Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Another death last week at an Aspen program
AuntieEm2:
Hilarious. You look at the study and the first two sentences are these:
"There is a lack of research concerning the effectiveness of residential treatment for troubled adolescents. Due to a focus on internal controls in this area of research, there has been no conclusion as to how helpful such treatment is for real world clients."
The rest of what I read is speculative, full of phrases like "...is probably necessary," and "...were perceived to have improved." That's not hard data. The abstract concludes by saying that much more research needs to be done, and that the result of her research suggests--it does not prove--effectiveness.
Also note that she talks about "in-patient treatment," yet this is not what is offered at programs, clearly not at Aspen programs. Aspen admitted in court in August that they do not provide treatment. So an $83,000 a year babysitter?
Auntie Em
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---You don't recall correctly, In fact, you didn't publish the full link to this psychology paper because the link is titled "student papers" and it's stored on a student server and has never been published anywhere, much less a science journal. Busted again.
Let me help you: http://http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/VShapiro.pdf
The first page of the abstract states:
"Results found that the majority of pathological and adaptive behaviors were perceived to have improved by both the students and parents, but that the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."[/u]
What does this mean? It means that anecdotal evidence from parents and students is unreliable, as the data prove that in all areas the measured items failed to improve out of the clinical range, i.e. the treatment felt good to the parents and students, but was factually totally ineffective.
Shot yourself in the foot again, Whooter.
This "evidence" you provided actually invalidates your claims that student and parent stories reflect reality and that ASR's treatment is effective. Too bad your reading comprehension skills are so low or you could have avoided this embarrassment.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, Whooter, but here are the real facts. If Shapiro was "pre-doctoral" in 2007, then five years earlier she would have been a freshman psychology student (2002) when this paper was written. A freshman psychology paper is not a university study. Everyone understands this.
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "AuntieEm2" ---Hilarious. You look at the study and the first two sentences are these:
"There is a lack of research concerning the effectiveness of residential treatment for troubled adolescents. Due to a focus on internal controls in this area of research, there has been no conclusion as to how helpful such treatment is for real world clients."
The rest of what I read is speculative, full of phrases like "...is probably necessary," and "...were perceived to have improved." That's not hard data. The abstract concludes by saying that much more research needs to be done, and that the result of her research suggests--it does not prove--effectiveness.
Also note that she talks about "in-patient treatment," yet this is not what is offered at programs, clearly not at Aspen programs. Aspen admitted in court in August that they do not provide treatment. So an $83,000 a year babysitter?
Auntie Em
--- End quote ---
All true, AuntieEm. But the abstract says on the first page that the data that was able to be gathered showed no clinical improvement in any area:
--- Quote ---...the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."
--- End quote ---
So the few pieces of data that she did gather and analyze prove that ASR is ineffective.
Now, where are the others of thes "multiple university studies published in university science journals," Whooter?
Ursus:
Oh, I remember this study... From my previous comments on it:
"...Moreover, the actual number of participants in this survey is staggeringly low. It is impossible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions from the data. There were fewer student surveys returned for analysis (17), than there are pages in this paper. Perhaps this is why the results discussed in the text, as well as the tables, are expressed almost exclusively in terms of percentages."[/list]
Seriously, how can you generate twenty-plus pages of discussion, when only 17 students returned their surveys? Just how statistically relevant are said results ... extrapolated to the population at large?
AuntieEm2:
There has been so much more research done on how profitable they are.
Aspen's parent company, CRC Health, reported earnings in 2007 of $460 million, up 69.6% over 2006. Nearly three quarters of the company’s increased revenue, or $131.4 million, came from their youth division, with an average net income per youth per day of $233.80—more profitable by far than its adult addiction recovery division which earns an average net income per patient per day of just $11.18.
Auntie Em
P.S. So those 17 ASR students produced $1.45 million dollars in profit per year.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version