Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[Whooter]

Peer review is the way the editors of academic journals attempt to keep the quality of articles in their publications high, and assure that poor or fallacious research does not get published.

Hmmmmm...  The Behrens study was never published.  And it's both poor and fallacious.  This is why it was never published.  If it could withstand peer review, the gold standard for research, it would be basically unassailable by critics.  But it never was peer reviewed or published, so that speaks volumes about its validity, which apparently even the author believes is none or she would have submitted it for review.  Same reason there was never a follow up done either I suppose.

I would think someone like Whooter, who is claiming to be an expert on studies when he didn't even know what CFR was last week, should understand this.  Or maybe he's just a phony whose entire knowledge base consists of what he copies and pastes from Google.  Probably the latter.

So no requirement then?  I thought I would let you look yourself so that you would realize thats what I have been trying to tell you.  So we can settle on phase I of the study and we all patiently await the outcome of Phase II.



...

[Troll Control]

Peer review and publication are only required if the study is to be taken seriously.  This one is rife with problems and obviously would fail a peer review, so it was never submitted for one.

Phase 2 was supposed to be one year follow up and was never done.  It's four years overdue already.  It's pretty clear this was done for marketing purposes only.  It isn't scientifically valid in any way.

[Whooter]

Peer review and publication are only required if the study is to be taken seriously.  This one is rife with problems and obviously would fail a peer review, so it was never submitted for one.

Phase 2 was supposed to be one year follow up and was never done.  It's four years overdue already.  It's pretty clear this was done for marketing purposes only.  It isn't scientifically valid in any way.

Aw, do I sense a wee little bit of jealousy that there are study results to back up what I have been saying for years here while you are left high and dry with only hearsay to back you up?
Oh, wait ! has your hearsay been peer reviewed and published?  lol

Sorry, I couldnt resist, DJ.



...

[Troll Control]

Hearsay?  The study itself says phase 2 will be a one year follow up.  It has been four years.  No phase 2.  No follow up.  How can a one year follow up be done after four years?  If you're claiming it was done, just link to it.  I'd like to see what you come up with.  

So all we have to go on is a non peer reviewed study that was never published and no follow up ever done.  That's the fact of the matter.  It's just a marketing gimmick.

[Whooter]

Hearsay?  The study itself says phase 2 will be a one year follow up.  It has been four years.  No phase 2.  No follow up.  How can a one year follow up be done after four years?  If you're claiming it was done, just link to it.  I'd like to see what you come up with.  

So all we have to go on is a non peer reviewed study that was never published and no follow up ever done.  That's the fact of the matter.  It's just a marketing gimmick.

Sorry, DJ, phase I of the study has been completed and presented to the APA.  It was independently reviewed.  Nothing you can do to change this fact.

So what do you have that says these same programs are ineffective?  See what I mean?   Peer reviewed and published!!  lol.



...

[Troll Control]

Surgeon General's study.  Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse.  Peer reviewed, longitudinal  and published.

Behrens is unpublished, unreviewed, no follow up.  Marketing gimmick.

[Whooter]

Hmm... so we have this:

Surgeon General's study.  Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse.  Peer reviewed, longitudinal  and published.

vs.

Up to 80% of kids in residential treatment programs improve and do well.

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.

Good idea, DJ, we can go with these 2 studies and let the readers and parents decide for themselves.



...

[Troll Control]

Yes, with a caveat that the Behrens work was never published, reviewed or had any follow up, had conflicts of interest, flawed methodology, etc while the Surgeon General study was 10 years in length, had a control group, peer review, was published and is scientifically valid.

Fine with me.

[Anne Bonney]

Hmm... so we have this:

Surgeon General's study.  Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse.  Peer reviewed, longitudinal  and published.

vs.

Up to 80% of kids in residential treatment programs improve and do well.

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.

Good idea, DJ, we can go with these 2 studies and let the readers and parents decide for themselves.

Yes, with a caveat that the Behrens work was never published, reviewed or had any follow up, had conflicts of interest, flawed methodology, etc while the Surgeon General study was 10 years in length, had a control group, peer review, was published and is scientifically valid.

Damn, this image is gonna get a workout!

[Whooter]

Hmm... so we have this:

Surgeon General's study.  Aggregating disressed teens makes them worse.  Peer reviewed, longitudinal  and published.

vs.

Up to 80% of kids in residential treatment programs improve and do well.

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.

Good idea, DJ, we can go with these 2 studies and let the readers and parents decide for themselves.

Yes, with a caveat that the Behrens work was never published, reviewed or had any follow up, had conflicts of interest, flawed methodology, etc while the Surgeon General study was 10 years in length, had a control group, peer review, was published and is scientifically valid.

Damn, this image is gonna get a workout!

So why are you afraid to publish it here on fornits?  lol

Here, lets take another look at the one presented at the APA convention:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Anne Bonney]

[quote="Whooter
So why are you afraid to publish it here on fornits?  [/quote]

I'm not.  Go right ahead.  Just make sure DJ's caveat is there.

[Whooter]

Anne, I will let you and DJ add in the disclaimers.  You need to keep busy and it will keep the study results more visible this way

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.



...

[Anne Bonney]

Anne, I will let you and DJ add in the disclaimers.  You need to keep busy and it will keep the study results more visible this way

Why can't you, just once, be honest about this?  It's a biased "study" of Aspen, bought and paid for by Aspen with no follow up and nothing that can come even close to being termed "longitudinal".  Those are the facts that you choose to leave out of your incesant peddling of that "study" (read...exit survey).

[Troll Control]

The "disclaimers" come right from the body of the study.  The researcher comes right out and says there's self-report bias, results from kids who quit the program were tossed out, parents had strong bias, staff "confronted" parents when they tried to pull their kid, no control group, etc.

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.

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).

So traditional treatment is proven to be more effective than Aspen programs, as Behrens readily admits right in the study.

[photo man]

- ex girlfriend lesbians kissing hot -  :rocker:   :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker: