Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG
Whooter:
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.
...
Whooter:
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered”
page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study
...
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
The one year follow-up could show 81% sustained. But until the study is released we don't know that.
...
Troll Control:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version