Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG

[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

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).

Because it is not biased,Anne (it received third party oversight), people are using this as an excuse because they dont like the results.   You have been rejecting written papers, research written by students who had open access to the programs and individual accounts were tossed aside claiming the kids were brainwashed.
Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.

If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits).  I cant publish the paper in a journal and we cant invalidate the study because one person wants it published in a journal or another wanted a different oversight done.  These points need to be taken up with WIRB.  No one besides people here on fornits has rejected this study... think about it.



...

[Whooter]

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.

So we agree that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.  Has this been published in a journal? lol.



...

[Anne Bonney]

[quote="Whooter
Because it is not biased,Anne [/quote]

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :beat:

Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.

No, there's not.

If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits).

Right.  I shouldn't talk about my opinions about that biased survey you keep trying to shove down everyone's throats as a clinical, longitudinal study.  Got it.  

[Anne Bonney]

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.

So we agree that "longitudinal clinical studies of residential treatment" has shown 60- 80% success rates.  Has this been published in a journal? lol.

Did you hurt yourself with that one?   Talk about reaching!  You stretched the truth out til ya broke it!

[photo man]

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).

Because it is not biased,Anne (it received third party oversight), people are using this as an excuse because they dont like the results.   You have been rejecting written papers, research written by students who had open access to the programs and individual accounts were tossed aside claiming the kids were brainwashed.
Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.

If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits).  I cant publish the paper in a journal and we cant invalidate the study because one person wants it published in a journal or another wanted a different oversight done.  These points need to be taken up with WIRB.  No one besides people here on fornits has rejected this study... think about it.



...

- LESBIANS on top -  :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker:

[Whooter]

[quote="Whooter]
Because it is not biased,Anne

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :beat:

Well now there is an independent study which was overseen by a third party for conflict of interest and insure the safety of the study participants and the study results were presented to the APA convention.

No, there's not.

If you really feel it is flawed in anyway this needs to be taken up with the oversight committee (not here on fornits).

Right.  I shouldn't talk about my opinions about that biased survey you keep trying to shove down everyone's throats as a clinical, longitudinal study.  Got it.  [/quote][/quote][/quote]

You are not making sense.  I never said this "Aspen Study" was a clinical study or longitudinal  (I was quoting DJ's post taken from within the body of the study itself).  Behrens focused on Aspen Programs.  The 60-80% success rate was a clinical study performed on the industry as a whole at that time.. (not just Aspen).

You close your eyes to the fact that the study received third party oversight and it was presented at the APA convention.  You cant change the facts Anne.  If it received oversight and you feel there are conflicts of interest that they missed then you need to take it up with them.  If you look at WIRB's web site you will see that they cover "Conflict of Interest" as part of their oversight.  So to say there is a conflict of interest with this study is a false statement.



...

[Anne Bonney]

I never said this "Aspen Study" was a clinical study or longitudinal

Then what good is it?

[photo man]

- Patricia R. Abreu "LESBIAN TOUCH" -  :rocker:   :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker:  :rocker:

[Whooter]

I never said this "Aspen Study" was a clinical study or longitudinal

Then what good is it?

Read it!  there were a 1,000 kids and parents involved in the study, then make up your mind.  What good is a survivor story if it hasn't been published or verified by a third party or scrutinized by a professional?  

See what I mean?  You can reject the study if you like (anyone can).  But the study stands in the professional community where it was delivered and presented.  You cant change that, no one can.



...

[Troll Control]

The 60-80% success rate was a clinical study performed on the industry as a whole at that time.

No, that's false.  They were studies performed on traditional residential treatment where long-term stays are up to 90 days, not 24 months like in programs.  This 90 day model showed up to an 80% success rate.  Whooter has been trying to pass off this research as Behrens' conclusions for years, but he obviously never read the study or is just flat out lying about it.

But the study stands in the professional community

No, it doesn't.  It was never peer reviewed or published, so the "professional community" can't even take it seriously, if they even know about it.  It has only been displayed on Aspen's marketing website and copied from there to other TTI websites, none of which have anything to do with the "professional community" whatsoever.

No phase two follow up either, which now can never be done at all because it had to be done after 12 months and it has been almost five years.  It's garbage, plain and simple.

[Whooter]

If there is a conflict what I like to do is go back to the original quote:

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.

So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.

The Behrens study was presented to the APA professional community we cannot change the facts.  If you feel it has been rejected in any way feel free to post the link.  But until that time the study stands as is, I will note that you feel personally that the study should be published.



...

[Troll Control]

Original quote?  You have posted hundreds of times claiming "80% success" based on Behrens, which is a blatant lie.  You have been lying about the results for years with no disclaimer or clarification.  The "success rate" you keep citing has nothing to do with programs at all and it proves traditional treatment is much, much more effective than even this dopey survey by Aspen marketing claims.

[Whooter]

Well maybe I was wrong then, DJ......lets take a look at what you said:

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.

So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.



...

[Troll Control]

Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs.  30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective.  Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.

[Whooter]

Yes, traditional residential treatment not including Aspen or any other programs.  30 to 90 day stays are up to 80% effective.  Programs run up to 2 years, cost fifty times more and are not nearly as effective based on one biased survey by Aspen marketing.

Hmmm.  I didnt see "Traditional"... nor "30-90 days".. nor was cost included as a differential.  Seems you are trying to change things here.  Its always good to go back to the quote we are talking about,  Lets take another look:

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.

So just to clear it up…..other researchers conclude up to 80% success using longitudinal Clinical studies of residential Treatment.



...