Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---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).
--- End quote ---
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.
...
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---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
Together we can make this the new top hit on Google when you search Aspen Education!
--- End quote ---
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?
Whooter:
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
...
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---Let's have a look at Behrens' numbers from her report:
--- Quote from: "Behrens 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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
Only 31% show statistically relevent change. Not good results compared to 60-80% for publicly funded treatment.
Whooter:
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
...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version