Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Long-Term Outcome Studies
Whooter:
I dont see how anyone could conduct a valid heart study without involving heart doctors. I dont think the study would be considered tainted if there were doctors which were previously affiliated with a hospital involved or performing the study. I would think it would be the other way around.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "mkijyr" ---I dont see how anyone could conduct a valid heart study without involving heart doctors. I dont think the study would be considered tainted if there were doctors which were previously affiliated with a hospital involved or performing the study. I would think it would be the other way around.
--- End quote ---
You are correct. In order to have any type of successful study you would need to include people who are familiar with the industry being studied otherwise how could the study be designed? How could the statistician know how often to check the patients heart rate or blood pressure. What enzymes should be tested and what time intervals?
The same applies to the teen help industry. As the program owner you would want to choose a research firm which is familiar with your industry, otherwise you would have to supply them with personel to train them on what you do and how you measure success and failure. This would cost the program additional costs and potentially taint or bias the outcome.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "mkijyr" ---I dont see how anyone could conduct a valid heart study without involving heart doctors. I dont think the study would be considered tainted if there were doctors which were previously affiliated with a hospital involved or performing the study. I would think it would be the other way around.
--- End quote ---
You are correct. In order to have any type of successful study you would need to include people who are familiar with the industry being studied otherwise how could the study be designed? How could the statistician know how often to check the patients heart rate or blood pressure. What enzymes should be tested and what time intervals?
The same applies to the teen help industry. As the program owner you would want to choose a research firm which is familiar with your industry, otherwise you would have to supply them with personel to train them on what you do and how you measure success and failure. This would cost the program additional costs and potentially taint or bias the outcome.
--- End quote ---
Its too bad retarded analogies didn't prevent Aspen Education Group from killing your son. Remember him, John? Didn't you say your kid was helped by ASR, before he killed himself. What's the thinking re. your dead son, he was helped even though he died? Maybe he didn't use the "tools" Academy at Swift River gave him? Pathetic.
More on Aspen's bogus short term survey of "graduates."
--- Quote from: "Aspen Education Group deceptively markets short term invalid and unathenticated SURVEY as long term study." ---http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html
Linked is the only "study" made available by John Reuben. This is a survey, not study. There is no control group. In no way can this be construed as a "study."
Even after accepting this as a survey Aspen Education Group is fraudulent. For it, as they admit, only "graduates" were interviewed. Therefore, this is not even a valid survey of the participants, only the small segment who "graduate." What's more, "graduation" is only granted to detainees when staff feels the detainee believes that he/she has been helped and was unfit previous to program. Even if you grant (improperly) that graduation is granted to "healed" detainees, that still leaves out all the participants who were not. Detainees imprisoned every bit as long as the "graduates" are not included in the survey of perception of the experience. The survey is structured to provide artificially inflated levels of "positive" perceptions.
This is also an invalid survey because of the lack of transparency of "assessment method,"(they provide no corroboration that any of the info they provide is accurate, or what sort of questions were asked ,or what sort of answers were given--[interpretation of answers can manipulated to reverse intended meanings]) vagueness of meaning (are teens less depressed at assessment because they are no longer in the process of being kidnapped?) and supply no provision of objective reality in addition to subjective perception (if a teen is in jail, or no longer speaking to their parents, or a drop out, this objective measurement of "Family healing" should be included) Its also invalid as a "long term" study because it supposedly only measures perceptions of detainees a year out
That this "survey" is only on isolated corners of the interwebs and not accepted by any journals speaks volumes.
Compare Aspen's invalid clandestine survey to Alison Pinto's legitimate survey, for transparency, independency, and appropriatness of clinical sampling:
http://www.cafety.org/research/121-rese ... -pinto-phd
Here's a breakdown of the AARC "clincial outcome study," which uses a similar "methodology." I'm bolding the flaws which are relevant to the ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP (torture chambers) "outcome study"
--- Quote from: "cbc" ---About AARC's "80% Success Rate"
That claim is based on what AARC’s website calls an “outcome evaluation,” which it says was “completed” by Dr. Michael Patton, a leading U.S. professional evaluator of programs.
As recently as last year, AARC described the study as an “independent outcomes validation study,” according to an AARC funding submission document sent to the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, which the fifth estate obtained through the province’s freedom of information legislation.
We obtained a version of the 2003 study and showed it to three psychology professors who specialize in addiction—the University of Calgary’s David Hodgins, the University of Lethbridge’s Robert Williams and Bruce Alexander, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
The success rate doesn’t include people who didn’t finish the program.
The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said.
The fifth estate also asked the man who AARC says completed the study—Dr. Patton. He told the fifth estate his involvement was largely limited to supervising a graduate student who crunched the data—data gathered by people associated with AARC.
“I did not conduct the study. I oversaw the analysis,” he said.
[Aspen both conducted the survey and oversaw the analysis]
“It’s expensive of course to commission an external evaluation. But, that would be the next step. I do remember that the internal evaluation results were quite positive. But, the evaluation that was done did not independently examine the process. The graduate student that I supervised did not independently talk to any of the young people or the parents. He simply analyzed the data that they sent him. And I was the supervisor of him which is how my name ends up on the report,” Patton said.
AAARC’s research has faced criticisms before. In 1994, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission raised questions about an earlier AARC evaluation of its success rate.
At the time, the commission wanted AARC to have an independent study of its program done by an experienced, credible research group of its program as a condition of a $100,000 grant.
AARC did submit a study. It is even mentioned on AARC’s website, where it is described as “an external review.”
The commission wasn’t so sure. One of its researchers reviewed the study and noted that, in her opinion, it “was not conducted by an independent researcher, but by people associated with AARC,” according to a commission memo obtained through the freedom of information legislation.
That researcher’s conclusion: AARC’s study was not “technically adequate based on widely accepted standards of research and evaluation.”
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Whooter:
I would conclude by the need to locate an example (or argument point) outside of the country in Canada which isnt related to Aspen in any way or General programs here in the States that the Aspen study is fairly relevant and unshakable.
@ previous poster, I concur that trying to conduct a valid study without support or knowledge of the industry would not be very useful or valid.
Anonymous:
http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html
Linked is the only "study" made available by John Reuben. This is a survey, not study. There is no control group. In no way can this be construed as a "study."
Even after accepting this as a survey Aspen Education Group is fraudulent. For it, as they admit, only "graduates" were interviewed. Therefore, this is not even a valid survey of the participants, only the small segment who "graduate." What's more, "graduation" is only granted to detainees when staff feels the detainee believes that he/she has been helped and was unfit previous to program. Even if you grant (improperly) that graduation is granted to "healed" detainees, that still leaves out all the participants who were not. Detainees imprisoned every bit as long as the "graduates" are not included in the survey of perception of the experience. The survey is structured to provide artificially inflated levels of "positive" perceptions.
This is also an invalid survey because of the lack of transparency of "assessment method,"(they provide no corroboration that any of the info they provide is accurate, or what sort of questions were asked ,or what sort of answers were given--[interpretation of answers can manipulated to reverse intended meanings]) vagueness of meaning (are teens less depressed at assessment because they are no longer in the process of being kidnapped?) and supply no provision of objective reality in addition to subjective perception (if a teen is in jail, or no longer speaking to their parents, or a drop out, this objective measurement of "Family healing" should be included) Its also invalid as a "long term" study because it supposedly only measures perceptions of detainees a year out
That this "survey" is only on isolated corners of the interwebs and not accepted by any journals speaks volumes.
Compare Aspen's invalid clandestine survey to Alison Pinto's legitimate survey, for transparency, independency, and appropriatness of clinical sampling:
http://www.cafety.org/research/121-rese ... -pinto-phd
Here's a breakdown of the AARC "clincial outcome study," which uses a similar "methodology." I'm bolding the flaws which are relevant to the ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP (torture chambers) "outcome study"
--- Quote from: "cbc" ---About AARC's "80% Success Rate"
That claim is based on what AARC’s website calls an “outcome evaluation,” which it says was “completed” by Dr. Michael Patton, a leading U.S. professional evaluator of programs.
As recently as last year, AARC described the study as an “independent outcomes validation study,” according to an AARC funding submission document sent to the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, which the fifth estate obtained through the province’s freedom of information legislation.
We obtained a version of the 2003 study and showed it to three psychology professors who specialize in addiction—the University of Calgary’s David Hodgins, the University of Lethbridge’s Robert Williams and Bruce Alexander, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
The success rate doesn’t include people who didn’t finish the program.
The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said.
The fifth estate also asked the man who AARC says completed the study—Dr. Patton. He told the fifth estate his involvement was largely limited to supervising a graduate student who crunched the data—data gathered by people associated with AARC.
“I did not conduct the study. I oversaw the analysis,” he said.
[Aspen both conducted the survey and oversaw the analysis]
“It’s expensive of course to commission an external evaluation. But, that would be the next step. I do remember that the internal evaluation results were quite positive. But, the evaluation that was done did not independently examine the process. The graduate student that I supervised did not independently talk to any of the young people or the parents. He simply analyzed the data that they sent him. And I was the supervisor of him which is how my name ends up on the report,” Patton said.
AAARC’s research has faced criticisms before. In 1994, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission raised questions about an earlier AARC evaluation of its success rate.
At the time, the commission wanted AARC to have an independent study of its program done by an experienced, credible research group of its program as a condition of a $100,000 grant.
AARC did submit a study. It is even mentioned on AARC’s website, where it is described as “an external review.”
The commission wasn’t so sure. One of its researchers reviewed the study and noted that, in her opinion, it “was not conducted by an independent researcher, but by people associated with AARC,” according to a commission memo obtained through the freedom of information legislation.
That researcher’s conclusion: AARC’s study was not “technically adequate based on widely accepted standards of research and evaluation.”
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version