Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS)
Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
Ursus:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!
Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
--- End quote ---
No, I am not unfamiliar with statistics. When you have such a small sample size that 2 individuals giving different answers can skew the results by as much as 12% either way, I'd say that your conclusions carry a pretty large margin of error. Perhaps I have a bias for seeing my tables presented in terms of raw data so that I can determine that for myself. I can always use a calculator to get those pretty percentages! :D
Of course, the biggest flaw of that study is the highly skewed nature of the sample itself, which, by virtue of the method of selection, is not representative of the population it purports to speak for. Sure, a small sample number can give you an indication of what's going on in a larger population but... only IFF they are representative of that larger set.
In the Shapiro study, the 17 students surveyed were all preselected on the basis of (a) having actually graduated the program, as well as (b) deigning to return the survey in the first place. The ones who did return that survey may well have been highly motivated to do so, e.g., for reasons of satisfaction with their time in program. No surprise then, that Shapiro reported that they were.
If I recall correctly, there were well over a hundred students who did not return their surveys of the 151 kids who graduated during the two-year period selected for screening. Moreover, there were an additional 40 students who were also scheduled to graduate, but who did not. These latter students were not contacted.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Ursus" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!
Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
--- End quote ---
No, I am not unfamiliar with statistics. When you have such a small sample size that 2 individuals giving different answers can skew the results by as much as 12% either way, I'd say that your conclusions carry a pretty large margin of error. Perhaps I have a bias for seeing my tables presented in terms of raw data so that I can determine that for myself. I can always use a calculator to get those pretty percentages! :D
--- End quote ---
Those are arguments you need to take up with Shapiro. Maybe she can provide the tables or explain to you why they are not needed in her report.
--- Quote ---Of course, the biggest flaw of that study is the highly skewed nature of the sample itself, which, by virtue of the method of selection, is not representative of the population it purports to speak for. Sure, a small sample number can give you an indication of what's going on in a larger population but... only IFF they are representative of that larger set.
In the Shapiro study, the 17 students surveyed were all preselected on the basis of (a) having actually graduated the program, as well as (b) deigning to return the survey in the first place. The ones who did return that survey may well have been highly motivated to do so, e.g., for reasons of satisfaction with their time in program. No surprise then, that Shapiro reported that they were.
If I recall correctly, there were well over a hundred students who did not return their surveys of the 151 kids who graduated during the two-year period selected for screening. Moreover, there were an additional 40 students who were also scheduled to graduate, but who did not. These latter students were not contacted.
--- End quote ---
Well you need to define the boundary conditions of the study. If you are conducting a heart study you would want to follow only those people who completed the program (highly skewed). If you were doing a study of the effects of a new drug you wouldnt want to include those who went off the drug early if you were measuring the effectiveness of a 30 day regimen. The same applies to the Shapiro study. They were very clear on how the population was gathered. I believe we discussed the survey results earlier and found that it is typical to get a 25% - 35% response from surveys. So the response is not off the radar. People who return the surveys are those who have something to say and want to be included (whether good or bad). I don’t see how this skews the data at all.
Look, people spoke out and Shapiro collected their responses. Even if it were just one person we should listen to them. What if a lone survivor came onto Fornits and said they were abused. Should we just disregard the person because there are thousands of others who say otherwise or who have not responded at all? I think we should step back and look at all sides and allow everyone’s opinion be heard.
You criticize her because she was a graduate student and isn’t savy enough to know the programs and what questions to ask. But when we have a study done by someone who knows the programs and understands what questions to ask you try to discard this as a conflict of interest. This shows that you may be disingenuous, Ursus, and are not really interested in the facts, rather you only willing to consider one side of the story.
...
Ursus:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---People who return the surveys are those who have something to say and want to be included (whether good or bad).
--- End quote ---
Folks who may very well have had something to say, and who, in all probability, may have had a higher likelihood of holding less sunny memories of their stay at Academy at Swift River, were conspicuously absent from the sample pool. These folk did not have the choice of returning or not returning the survey. They were not on the mailing list.
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---You criticize her because she was a graduate student and isn’t savy enough to know the programs and what questions to ask. But when we have a study done by someone who knows the programs and understands what questions to ask you try to discard this as a conflict of interest. This shows that you may be disingenuous, Ursus, and are not really interested in the facts, rather you only willing to consider one side of the story.
--- End quote ---
No. It is you who is disingenuous, and is not interested in the facts. You are so intoxicated with pushing your marketing spiels and pro-industry platitudes, come hell or high water, that you can't even keep track of who you're criticizing. It would appear you do not even care.
I have repeatedly stated that Shapiro being a student does not, in and of itself, to my mind at least, discount her data. She could have been a sophomore undergrad for all I cared. After all, there's some prof who oversaw her work. And while I'm sure that there are others who may agree with me on this particular point, I have yet to come across their posts, if indeed there are any. And yet, here ya are, calling me "disingenuous" for something I did not do.
Were you actually reading others' posts here for substance, rather than for opportune moments to slip in yet another blatant marketing pitch for Aspen Ed or similar pro-industry schmaltz, it is unlikely that you would have made this mistake. It is also not the first time you've made it with me, let alone with other posters, but I can't really speak for them.
DannyB II:
......
Ursus:
Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey.... :D
"Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
"Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]
Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version