Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Programs In Behrens Study Charged with Abuse
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---Actually, Anne, if you look at the study, Behrens says right in it that there is strong bias toward reporting improvement for that very reason - so the kids could leave. Whooter doesn't mention that part.
It doesn't take a genius to realize saying "I'm better now" will get a kid out of program faster than saying "This is bullshit."
--- End quote ---
Lols. Anne, he doesn't want you to look at that study now. You might quote Behrens admitting this bias, like I did and there goes his "study." It's laughable, really.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---Actually, Anne, if you look at the study, Behrens says right in it that there is strong bias toward reporting improvement for that very reason - so the kids could leave. Whooter doesn't mention that part.
It doesn't take a genius to realize saying "I'm better now" will get a kid out of program faster than saying "This is bullshit."
--- End quote ---
Lols. Anne, he doesn't want you to look at that study now. You might quote Behrens admitting this bias, like I did and there goes his "study." It's laughable, really.
--- End quote ---
Which study is that?
Oh this one?
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study
...
Troll Control:
You do know what you keep linking to is not actually a study, right? It's a synopsis report. Just so we're clear. Studies don't look like this. Anyway, let's have a look, shall we?
On page 13 it clearly states that discharge status does not predict the degree of change; that is kids who dropped out did just as well as those who didn't. This means the program was not the change driver or there was extreme bias.
Also, the researcher points out this strong bias by the reporters in the same paragraph. Take a look:
--- Quote from: "Behrens" ---The finding that discharge status does not predict the degree of
change is harder to understand. One possibility is that because 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. Perhaps
existing differences between those who discharged with and without program advice were
masked by a desire to “look good” in the group who discharged against program advice.
--- End quote ---
So either the program didn't drive any change and the study is worthless or there is strong bias and the study is worthless. Take your pick.
Whooter:
it goes on to say:
Another
possibility is suggested by the length of stay for those who discharge against program advice.
...
Troll Control:
So, basically, the results were that it made no difference when the kid split - a week, a month,six months or the average stay of 8.6 months. The length of stay had nothing whatsoever to do with outcomes, suggesting that no stay would produce similar results. The researcher, unable to explain this phenomenon, speculated on a couple of reasons. Either of which, if they explain the results, mean that one, the program was no change agent or two, the study is simply too biased to draw any conclusions. Either way, the program did not help any kids and/or the data were bad based on bias. The researcher herself admits this.
Which brings me to a second point. With no control group, the fact that kids who stayed one day did just as well as those that completed the program cannot be explained other than the basic inference that the program itself did not induce any change and was not measured to have done so.
Which brings me to a third point. With no follow up done, there can be no suggestion that any change that was self-reported lasted even one day after discharge.
So what does this study tell us? Not much, really. Only that it is self-admittedly biased and that kids who stayed one day did as well as kids who completed the program. Both of which tell us the program doesn't actually do anything and that the study is deeply flawed based on the admitted bias.
These are the basic reasons why this study could never have passed peer review or withstood scrutiny to be published. And "phase two" was never released even though it was completed several years ago because the results weren't to Aspen's liking. They spun phase one into a marketing tool and phase two wouldn't aid sales so they punted it without ever even making the results public. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see this quite easily.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version