General Interest > Feed Your Head
Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Whooter:
A few more thoughts on this Exemption Discussion:
Another thing to consider is that companies charge a fee to investigate whether or not a study qualifies for an exemption under 45 CFR 46.101 (b). We cannot determine this sitting here on the internet. There is no evidence that they applied for an exemption.
For example: If their survey forms (if that’s what they called them) contained the peoples names, childs names or any slight identifiers which could trace the survey back to them then they would not qualify for an exemption under the law. There are many other factors which would disqualify a study from being exempt. Without seeing the study design and forms we could not possibly determine this.
Another thought, It would be a little absurd to seek third party oversight from WIRB and then ask for an exemption against it, don’t you think.
As you read through their web site it becomes clear that people hire them to help them and to oversee their study and that is the whole intent of this. If people come along and try to argue that they sought exemption from it then they need to provide proof.
...
Troll Control:
Several of the programs in the study have problems with child abuse and one was closed for "systematic child abuse."
The study actually concludes that child abuse is beneficial to children. We all understand that conclusion invalidates the research.
I see Whooter has now abandoned his latest claim that federal regulations protecting human subjects don't apply to children. That's progress, but the rest of what he's saying is still plain old bunk. He now claims to be an expert on laws he never heard of yesterday. It's laughable.
Whooter:
I think we have exhausted the discussion on oversight and we have not found any evidence that the study was determined to meet 45 CFR 46.101 (b) exemption. So we need to conclude that oversight to the study was done as per WIRBs normal procedures.
I think this is a good point to start discussing the study as DJ has begun.
Whooter:
Some clips from an interview with the Behrens who conducted the research
Ellen explained that what makes this outcome study unique is that it is longitudinal with a large sample size and included multiple programs. "Therefore, it has given us our first glimpse into the outcomes of private parent-choice residential care, and we think it's fairly indicative of what happens in a treatment setting. We found that the types of youth we tend to serve appear to be those with multiple problems. In fact approximately 85 percent of the youth in this sample had more than one serious problem for which they were treated and tended to be equally male and female. This is noteworthy because there is an assumption in the published literature that residential programs do not have a good gender balance. In reality from the multiple programs in our study, there was a good balance. About 95% of the youth in our study had received and "failed" prior treatment at other levels of care and/ or types of treatment."
...
Troll Control:
This work used two self-report surveys, the YSR (Youth Self Report), and the CBCL (Child Behavior Check List), each of which consist of a ten minute checklist. These checklists were given to the kids (YSF) and parents (CBCL) while the kids were still in the program which is poor methodology to say the least, especially considering many of these kids were abused and neglected in the programs and self-preservation would motivate them to say anything to get out and the parents had no routine ability to observe and report on their child's behavior.
These facts are readily admitted by the researchers. For example, they state that youth and parents have tendencies to underreport problems. That is, the kids "fake it to get out," and the parents need to justify the expenditure.
--- Quote from: "Behrens Study" ---...parents are often confronted by clinical staff if they discharge an adolescent against program advice, they, along with their adolescent, may have a conscious or unconscious motivation to underreport problems.
--- End quote ---
The majority of subjects were in programs only six months, that is, pulled early against program protestations.
Additionally, the YSR and CBCL are both data acquisition tools that are exempt from continuing review under 45 CFR 46 101(b), so these findings have never been reviewed or analyzed.
Considering that several of these facilities have also been charged with child abuse and neglect, the survey results are unreliable. This is likely why this study has never been reviewed or published except as a marketing tool for Aspen Education.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version