Post by: Kathy on December 10, 2003, 04:13:00 PM
98% of adolescents reported that they did not return to prior drug severity
90% reported improved quality of life
88% reported improved self esteem
88% reported improved family relationships
82% presently clean and sober
Well, these are some of the most interesting stat's I've ever seen. So what they are saying is 82% out of 51% of the clients are presently clean and sober. I'm not the mathematician type, so can one of you math-types pleas tell me exactly how much 82% of 51% is?
And I don't understand how they can say that their relapse rate is only 10% if they only survey half of the clients.
Someone, enlighten me, please! :eek:
Post by: Antigen on December 10, 2003, 04:28:00 PM
If you want to know the question, though, that could take some time. I wonder how they selected the 51% to interview? And I wonder if these kids were worried about getting started over if they didn't give the right answers?
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
--Plato
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2004, 05:00:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2004, 05:49:00 PM
This leads to misleadingly positive results for 3 reasons:
1) Those who take the time to return a survey tend to be those who are "successes"-- those who aren't doing well tend to blame themselves and be embarrassed, and therefore less likely to return a survey. Also, those who did really poorly may be at another address-- in some cases, in jail or on the street.
So if 90% of the 50% who return the survey are doing well (45% of total) and we are generous and assume that only 50% of the non-returners are relapsers (25%), you wind up with a "success rate of 70%. If you are not generous, you wind up with a 45% "success".
And we haven't even gotten into how success is defined-- these programs tend to call for total abstinence, but when it comes to measuring success, they simply talk about "less" use, even though they teach people that "less" use is impossible if you have the "disease of addiction."
If they measured by the standard of total abstinence since day left program including from alcohol, they'd probably come up with 5% success, even amongst the grads.
2) those who are surveyed on-site are probably afraid to say anything bad.
3) Drop outs are never surveyed.
Medical research has had to develop a form of analysis called "intention to treat" in order to deal with the fact that success rates can be made artificially high if you don't include treatment drop outs. Intent-to-treat studies include everyone who started the program, even dropouts.
This murders the success rate of programs like Phoenix House and Daytop, which claim that 80% are sober 5 years later. This is true of *graduates*-- but since some 80-90% drop out without graduating, you wind up with 15-20% clean in intent-to-treat analysis.
Not coincidentally, this is exactly the rate that gets clean with no treatment-- so what you have done is essentially weed out the people that don't want to stop and kept in those who are so desperate to stop that they are willing to do anything and so probably would have gotten clean if the program was nothing more than standing on your head.
So that's how to lie with drug treatment statistics 101.
Post by: Tony Danza on January 13, 2004, 06:46:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2004, 07:00:00 PM
wow thats about as interesting as my small pecker, ass...
Post by: Anonymous on January 14, 2004, 04:22:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 14, 2004, 05:07:00 PM
Post by: KING OF EVIL on January 14, 2004, 05:10:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 20, 2004, 06:56:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-01-13 14:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
The way they compile those stats is that they mail questionnaires or ask students if they will participate when they are on-site.
This leads to misleadingly positive results for 3 reasons:
1) Those who take the time to return a survey tend to be those who are "successes"-- those who aren't doing well tend to blame themselves and be embarrassed, and therefore less likely to return a survey. Also, those who did really poorly may be at another address-- in some cases, in jail or on the street.
So if 90% of the 50% who return the survey are doing well (45% of total) and we are generous and assume that only 50% of the non-returners are relapsers (25%), you wind up with a "success rate of 70%. If you are not generous, you wind up with a 45% "success".
And we haven't even gotten into how success is defined-- these programs tend to call for total abstinence, but when it comes to measuring success, they simply talk about "less" use, even though they teach people that "less" use is impossible if you have the "disease of addiction."
If they measured by the standard of total abstinence since day left program including from alcohol, they'd probably come up with 5% success, even amongst the grads.
2) those who are surveyed on-site are probably afraid to say anything bad.
3) Drop outs are never surveyed.
Medical research has had to develop a form of analysis called "intention to treat" in order to deal with the fact that success rates can be made artificially high if you don't include treatment drop outs. Intent-to-treat studies include everyone who started the program, even dropouts.
This murders the success rate of programs like Phoenix House and Daytop, which claim that 80% are sober 5 years later. This is true of *graduates*-- but since some 80-90% drop out without graduating, you wind up with 15-20% clean in intent-to-treat analysis.
Not coincidentally, this is exactly the rate that gets clean with no treatment-- so what you have done is essentially weed out the people that don't want to stop and kept in those who are so desperate to stop that they are willing to do anything and so probably would have gotten clean if the program was nothing more than standing on your head.
So that's how to lie with drug treatment statistics 101."
This is not accurate. The clients and parents were first contacted by a mail in survey which only about 5% responded. After the mail in survey, phone contact with former clietns was attempted to reach the other clients.
The success rates were computed from teh clients contacted and the demographic information was obtained the remaining people who were not contacted (Often ebcause they changed their address or phone number). There was no significant difference in time in the program and comlpetion between responders and non responders.
Also, every client was attempted to be contacted (drop outs or not) In fact graduates made up only about 40% of the clietns contacted.
Post by: Mike007 on August 22, 2004, 10:40:00 PM
It only takes 2 minutes to register on this site, if you haven't yet.
"Anonymous posting encouraged" is to facilitate open communication from those who may need confidentiality (e.g. medical or psych. patients)
There is no excuse for your making an "anonymous" posting, when you claim to present "authorized" statistical data, as a representative of Pathways.
(One "excuse", though, is the fact that you are an INCOMPETENT FOOL, as evidenced by your writing.)
Anyone can make an occasional error, but you have 15 substantial errors in the short posting above...
Look at the spelling errors, for Christ's sake!
In the second paragraph, you decay into honest-to-God incoherence. I challenge anyone to try and decipher the first sentence of paragraph 2.
Have you been drinking, by any chance??
I daresay that you are a good representative for Pathways: functionally illiterate, incoherent, incompetent, biased, apologetic, and "on the take" (i.e. your paycheck).
I DEMAND THAT YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
- Mike Stevenson, ( Mike007 )
Journalist
Ann Arbor, Mich.
mattblack001@yahoo.com
Post by: Antigen on August 23, 2004, 01:55:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-04-20 15:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
The success rates were computed from teh clients contacted and the demographic information was obtained the remaining people who were not contacted (Often ebcause they changed their address or phone number).
They changed their number and didn't tell you? Hint, hint! I'll tell you now, I would never have returned a call from Straight, Inc. If I happened to answer the phone, I might well have lied and told them "she's" not in right now.
In other words, your study population is self selecting. Only people eager or intimidated to help the Program generate some bogus PR material are likely to respond.
Post by: Anonymous on May 03, 2005, 03:53:00 PM
In fact I know families that graduated but did not continue after care, and they are never spoken to either.
Sincerely,
Parent of 4th level graduate.
Post by: webcrawler on May 03, 2005, 05:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-03 12:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"My family was never contacted and I specifically offered, when we pulled after 1 yr. That we would be more than happy at any time in the future to answer any questions. We were contacted by mail for the annual dinner/dance fundraiser!
In fact I know families that graduated but did not continue after care, and they are never spoken to either.
Sincerely,
Parent of 4th level graduate."
Hopefully you wil be back to read this anon. Was your child in straight or pathways (I know same demon, different name)? Would you be willing to share what made you decide to pull your child?
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 11:32:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 11:35:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 11:39:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 11:49:00 AM
Quote
On 2004-08-22 19:40:00, Mike007 wrote:
" To "Anonymous", directly above:
It only takes 2 minutes to register on this site, if you haven't yet.
"Anonymous posting encouraged" is to facilitate open communication from those who may need confidentiality (e.g. medical or psych. patients)
There is no excuse for your making an "anonymous" posting, when you claim to present "authorized" statistical data, as a representative of Pathways.
(One "excuse", though, is the fact that you are an INCOMPETENT FOOL, as evidenced by your writing.)
Anyone can make an occasional error, but you have 15 substantial errors in the short posting above...
Look at the spelling errors, for Christ's sake!
In the second paragraph, you decay into honest-to-God incoherence. I challenge anyone to try and decipher the first sentence of paragraph 2.
Have you been drinking, by any chance??
I daresay that you are a good representative for Pathways: functionally illiterate, incoherent, incompetent, biased, apologetic, and "on the take" (i.e. your paycheck).
I DEMAND THAT YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
- Mike Stevenson, ( Mike007 )
Journalist
Ann Arbor, Mich.
mattblack001@yahoo.com
First of all, I am not the person who wrote about the statistics and I do not feel that I need to identify myself as anyone other than advocate of any service that helps kids and their families in need of help.
What good is it, Mike Stevenson, to write about something that you know nothing about? What kind of journalist are you, anyway? Ahhh, you must be the kind who will write about anything that will cause an uproar and get the public's attention, hoping that one day you will make it BIG and maybe (just maybe, Mike) get to write for the National Enquirer. Then, you can bullshit all you want!!
Take care.
Post by: webcrawler on July 25, 2005, 12:14:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-07-25 08:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Same demon, different name, you say? What are your credentails and how do you know that this is true? Have you ever stepped foot into either program? You talk a lot of %&*#, I hope that you have something knowledgable to back up that false statement."
I was in Straight and the majority of staff went to Pathways. You sound quite ridiculous.
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 12:46:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 12:53:00 PM
Post by: webcrawler on July 25, 2005, 12:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-07-25 09:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Oh and by the way, Webcrawler, it's Pathway Family Center, not Pathways. Could very easily be confused with another organization. Next time, be a little more knowledgable about the topic rather than guessing. It helps to show that you actually know what you are talking about (which you obviously don't) Again, sorry that you didn't get the help you needed at Straight. I am, too, very glad that that organization does not exist anymore."
Grow up! Oops you forgot to write Straight, Inc. BTW. I don't have to write the full name of the place. I'm on the forum for crying out loud.
I think you may have enjoyed your belt looping days a little too much. Perhaps a refresher is in order
Post by: Anonymous on July 25, 2005, 02:42:00 PM
Post by: webcrawler on July 25, 2005, 05:37:00 PM
So typical of your mentality of program pushers "Oh she must be using drugs because she disagrees". What a crock! In fact I'm everything people like you can't believe. I now have the power to use my voice and I will continue to do so.
Cheers!