 60-80%. So we could conclude, using your logic, programs other than Aspen would have even a higher sucess rate than 60-80%.
Behrens studied Aspen directly and found a 31% success rate. No avoiding that fact.
-
Studies don't exclude things. They include things.
I think we agree,
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
...
-
Studies don't exclude things. They include things.
I think we agree,
Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you said that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
...
Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991. Can you provide the text from any of these studies that shows Aspen Education was studied? They clearly don't mention any Aspen programs.
However, Behrens' work is only about Aspen programs and she concluded that Aspen was 31% successful compared to up to 80% for non-Aspen facilities. Non-Aspen facilities were two and a half times more successful than Aspen facilities. Wow.
No wonder Whooter doesn't want to talk about Aspen anymore. Now he's advocating non-Aspen facilities! He has converted. It's a miracle. Whooter now agrees that Aspen has little success compared to others. So little, in fact, that he has abandoned the Behrens study completely!
I guess he'll need to find some other Holy Grail for Aspen marketing. This one is destroyed beyond repair.
-
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
"longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.
Besides the 60 - 80% success rate some of the other Study findings:
In general, both adolescents and
parents reported a significant decline in symptoms from admission to discharge, on all scales of
the YSR and CBCL.
...
-
Which study is that, Whooter? It's not Behrens! And you phonied up your last quote of me. I never said this in that post, but you slipped it in there to make it look like I did: "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates" Such a liar, Whooter. Shame on you!
You quit referring to it now. But it's too late. It's the #1 hit in Google now - "Programs in Behrens Study Charged with Abuse." The more you respond, the further up these topics go.
Your obsession is killing your masters' income. Bain/CRC/Aspen will be unhappy that you aren't upholding your FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY to them. You're killing their bottom line with your mental illness. :rofl:
Check this out: Latest on Aspen Programs (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30873)
Together we can make this the new top hit on Google when you search Aspen Education!
-
Whooter also keeps saying "up to 80%" success, but that is not concluded by Behrens, it's concluded by other researchers using longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment and has nothing whatsoever to do with Aspen programs or Behrens.
Behrens wrote:Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
So you see we agree on the overall industry success rate. You are just still struggling with the results of the Behrens study.
I found this interesting also:
These analyses suggest adolescents with low grade point averages reportedly had a
relatively higher amount of externalizing behavior at admission, coupled with a greater degree of
change on externalizing behavior during treatment, leading them to discharge with externalizing
scores within the normal range and comparable to those with high grade point averages.
So the kids with the lower GPA and high behavior issues improve the most.
...
-
Which study is that, Whooter? It's not Behrens! And you phonied up your last quote of me. I never said this in that post, but you slipped it in there to make it look like I did: "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates" Such a liar, Whooter. Shame on you!
You quit referring to it now. But it's too late. It's the #1 hit in Google now - "Programs in Behrens Study Charged with Abuse." The more you respond, the further up these topics go.
Your obsession is killing your masters' income. Bain/CRC/Aspen will be unhappy that you aren't upholding your FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY to them. You're killing their bottom line with your mental illness. :rofl:
Check this out: Latest on Aspen Programs (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30873)
Together we can make this the new top hit on Google when you search Aspen Education!
Even Ed Cons stop referring to Aspen because they only care about profit, as evidenced by their marketing paper dressed up as a "study" that has never been reviewed or published (except on Scribd, lols). Why doesn't that study appear in any scientific journals, I wonder? Why no peer review? Why no follow up? Why are all the programs in it getting charged/shut down for abuse?
-
lol, this study really gets to you. I am the only one supporting my posts with links.
Here lets take another look:
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.
So we can see 66 -78% success by this measurement alone.
I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Let's have a look at Behrens' numbers from her report:
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.
So, after up to two years of being at Aspen programs, the reliable change data rate for participants is a mere 31% compared to 60-80% for traditional inpatient treatment. And this is self-report data that Behrens admits is biased to make the kids look better than they actually are to justify their being discharged. Unbiased data would show a much lower number.
No wonder Whooter doesn't want to talk about Behrens! He only wants to talk about the other researchers who studied traditional treatment and try to conflate the two.
Aspen - up to 2 years and up to $175K for a 31% positive change self-report with no follow up to assess permanency of change
Traditional - up to 90 days, covered by insurance, 60-80% improvement in longitudinal clinical trials
Only 31% show statistically relevent change. Not good results compared to 60-80% for publicly funded treatment.
-
Notice DJ doesn't supply any links
Here lets take another look and quote the study itself:
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.
So we can see 66 -78% success by this measurement alone.
I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.
Reference Page 9 of the study:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
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...?
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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?
-
WHOOTER FUCK YOU!!!
-
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.
...
-
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?
-
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.
...
-
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?
-
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.
...
-
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered”
page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
Oh my fucking... I finally bothered to read this crap.
This is based on self-reporting and parent-reporting bullshit; there's no qualitative study here at all. This "study" isn't even measuring anything on an objective scale. It's based on what program parents and their victim-children believe. There's no objective measure of anything in this entire mess.
And that's assuming that there wasn't any fudging.
No wonder there wasn't a follow-up. Once it wore off by 2007 the results were not what they wanted to report!
-
Thats funny, I didnt make it up. I have been posting it along with a link and page number:
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.
Page 9:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
I think the true measure of reliability is to see how well these kids do after they return home and looking a year or more out.
...
-
Oh my fucking... I finally bothered to read this crap.
This is based on self-reporting and parent-reporting bullshit; there's no qualitative study here at all. This "study" isn't even measuring anything on an objective scale. It's based on what program parents and their victim-children believe. There's no objective measure of anything in this entire mess.
And that's assuming that there wasn't any fudging.
No wonder there wasn't a follow-up. Once it wore off by 2007 the results were not what they wanted to report!
Yes, Pile. Behrens admitted when she interviewed for StrugglingTeens that they scrubbed the data of all kids who didn't do well and needed to be removed from the program. She also said her research on the follow up was nearly complete and would be finalized in 2007. Then they never released it or mentioned it again...never.
Right in the study she also admits the positive bias of parents and kids who didn't finish the program. The average stay was 8.6 months, well below the 16 month average program length, so most of these reports were biased, as she said right in the work.
And Whooter doesn't know what he's talking about with the numbers. 31% had reliable change while still inside the program and 50% had unreliable, statistically irrelevent change (below 2 SD's, the watermark for reliability). They were "treatment failures" before they ever left the program. Of course they don't want to look at it one year out.
When I asked Whooter for the follow up data, he lied and said 81% improved. There is no follow up data.
-
When I asked Whooter for the follow up data, he lied and said 81% improved. There is no follow up data.
If I did say that the 81% was follow-up data then you are correct. I said that in error.
This is what I was referring to just to clear that up:
81% of adolescent males reported some amount or degree of symptom reduction.
Page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
In other words, you're throwing out quotes from a bogus source, because it's all you have.
-
This GEM belongs over here in this thread...
Anyone who has great study results on their product would be crazy not to leverage the information and get it out there. I cant think of one study which wouldn't.
And thusly you have proven my point.
Phase two of Behrens was completed in 2007 and never published or presented anywhere. Therefore, either Aspen marketing is crazy, or they have a study with bad results.
They ain't crazy. They have a study that they'd be crazy to release.
Finally the truth comes to the surface of all of your BS spam-trolling.
:cheers: :jamin: :rocker:
-
This GEM belongs over here in this thread...
Anyone who has great study results on their product would be crazy not to leverage the information and get it out there. I cant think of one study which wouldn't.
And thusly you have proven my point.
Phase two of Behrens was completed in 2007 and never published or presented anywhere. Therefore, either Aspen marketing is crazy, or they have a study with bad results.
They ain't crazy. They have a study that they'd be crazy to release.
Finally the truth comes to the surface of all of your BS spam-trolling.
:cheers: :jamin: :rocker:
Well, cant say I agree with you, you need to consider who they are trying to get to read the study. They presented it to the professional community and now they are presenting it to the people who will benefit most from it.. parents with troubled kids. I never referred to journals when I was considering placement. If publishing it in journals would benefit them then I am sure they would do it. If they felt it wasnt any good then they would not have it on their web sites or have presented it at the APA Convention.
I think you need to step back and look at what is in everyone's best interest. Always remember who the customer is and who is buying.
...
-
Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.
If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.
-
Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.
If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.
I am just talking about Phase I....
If you saw the amount of marketing they did for new drugs towards doctors vs towards the people who will use it you would be surprised. They have sales people standing at the doctors office door to pedal their new drug. Doctors read scientific journals so they advertise in them also.
If programs were required to get a referral from a licensed therapist prior to accepting a child do you think Aspen would be only advertising on the internet and on brochures and edcons? They would be advertising in Psychology today and spending a fortune getting their studies into every journal that sits in front of a shrink.
You need to leverage the studies where they will bring the biggest bang for your buck.
...
-
Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.
If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.
Phase two has been complete for over three years. Obviously it's results would be bad for business, so it has been self-censored by Aspen after building it up and hyping it for years. First one looked real enough to pass the uneducated eye, but this one obviously looks really bad or they'd be "crazy not to release it" according to Whooter.
-
Then why isn't it posted on their marketing sites, like phase one? You've sunk yourself logically on this one, buddy.
If they had any evidence whatsoever that would solidify their claims they'd be posting that shit in men's rooms at bus stations.
Phase two has been complete for over three years. Obviously it's results would be bad for business, so it has been self-censored by Aspen after building it up and hyping it for years. First one looked real enough to pass the uneducated eye, but this one obviously looks really bad or they'd be "crazy not to release it" according to Whooter.
It is possible, yes, that they were disappointed with the results. Maybe they had a goal of 60% success rate after 12 months and the results fell short. Maybe they pulled the funding because they were not satisfied with Behrens work. Maybe it is still being worked on...... I dont know anyone who has the answer.
But right now we really dont know. If you hear toss up a link, I would be interested.
...
-
I think we already know the answer. Aspen's marketing is ruthless and deceptive and if they had anything, anything at all, that even looked like a positive outcome it would be all over the internet. It's obvious.
-
I think we already know the answer. Aspen's marketing is ruthless and deceptive and if they had anything, anything at all, that even looked like a positive outcome it would be all over the internet. It's obvious.
Until if and when it is released we can only speculate. My guess would be that it didnt live up to expectations. They want to keep working the business until they can see a sustained percentage that they like. At that point they will do another study and release the findings.
...
-
Yep, another way to say that is "it showed the program doesn't work."
-
In other words, you're throwing out quotes from a bogus source, because it's all you have.
Now Pile, I have stayed out of the mix because you have. As a matter of fact you were begging DJ, to stop this early last week. Now if you are going to persist on being in the mix then I will have to bring my considerable sources here to bear down on you. This is not a reaction I would feel comfortable doing. I am asking you to reconsider your actions here and step away from the debate.
Thank You
-
Yep, another way to say that is "it showed the program doesn't work."
We know it works from the results of phase I. The question, now, is what happened to Phase II and how long do the results last and the percentage of the kids who stay on a healthy path.
...
-
No we don't. Phase one only tells us that kids in programs say they are better.
But you say all the time their word can't be trusted because they are "manipulators." You even say it's reasonable to deny them medical care because too often they lie about their condition. Of course they report being better. They just want to get out!
You can't believe them when they say they're DYING, but you can believe them when they're reporting progress?? :rofl: :roflmao:
Phase two might have proven that it worked, but they deep-sixed it after paying for it. Must have not been good news!
-
No we don't. Phase one only tells us that kids in programs say they are better.
Welcome to the world of studies. They can report on what people say... At least you admit that the kids said they are better.
...
-
Now Pile, I have stayed out of the mix because you have. As a matter of fact you were begging DJ, to stop this early last week. Now if you are going to persist on being in the mix then I will have to bring my considerable sources here to bear down on you. This is not a reaction I would feel comfortable doing. I am asking you to reconsider your actions here and step away from the debate.
Thank You
A bitch says what, now?
-
Danny fuck you.
-
Oh yes, they said they were better. It's the only way to get out of the program - "Fake it until you make it."
However, you have stated hundreds of times that what they say can't be believed because they are manipulators and now because they said something you wanted to hear you want the rest of us to sit back and say nothing of your incredible hypocrisy?
Aspen says right on their website not to trust what your kid says because they're trying to convince you to take them out of the program.
Now they want people to believe the opposite just because what the kid is saying could make money for the program? No way, man. That just doesn't make sense. Either they're lying manipulators or they aren't.
You make a living off claiming they are lying manipulators that need to be in programs because they lie and manipulate and now you're trying to make a living off claiming they're not lying manipulators. It goes against everything you've represented the entire time you've been here!
Flip :flip: Flop :flip: No credibilty there, Whooter. None at all.
-
The marketing campaign is polished, it just lies about the study results.
And the study clearly states that the length of stay has no effect on the outcome. The obvious conclusion is if the results are the same, keep the stay as short as possible and the cost as low as possible. It's a stunning find by Behrens that there's no diference in outcome for kids who left early against program advice and kids who stayed for the full program. Kinda blows holes in the whole "kids who don't finish the program fail" theory, huh? You've said that many times.
I see it a little differently. The kids who leave early (say 6 months) may report the same results as the kids who stay the entire time. This is due to that the majority of the change has occurred by then and the child appears to be better. The time in the final phase of the programs is used to solidify the childs changes and prepare the child for the transition home.
Great discussion, DJ, I found this finding interesting myself. I would like to see the kids fill these out at 3 month intervals to see if there is any variance from the onset to the 3 month mark and then again from the 6 month mark to the end of the program (just purely from a reporting perspective to see how the kids feel they are benefiting and at what time along the time-line they wee this effect).
However, in this case, those who left against program advice left, on average, during
the last stage of treatment. Clinical staff in private residential care often devote the last few
weeks or months to consolidation of gains and transfer of skills. In essence, this last phase is
typically designed to solidify change. Parents and adolescents who discharge against program
advice during this last phase may not appreciate the need for continued care because problems
appear resolved.
p.14
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Oh yes, they said they were better. It's the only way to get out of the program - "Fake it until you make it."
However, you have stated hundreds of times that what they say can't be believed because they are manipulators and now because they said something you wanted to hear you want the rest of us to sit back and say nothing of your incredible hypocrisy?
Aspen says right on their website not to trust what your kid says because they're trying to convince you to take them out of the program.
Now they want people to believe the opposite just because what the kid is saying could make money for the program? No way, man. That just doesn't make sense. Either they're lying manipulators or they aren't.
You make a living off claiming they are lying manipulators that need to be in programs because they lie and manipulate and now you're trying to make a living off claiming they're not lying manipulators. It goes against everything you've represented the entire time you've been here!
Flip :flip: Flop :flip: No credibilty there, Whooter. None at all.
FIRST: "Don't believe a word of what those lying manipulators say, even if they say they are dying. They're faking it."
SECOND: "This study based on lying manipulators' statements prove programs are effective. They're telling the God's honest truth!"
In order to believe the second proposition, you must invalidate the first. Your whole line of reasoning goes up in smoke here.
-
No we don't. Phase one only tells us that kids in programs say they are better.
Welcome to the world of studies. They can report on what people say... At least you admit that the kids said they are better.
Because they know what will happen to them if they tell the truth. They''re desperate (edited to add: and will say whatever they need to in order to get out. That's what I did.
Oh....and those of you who think I'm a raging bitch?.......Guess where that came from? I was the most timid, shy little thing you'd ever meet before being sent away, but after Straight got through with me? Bitch on wheels. And I mean BITCH!! I swore that I would never let anyone speak to me again the way that those sadists did. And nobody does anymore, without getting a verbal shitstorm raining down on them. Straight certainly taught me how to go for the emotional juggular at people. I can unequivocally say (and my mother and even my dad would confrim this) that I was much, much worse when I came out than when I went in.
Ever heard how criminals in prison end up feeling like they're in a training camp for being a criminal? That's quite similar to how I felt after "graduating".
-
FIRST: "Don't believe a word of what those lying manipulators say, even if they say they are dying. They're faking it."
SECOND: "This study based on lying manipulators' statements prove programs are effective. They're telling the God's honest truth!"
In order to believe the second proposition, you must invalidate the first. Your whole line of reasoning goes up in smoke here.
I have to disagree here. I believe we should not try to diminish or cover-up the feed back we get from survivors. DJ, you may feel that survivors are not telling the truth when they speak about their experiences but we need to listen to all the stories not just some of them.
There may be those which we believe are the truth and those which we choose not to believe, but they should still get an equal voice in my opinion.
...
-
No, it's not that I don't believe survivors. It's that you, for many years, have been saying that kids in programs lie and manipulate - so much so that you have excused their being killed by staff who refused to call 911 because they belived the kids were "faking it." Only now you want everyone to beliueve the opposite - that program kids are honest.
It has been your argument all along, not mine. All I'm saying is the obvious, which the researcher herself included in the work; that kids are highly motivated (biased) to report progress in order to get out of the program. This is the same argument you've been using here since you came on this board for why they SHOULD NOT be believed - "They'll say anything to get out of the program!" Now you're asking everyone to believe the opposite. It's illogical.
-
No, it's not that I don't believe survivors. It's that you, for many years, have been saying that kids in programs lie and manipulate -
If you really worked around kids like you claim you did you would know that some kids do lie and manipulate. You need to guard against this and take it into consideration. I think where many people here on fornits (yourself included) get tripped up is if you experience or read an event you apply it to all events.
Some kids will lie and manipulate but this doesn't mean that all kids lie and manipulate. Do you see what I mean? The study sampled 1,000 kids.. did any of them lie? Who knows maybe. But that is the beauty of pulling a large sample like this is to insure you are getting representative feedback.
...
-
The problem is that it's a large biased sample, as Behrens admitted when she was unable to explain why kids who went for one day did as well as kids who went for 24 months.
-
The marketing campaign is polished, it just lies about the study results.
And the study clearly states that the length of stay has no effect on the outcome. The obvious conclusion is if the results are the same, keep the stay as short as possible and the cost as low as possible. It's a stunning find by Behrens that there's no diference in outcome for kids who left early against program advice and kids who stayed for the full program. Kinda blows holes in the whole "kids who don't finish the program fail" theory, huh? You've said that many times.
I see it a little differently. The kids who leave early (say 6 months) may report the same results as the kids who stay the entire time. This is due to that the majority of the change has occurred by then and the child appears to be better. The time in the final phase of the programs is used to solidify the childs changes and prepare the child for the transition home.
Great discussion, DJ, I found this finding interesting myself. I would like to see the kids fill these out at 3 month intervals to see if there is any variance from the onset to the 3 month mark and then again from the 6 month mark to the end of the program (just purely from a reporting perspective to see how the kids feel they are benefiting and at what time along the time-line they wee this effect).
However, in this case, those who left against program advice left, on average, during
the last stage of treatment. Clinical staff in private residential care often devote the last few
weeks or months to consolidation of gains and transfer of skills. In essence, this last phase is
typically designed to solidify change. Parents and adolescents who discharge against program
advice during this last phase may not appreciate the need for continued care because problems
appear resolved.
p.14
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
The problem is that it's a large biased sample, as Behrens admitted when she was unable to explain why kids who went for one day did as well as kids who went for 24 months.
This is what I said. I think we need a moderator to clean up your repetitive spam posting. You were banned for that before, remember?
-
No we don't. Phase one only tells us that kids in programs say they are better.
Welcome to the world of studies, DJ. They can report on what people say... At least you admit that the kids said they are better.
This was a big step.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
No we don't. Phase one only tells us that kids in programs say they are better.
Welcome to the world of studies, DJ. They can report on what people say... At least you admit that the kids said they are better.
This was a big step.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Because they know what will happen to them if they tell the truth. They''re desperate (edited to add: and will say whatever they need to in order to get out. That's what I did.
Oh....and those of you who think I'm a raging bitch?.......Guess where that came from? I was the most timid, shy little thing you'd ever meet before being sent away, but after Straight got through with me? Bitch on wheels. And I mean BITCH!! I swore that I would never let anyone speak to me again the way that those sadists did. And nobody does anymore, without getting a verbal shitstorm raining down on them. Straight certainly taught me how to go for the emotional juggular at people. I can unequivocally say (and my mother and even my dad would confrim this) that I was much, much worse when I came out than when I went in.
Ever heard how criminals in prison end up feeling like they're in a training camp for being a criminal? That's quite similar to how I felt after "graduating".
-
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered”
page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
You mean the male adolescents that would say anything to manipulate their way out of the program? The same kids who the researcher admits are strongly biased to "look good"?
This represents the inherent weakness of this survey. A clinical study would have ferreted out the biases and not leave the researcher guessing why kids did as well when they had one day of the program as 24 months.
-
You mean the male adolescents that would say anything to manipulate their way out of the program? The same kids who the researcher admits are strongly biased to "look good"?
This represents the inherent weakness of this survey. A clinical study would have ferreted out the biases and not leave the researcher guessing why kids did as well when they had one day of the program as 24 months.
I see it a little differently. The kids who leave early (say 6 months) may report the same results as the kids who stay the entire time. This is due to that the majority of the change has occurred by then and the child appears to be better. The time in the final phase of the programs is used to solidify the childs changes and prepare the child for the transition home.
Great discussion, DJ, I found this finding interesting myself. I would like to see the kids fill these out at 3 month intervals to see if there is any variance from the onset to the 3 month mark and then again from the 6 month mark to the end of the program (just purely from a reporting perspective to see how the kids feel they are benefiting and at what time along the time-line they wee this effect).
However, in this case, those who left against program advice left, on average, during
the last stage of treatment. Clinical staff in private residential care often devote the last few
weeks or months to consolidation of gains and transfer of skills. In essence, this last phase is
typically designed to solidify change. Parents and adolescents who discharge against program
advice during this last phase may not appreciate the need for continued care because problems
appear resolved.
p.14
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
You mean the male adolescents that would say anything to manipulate their way out of the program? The same kids who the researcher admits are strongly biased to "look good"?
This represents the inherent weakness of this survey. A clinical study would have ferreted out the biases and not leave the researcher guessing why kids did as well when they had one day of the program as 24 months.
The researcher said this. The bias was so evident she put it right in the synopsis. Take it up with her if you feel she should word it differently. All we have to go on is her words indicating bias which I already quoted several times for you.
-
The only fornits poster to ever make money off of troubled teens is Dysfunction Junction.
How much does it cost, exactly, to hire you to abuse kids?
-
Take a look here, SUCK IT:
When is this supposed to take place?
Well the announcement takes place after the lawyers sign off on the deal, but they usually wait until the transfer is ready to take place.
The legal transfer typically takes place at the beginning of the new quarter (or fiscal year).
So based on this I would expect the announcement would come at anytime and the transfer could occur on Tuesday October 1, 2007 or early January 2008.
...
How is it that you are in a position to have knowledge about the acquisition of HLA?
I apologize for being vague, I have a fiduciary duty which prevents me from speaking in any specific terms in this area and can only comment on information which is first made public by either party involved, this could be misconstrued as “Tippingâ€
Now that you know Whooter makes his living off Aspen Education, you can rescind your previous comment. For someone who pretends to be "smart," you aren't, SUCK IT. This sockpuppet is lame.
-
I bet you made in the tens of thousands of dollars from your job abusing kids, right? Do the right thing and donate that money to fornits, unless you see no problem with keeping blood money .You should be ashamed
-
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. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=45#p348044)
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 (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=45#p348047)
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 ;D
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&p=348643#p348730)
-
Money doesn't abuse children, staffers do. You were payed well to abuse children, this is a fact you have already admitted to. Tell us, how much blood money did you manage to pocket? Do you ever consider donating that blood money to a survivors fund?
-
Because they know what will happen to them if they tell the truth. They''re desperate (edited to add: and will say whatever they need to in order to get out. That's what I did.
Us too. Suck it, you remember what it was like don't you? Whenever the ed cons would show up, they would hide away the bad (honest) kids, and only put forward the ones who would say what they told them to say.
Suck it, tell us again what program you were in?
-
Because they know what will happen to them if they tell the truth. They''re desperate (edited to add: and will say whatever they need to in order to get out. That's what I did.
Us too. Suck it, you remember what it was like don't you? Whenever the ed cons would show up, they would hide away the bad (honest) kids, and only put forward the ones who would say what they told them to say.
Suck it, tell us again what program you were in?
Look, DJ eeeerrrr I mean, Bruce, I dont think he will fall for your tricks.
...
-
Are you talking to DJ or me? And what tricks are you refering to?
-
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. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=45#p348044)
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 (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=45#p348047)
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 ;D
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&p=348643#p348730)
Don't get scammed by Whooter's sockpuppets. He has used (and been caught) over FIFTY different aliases here on Fornits.
-
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.
-
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?
...
-
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.
-
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.
-
The "Outcome study" DJ is talking about can be found right here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
The "Outcome study" DJ is talking about can be found right here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
That was bought and paid for by Aspen. It's called a conflict of interest.
-
The "Outcome study" DJ is talking about can be found right here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-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 (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
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.
-
The study that has everyone up in arms is this one here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Seems everyone is talking about it.
...[/quote]
-
... 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.
-
The study DJ is talking about can be found here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Seems everyone is talking about it.
...
-
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.
-
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?
...
-
... 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:
-
... 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:
The details to support DJ's numbers can be found here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
He may have left out the link by accident.
...
-
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.
-
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.
The study itself tells a different story. For the facts you can click on the link below and read for yourself:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
He may have left out the link by accident.
...
-
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.
This is vebatim from Behrens. So it's obvious this is a "fact" according to Whooter. Problems are underreported and the samlple is biased and not random. Big problems for this work. Hence it has never been peer reviewed. It's crap.
-
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.
This is vebatim from Behrens. So it's obvious this is a "fact" according to Whooter. Problems are underreported and the samlple is biased and not random. Big problems for this work. Hence it has never been peer reviewed. It's crap.
You made a great point DJ. Here are the details of what DJ is talking about:
For the facts you can click on the link below and read for yourself:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
DJ may have left out the link by accident.
...
-
youth care was where brendan blum died. He complained and they ignored it charges were filed against the staff. His mother researched the place and was lead to beleive he would get top quality care. I wonder if this study was one of the things that convinced her that the poor boy would be in good hands.
Charges Filed in Death of Brendan Blum
2 youth counselors charged in California boy's death
14-year-old was staying at treatment center in Draper
By Pat Reavy and Rebecca Palmer
Deseret Morning News
Published: October 12, 2007
Two counselors at a residential youth treatment center in Draper where a 14-year-old boy died in June were charged Thursday in connection with the boy's death.
Deborah Cole and Jorge Ramirez, from Youth Care Inc., 12600 Minuteman Drive, each face one count of abuse or neglect of a child, a third-degree felony.
On June 27, Brendan Blum of California was suffering bowel and stomach problems. He had been vomiting and suffering from diarrhea all night, said Draper Police Sgt. Gerry Allred. Rather than contacting the on-call nurse as the facility's policy dictates, the boy was simply given some medicine and put in a separate room away from the rest of the boys, he said. The next morning, the boy, who was listed as a disabled child because he had Asperger's syndrome, was found dead on his mattress.
"There was no really good reason why they didn't take him ... no explanation except they just thought it was an upset stomach," Allred said.
An autopsy determined the boy had an obstructed bowel that deteriorated as the night went on, Allred said. The on-call nurse, who was later interviewed by police, said if she had been called to look at the boy she would have advised he immediately go to the hospital, he said.
The Utah State Medical Examiner concurred, "if medical intervention had been obtained, (the boy's) death would have been preventable," according to court documents.
The boy's mother, Dana Blum, said she is appalled that workers at the facility didn't take him to an emergency room. Any time a child dies while in the care of a licensed facility, the facility should be shut down immediately, she said.
Blum has filed a complaint with the Utah licensing board and is waiting for the investigation to be completed.
She hopes the individuals who operated the facility will be held accountable along with the workers.
"I don't wish them any ill, I would just like to see justice done for my son," she said.
The facility issued a statement shortly after the boy's death saying it was the result of a "medical condition." The group home is operated by Aspen Education Group, based in Cerritos, Calif. It is a division of the CRC Health Group, which runs boarding schools, outdoor education programs and weight-loss camps.
Ironically, the charges came one day after the Government Accountability Office in Washington, D.C., found thousands of abuse allegations at camps and other private treatment facilities around the country.
Blum hopes the national attention will result in stricter standards and more accountability across the board.
Brendan was placed in the facility following treatment at a California hospital. Blum said she researched Youth Care Inc. extensively before sending her son there.
"This is double-edged sword for me," she said. "I am not a deadbeat mom."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caretakers at Draper youth care center charged with child abuse in death of 14-year-old
By Jason Bergreen
The Salt Lake Tribune Article
Last Updated: 10/11/2007 05:22:00 PM MDT
Two caretakers at a Draper assisted-living facility were charged Thursday with failing to provide medical aid to a 14-year-old resident who died under their supervision in June. Jorge Ramirez and Deborah Cole were both on duty at Youth Care Inc. on June 27 when 14-year-old Brendan Blum of Santa Barbara, Calif., died.
An autopsy concluded that Blum died from an inadequate blood supply to his small bowel, according to a criminal complaint filed in 3rd District Court. On the night of his death, Blum had a loss of bowel control, vomited and complained of stomach pain, but Ramirez and Cole did not provide or seek medical help for him, the complaint states.
Blum was found dead on the morning of June 28. A state medical examiner concluded that Blum's death could have been prevented if he had been given medical attention.
"Secure treatment facilities are responsible for providing appropriate medical treatment and care for the children entrusted to their supervision," Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra Miller said in a news release. "In this case, it is alleged that a young boy's need for emergency medical treatment was ignored and that this negligence resulted in the boy's death." Miller also said that state law requires that treatment facilities and their employees be held to a "heightened standard of care."
Blum was at the facility because he had Asperger's Syndrome, a disorder related to autism.
Cole and Ramirez are each charged with one third-degree felony count of abuse or neglect of a child. The crime is punishable by up to five years in jail.
Posted by Teen Advocates USA at 10:50 AM
Labels: Aspen Education Group, Barbe Stamps, Brendan Blum, CRC Health Group, Teen Advocates USA, Youth Care
Newer Post Older Post Home
WEBSITE
* Teen Advocates USA
Photo Copyright 2007 by Teen Advocates USA and Barbe Stamps. All Rights Reserved.
My Photo
Teen Advocates USA
Teen Advocates USA is a private not-for-profit children's rights educational and public advocacy website dedicated to improving the status and well-being of America's youth through judicial, legislative and social policy reforms.
View my complete profile
Blog Archive
* ? 2007 (4)
o ? October (2)
+ A Mother's Quest for Accountability
+ Charges Filed in Death of Brendan Blum
o ? September (2)
+ WHO'S WATCHING THE CAREGIVERS?
+ News Reports
TAUSA WEBLOG
* Aaron Bacon: Tragedy in the Wilderness
* Barbe Stamps
* Betrayed Innocence
* Carey Bock Appeal
* Cash For Kids
* End Institutionalized Child Abuse Act 2005
* HOLY THE CHILDREN
* KID NATION
* Paradise Abused: Memoirs of a Search for Truth
* Remembering Brendan Blum
* Remembering Michelle Sutton
* Self Medicated The Movie
* Stop Child Profiteering in America
* Teen Advocates USA 10 Year Anniversary
* The Troubled Teen Industry
* Tough Love America
* What Price Wilderness Therapy?
* HOLY THE CHILDREN
Holy The Children is a memorial that seeks to honor and remember children who tragically lost their lives while in the custodial care of a private or state-run residential children's program or institution. Created by Barbe Stamps and online since 1999 there are over 125 children's names currently listed on the memorial wall which also includes informational articles and resources for parents, other family members and friends.
BRENDAN BLUM MEMORIAL WEBPAGE
Naymz Profile for Barbe Stamps
Teen Advocates USA
Wow these people were part of Behrens' marketing campaign.
-
... 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:
The details to support DJ's numbers can be found here:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
He may have left out the link by accident.
Outcome study that was bought and paid for by Aspen Ed.
-
Outcome study that was bought and paid for by Aspen Ed.
Exactly!! Imagine trying to find a research firm that just worked for free!! lol I am sure they would have hired them first. I know I would, why pay for it when you can get it done for nothing?
...
-
Outcome study that was bought and paid for by Aspen Ed.
Exactly!! Imagine trying to find a research firm that just worked for free!! lol I am sure they would have hired them first. I know I would, why pay for it when you can get it done for nothing?
Of course not and that's not what we're suggesting, but you know that. But when Aspen hires them to do a study do you really think it would be in their best interest to have it come out shedding and unkind light on Aspen? They wouldn't get referrals or any more business from Aspen, but again......you know this and you know that's the context we're talking about but you spin it to fit what you want.
-
Outcome study that was bought and paid for by Aspen Ed.
Exactly!! Imagine trying to find a research firm that just worked for free!! lol I am sure they would have hired them first. I know I would, why pay for it when you can get it done for nothing?
Of course not and that's not what we're suggesting, but you know that. But when Aspen hires them to do a study do you really think it would be in their best interest to have it come out shedding and unkind light on Aspen? They wouldn't get referrals or any more business from Aspen, but again......you know this and you know that's the context we're talking about but you spin it to fit what you want.
What are talking about? You are referring to the practices of every research firm, Anne. None of them work for free. They all get paid regardless of whether it is a program or University research study, Private companies.... The research firm still needs to get paid so that they can pay their employees. This study had a review board which oversaw the study and approved it. They look for conflicts of interest and understand the payment for their work.
...
-
Daily Recap:
The study continues to take some heavy artillery here on fornits but still remains bullet proof. The foes are still unable to discredit the report in light of the pesky oversight committee who over saw and approved the study. This and the fact that the study was presented to the annual meeting of the APA.
The overall rating for this report is running around 9.2 for accuracy and credibility. (on a 1 -to-10 scale).
For the facts you can click on the link below and read for yourself:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Tomorrow is a new day.
...
-
Daily Recap:
The study continues to take some heavy artillery here on fornits but still remains bullet proof. The foes are still unable to discredit the report in light of the pesky oversight committee who over saw and approved the study. This and the fact that the study was presented to the annual meeting of the APA.
The overall rating for this report is running around 9.2 for accuracy and credibility. (on a 1 -to-10 scale).
For the facts you can click on the link below and read for yourself:
Outcome Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Tomorrow is a new day.
...
They Will Never Beat Us In Numbers My Brother Whooter's !!!!!!!! :cheers: :cheers: :rocker: :rocker:
Right John,???? :notworthy: :soapbox: :notworthy: we will follow you everywhere you go here to make sure your voice is heard,we will be submitting your Manifesto soon so dont worry our :notworthy: :notworthy: " Lord " :notworthy: :notworthy: We will present you in all your deserved glory.
Thank You,, for reading our update's and tribute post's to you and may the future bring so many New and Honorable one's ..
-
Daily Recap:
The study continues to take some heavy artillery here on fornits but still remains bullet proof. The foes are still unable to discredit the report in light of the pesky oversight committee who over saw and approved the study. This and the fact that the study was presented to the annual meeting of the APA.
The overall rating for this report is running around 9.2 for accuracy and credibility. (on a 1 -to-10 scale).
...
-
Daily recap: Whooter's posts moved to the OFFA and Whooter warned again for spamming with TTI advertisements. Nice to see some moderation working here.
-
Daily recap: Whooter's posts moved to the OFFA and Whooter warned again for spamming with TTI advertisements. Nice to see some moderation working here.
They Will Never Beat Us In Numbers My Brother Whooter's !!!!!!!!
Right John,???? we will follow you everywhere you go here to make sure your voice is heard,we will be submitting your Manifesto soon so dont worry our " Lord " We will present you in all your deserved glory.
Thank You,, for reading our update's and tribute post's to you and may the future bring so many New and Honorable one's ..DJ you know this why fight it ??? I am Whooter AKA John D. Reuben !!!!!, you are powerless to beat me in anything so stick to the topics.