Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[try another castle]

[Whooter]

One of the questions I have with this:

Aspen Education Group has participated in multiple independent research studies to ensure that we provide the most cutting-edge, evidence-based therapeutic practices and clinical models within each of our programs. As the leading provider of therapeutic education programs for youth and young adults, we feel it is our responsibility to measure the effectiveness of our methods and the sustainability of our results.

Has anyone seen the completed Studies?

Look further down the page where you read the above quote and you will see the study results.  If not I will paste them out here for you.

[try another castle]

[Anonymous]

I would just like to say that it is very difficult to have a conversation here. The above post is not mine. All the research done at canyon has been nothing but professional and thorough. It seems people don’t like to hear the truth here on fornits.
Why are you keeping your heads in the sand like this? Why not move forward and listen to different points of view and solicit open thinking? I would think many here could contribute to change rather than obstruct it.
The studies will always have a positive effect whether they are good or bad because they provide information and insight for those faced with making critical decisions for their families. I hope in time you will all come to see the benefits of research on the industry and how it determines future direction.Mark DeGroot.

 
Thanks for the user name suggestion, By the way, I have contacted all the groups you suggested and they were not interested in anything I had to say.  They only wanted information which was negative towards the industry and even tried to twist my words and refused to take any factual info I provided.
Why is everyone like this?  Why do you screen all the information here?

Mark,  Sometimes the ends just don't justify the means.  You can beat someone into submission... just b/c you have and it quiets them downs, doesn't make it an experience worth instituting.  There's teh question of human rights to be addreseed.  

With that said, there are NUMEROUS problems with this studys methodology that make even the claim that its a study laughable in its bias. More details to come to critique.  aspen should be ashamed of themselves.

[Troll Control]

I would just like to say that it is very difficult to have a conversation here. The above post is not mine. All the research done at canyon has been nothing but professional and thorough. It seems people don’t like to hear the truth here on fornits.
Why are you keeping your heads in the sand like this? Why not move forward and listen to different points of view and solicit open thinking? I would think many here could contribute to change rather than obstruct it.
The studies will always have a positive effect whether they are good or bad because they provide information and insight for those faced with making critical decisions for their families. I hope in time you will all come to see the benefits of research on the industry and how it determines future direction.Mark DeGroot.

 
Thanks for the user name suggestion, By the way, I have contacted all the groups you suggested and they were not interested in anything I had to say.  They only wanted information which was negative towards the industry and even tried to twist my words and refused to take any factual info I provided.
Why is everyone like this?  Why do you screen all the information here?

Mark,  Sometimes the ends just don't justify the means.  You can beat someone into submission... just b/c you have and it quiets them downs, doesn't make it an experience worth instituting.  There's teh question of human rights to be addreseed.  

With that said, there are NUMEROUS problems with this studys methodology that make even the claim that its a study laughable in its bias. More details to come to critique.  aspen should be ashamed of themselves.

Just wanted to say it again.  The poster logged in with my name is your (fornits') troll called "TheWho".  After I posted a couple of times he registered my name as a username and has been impersonating me since then.  

I agree with others here that the project is not substantive, many parts of the data have been falsified and that it is a biased, uncontrolled survey.

[Troll Control]

I would just like to say that it is very difficult to have a conversation here. The above post is not mine. All the research done at canyon has been nothing but professional and thorough. It seems people don’t like to hear the truth here on fornits.
Why are you keeping your heads in the sand like this? Why not move forward and listen to different points of view and solicit open thinking? I would think many here could contribute to change rather than obstruct it.
The studies will always have a positive effect whether they are good or bad because they provide information and insight for those faced with making critical decisions for their families. I hope in time you will all come to see the benefits of research on the industry and how it determines future direction.Mark DeGroot.

 
Thanks for the user name suggestion, By the way, I have contacted all the groups you suggested and they were not interested in anything I had to say.  They only wanted information which was negative towards the industry and even tried to twist my words and refused to take any factual info I provided.
Why is everyone like this?  Why do you screen all the information here?

Mark,  Sometimes the ends just don't justify the means.  You can beat someone into submission... just b/c you have and it quiets them downs, doesn't make it an experience worth instituting.  There's teh question of human rights to be addreseed.  

With that said, there are NUMEROUS problems with this studys methodology that make even the claim that its a study laughable in its bias. More details to come to critique.  aspen should be ashamed of themselves.

Just wanted to say it again.  The poster logged in with my name is your (fornits') troll called "TheWho".  After I posted a couple of times he registered my name as a username and has been impersonating me since then.  

I agree with others here that the project is not substantive, many parts of the data have been falsified and that it is a biased, uncontrolled survey.

Wow.  Blast from the past.  Whooter has stolen the identity of a canyon Research employee here and has been posting in his name.  This guy will do anything to promote programs.  Epic lols ensued.

Anyway, this claim Whooter keeps making about "third-party oversight" of Behrens' work has been thoroughly debunked, so I thought I'd post it in this thread where it belongs.

By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.

Oh, you hurt my feelings.  You did a ton of responding for someone who doesn't read my posts.  Is this another lie?  Hmmmm.  Well anyway ..

so lets recap.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.

Whooter, could you possibly quote exactly where it says that the Western Institutional Review Board "approved research and audited the study?"

Perhaps I'm missing something, which is certainly possible, but the only reference I was able to find in all 21 pages of this presentation ("Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes in Private Residential Treatment," by Ellen Behrens and Kristin Satterfield; 114th Annual APA Convention; August 12, 2006) as uploaded onto Scribd.com was ... the following emphasized sentence in the Methods section (page 3):

METHOD
Participants.

The sample consisted of 993 adolescents, admitted to one of 9 programs located in the Eastern and Western United States, between August 2003 and August 2005, who, along with their parents or guardians (hereafter referred to as “parents”) agreed to participate in the study and who completed measures at admission and/or discharge. The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

The contribution of each of the 9 residential programs to the sample was relatively equal and ranged from 9% to 16%. This sample consisted of a mean of 55% (range 37-75%) of the adolescents admitted to the residential programs during the time period. Demographic information (i.e., gender, age) from admission data provided by the residential programs indicated the sample was roughly representative of students enrolled in the programs during the same time period.[/list][/list]

To tell you the truth, it isn't even clear (to *me*) whether they even had anything to do with the questionnaire, just with the participant consent/assent forms.

Again, I may be missing something. If so, I'd appreciate anyone's clarification/insight. Thanks.

Here's an interesting fact about the Certificate of Approval: it only refers to the consent/assent forms prior to the study start and has nothing to do whatsoever with the results of the study, which appear never to have been submitted to WIRB, as they have no record of the study.

The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

So, there's the extent of the WIRB involvement - they approved the consent/assent forms and nothing more.

I've been asking for the same thing for a couple of days, Ursus.  Obviously, it isn't there and Whooter made it up.  You have correctly pointed out the fact that WIRB had nothing whatsoever to do with "oversight" or "auditing" of this study, as they told me when I called.  They don't claim that, Canyon/Behrens don't claim that...only Whooter claims that.  He got burned behind that statement and now he's just throwing a hissy.

Now he's back to claiming "third-party oversight" and he doesn't name who "oversaw" the study, of course, because that's just made up, too.  He was formerly claiming it was WIRB, but that is proven false, so now he just makes the claim with no attribution whatsover.

This guy is as phony as it gets and will say anything to try to market Aspen, even if it means publicly pooping in his own pants over and over.  It appears that "fiduciary interest" he has in Aspen Education has clouded his judgment.  Remember, he's in it for the money, not the truth.

This issue may be closed.

[Whooter]

DJ, I think we need to drop you down from your claimed PhD to a masters degree (and even that is sagging a bit).  You have not done your homework on Studies and their oversight Review Board.  You can make up any names you want or log in as multiple people but it wont change the facts.

Once the Study has been approved (Which WIRB did with this study).  They continue to review the study and its progress.... "Oversight".  Didnt you ask these questions during your phone call?  Did you not read up on third party oversight by a review board?



so lets recap.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



...

[Troll Control]

Whoa...look out.  Repetitive spam trolling is active!  I guess when you can't pound the facts, you pound the table.  All this effort over a few days of repetitive spam trolling is just to try to deflect that fact that nobody but Whooter and Aspen marketing claim the Behrens study was "overseen" or "audited" by a third party.  The researchers don't even say this!If Whooter didn't try to embellish and stuck to the facts - that only the consent/assent forms were reviewed - he wouldn't have to jump through all these hoops.  

If only repeating some debunked garbage over and over would make it true, Whooter would be in business.  If not, he'll just impersonate a researcher, lol.  

No matter how hard Whooter tries, those words will never appear in the study.

[Whooter]

Whoa...look out.  Repetitive spam trolling is active!  I guess when you can't pound the facts, you pound the table.  All this effort over a few days of repetitive spam trolling is just to try to deflect that fact that nobody but Whooter and Aspen marketing claim the Behrens study was "overseen" or "audited" by a third party.  The researchers don't even say this!If Whooter didn't try to embellish and stuck to the facts - that only the consent/assent forms were reviewed - he wouldn't have to jump through all these hoops.  

If only repeating some debunked garbage over and over would make it true, Whooter would be in business.  If not, he'll just impersonate a researcher, lol.  

No matter how hard Whooter tries, those words will never appear in the study.

Sorry,DJ,  I think when you claimed to have called WIRB and said they told you they never heard of this study you knew you lost the argument and had to revert to making things up.  It became clear to you that WIRB was involved in this study and their review Board provided independent third party over view.  It is in the body of the report itself and mentioned at the bottom of a page in Aspens web site.

We can both agree that you and many here on fornits will never accept this study but I think the two of us have made it crystal clear that the study exists and was presented to the APA during their annual convention and an independent  Review Board was involved.  Standard protocal for approval of a study is to follow through and over see it to completion...  its not a rubber stamp.  You claim to be educated so I think you know this but have dug your heals in so far you cant admit it now.



...

[Troll Control]

It is in the body of the report itself

No, it isn't.  Ursus pointed this out you after I did about fifteen times.

Here's the law:

Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
45 CFR 46 101(b)
...

2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

...

So, despite Whooter's protestations, anybody familiar with human research knows that surveys (e.g. self-report forms) and interviews are exempt from review.  It's "Research 101" and Whooter needs to register for the class.

Two days of embarassing yourself has thankfully come to an end, Whooter.  Your "case" is coooked.

[Pile of Dead Kids]

Several years of embarassing yourself will never come to an end, Whooter.  Your "case" is coooked, but that's not about to stop you from posting more shit.

[Whooter]

We have come a long way.  A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research.  They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.

Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB).  From WIRB’s documents:

The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study) for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1
Sample 2

at the bottom of page 2 it states:

Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



...

[Anne Bonney]

I would just like to say that it is very difficult to have a conversation here. The above post is not mine. All the research done at canyon has been nothing but professional and thorough. It seems people don’t like to hear the truth here on fornits.
Why are you keeping your heads in the sand like this? Why not move forward and listen to different points of view and solicit open thinking? I would think many here could contribute to change rather than obstruct it.
The studies will always have a positive effect whether they are good or bad because they provide information and insight for those faced with making critical decisions for their families. I hope in time you will all come to see the benefits of research on the industry and how it determines future direction.Mark DeGroot.

 
Thanks for the user name suggestion, By the way, I have contacted all the groups you suggested and they were not interested in anything I had to say.  They only wanted information which was negative towards the industry and even tried to twist my words and refused to take any factual info I provided.
Why is everyone like this?  Why do you screen all the information here?

Mark,  Sometimes the ends just don't justify the means.  You can beat someone into submission... just b/c you have and it quiets them downs, doesn't make it an experience worth instituting.  There's teh question of human rights to be addreseed.  

With that said, there are NUMEROUS problems with this studys methodology that make even the claim that its a study laughable in its bias. More details to come to critique.  aspen should be ashamed of themselves.

Just wanted to say it again.  The poster logged in with my name is your (fornits') troll called "TheWho".  After I posted a couple of times he registered my name as a username and has been impersonating me since then.  

I agree with others here that the project is not substantive, many parts of the data have been falsified and that it is a biased, uncontrolled survey.

Well, color me shocked.  

[DannyB II]

I would just like to say that it is very difficult to have a conversation here. The above post is not mine. All the research done at canyon has been nothing but professional and thorough. It seems people don’t like to hear the truth here on fornits.
Why are you keeping your heads in the sand like this? Why not move forward and listen to different points of view and solicit open thinking? I would think many here could contribute to change rather than obstruct it.
The studies will always have a positive effect whether they are good or bad because they provide information and insight for those faced with making critical decisions for their families. I hope in time you will all come to see the benefits of research on the industry and how it determines future direction.Mark DeGroot.

 
Thanks for the user name suggestion, By the way, I have contacted all the groups you suggested and they were not interested in anything I had to say.  They only wanted information which was negative towards the industry and even tried to twist my words and refused to take any factual info I provided.
Why is everyone like this?  Why do you screen all the information here?

Mark,  Sometimes the ends just don't justify the means.  You can beat someone into submission... just b/c you have and it quiets them downs, doesn't make it an experience worth instituting.  There's teh question of human rights to be addreseed.  

With that said, there are NUMEROUS problems with this studys methodology that make even the claim that its a study laughable in its bias. More details to come to critique.  aspen should be ashamed of themselves.

Just wanted to say it again.  The poster logged in with my name is your (fornits') troll called "TheWho".  After I posted a couple of times he registered my name as a username and has been impersonating me since then.  

I agree with others here that the project is not substantive, many parts of the data have been falsified and that it is a biased, uncontrolled survey.

Well, color me shocked.  

Anne, so lets see what have you got....nada. You have been impersonating yourself since you got here, so what is the big deal.
Now that's shocking....lol.

[Troll Control]

Yeah, Anne, don't pay attention to the Canyon Research employee!  He has no idea what happened.