What Type of Kids "Succeeded" in Behrens Study?

[Troll Control]

Let me illustrate Whooter's big lie here real quick.  He keeps claiming 60-80% success rates of "programs" in the Behrens work but those figures come from other researchers unaffiliated with Behrens or Aspen programs.  Let's look at the facts, shall we?

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).

Notice the researchers are Curry, Curtis, Epstein, Hair and Wells.

What did these people study?

One issue with this body
of literature pertains to the samples, which were drawn primarily from public residential
treatment programs (Curtis, Alexander, & Longhofer, 2001; Hair, 2005). Public residential
treatment clients are typically referred thru public avenues (juvenile justice system, child
protection agencies, or public mental health systems) (Curtis, et. al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair2005) and funded with public money

60-80% success rates are associated with publicly funded treatment where clients come from juvenile justice, child protection agencies and public mental health avenues.  What these researchers studied has nothing whatsoever to do with the "parent choice TTI industry" of which Aspen Education is a part.

Whooter is intentionally lying to try to make this look like the data refer to Aspen programs which were studied by Behrens.  He lost the argument, so now he just spam-trolls with blatant, provable lies.  Behrens showed Aspen had only a 31% success rate.  Whooter desperately wants to cover this up and conflate the studies.

What does that tell you about the data from Aspen programs which he is trying to hide?  Hmmm....

[Whooter]

lol, this study really gets to you.  I am the only one supporting my posts with links.

 Here lets take another look:


Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.

So we can see  66 -78% success by this measurement alone.

I see this as consistent with the 60-80%  success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

Let me illustrate Whooter's big lie here real quick.  He keeps claiming 60-80% success rates of "programs" in the Behrens work but those figures come from other researchers unaffiliated with Behrens or Aspen programs.  Let's look at the facts, shall we?

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).

Notice the researchers are Curry, Curtis, Epstein, Hair and Wells.

What did these people study?

One issue with this body
of literature pertains to the samples, which were drawn primarily from public residential
treatment programs (Curtis, Alexander, & Longhofer, 2001; Hair, 2005). Public residential
treatment clients are typically referred thru public avenues (juvenile justice system, child
protection agencies, or public mental health systems) (Curtis, et. al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair2005) and funded with public money

60-80% success rates are associated with publicly funded treatment where clients come from juvenile justice, child protection agencies and public mental health avenues.  What these researchers studied has nothing whatsoever to do with the "parent choice TTI industry" of which Aspen Education is a part.

Whooter is intentionally lying to try to make this look like the data refer to Aspen programs which were studied by Behrens.  He lost the argument, so now he just spam-trolls with blatant, provable lies.  Behrens showed Aspen had only a 31% success rate.  Whooter desperately wants to cover this up and conflate the studies.

What does that tell you about the data from Aspen programs which he is trying to hide?  Hmmm....

I think everyone sees the lies you've been telling here and your credibility is so bad that everyone just now assumes you're making it all up and skip your posts.

[Whooter]

lol, this study really gets to you.  I am the only one supporting my posts with links.

 Here lets take another look:


Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.

So we can see  66 -78% success by this measurement alone.

I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Eliscu2]

:rofl:

[Troll Control]

These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.

Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.

The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.

So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).

Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting.  Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.

Wow....so kids that truly needed help, not quack "therapy", didn't fare so well.  Hmmmm.  And why send a kid away if they're not in real trouble?  Why were these kids that "had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a mood disorder," even there in the first place?  Parents....do your damn job and quit farming it out to strangers!

Yes, plus these strangers keep getting charged with child abuse and shut down.  There has never been any follow up either.

[Whooter]

lol, this study really gets to you.  I am the only one supporting my posts with links.

 Here lets take another look:


Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.

So we can see  66 -78% success by this measurement alone.

I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Whooter]

The majority (89%) reported symptoms at discharge that
qualify them as “recovered”, because scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw score 45). Eightynine
percent of male adolescents exceeded cut-off scores on both measures of clinical
significance suggesting that the reported change in symptoms was both of sufficient quantity and
quality that it is considered clinically meaningful.

Furthermore, 89% of the parents of female adolescents reported
discharge symptoms that qualify as “recovered” because scores exceed the cut-off score (raw
score 45). Combining the criteria, 89% of parents of adolescent females reported a change in
symptoms that was suggestive of recovery and reliable change.

wow!!   89%

Where is the link?  Oh No!!!  lol

Here it is:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

:feedtrolls:  :spam:  :roflmao:

If all you can do is make up "data" and spam-troll you've got problems.  Where have we seen this before?

[Whooter]

:feedtrolls:  :spam:  :roflmao:

If all you can do is make up "data" and spam-troll you've got problems.  Where have we seen this before?

Ha,Ha,Ha  I supplied a link with each post... read 'em and weep.

I think you should go back to the abuse angle, DJ,  the study facts wont change.



...

[Troll Control]

Unfortunately, the link points right to all the lies you've been telling about the paper, too.  I think we all have seen your desperation to support these child abusers due to your fiduciary interest in Aspen education.  Just click the link in my signature to see Whooter admit he's in it for the money.  He's rabid now because even Ed Cons have stopped referring to Aspen because of Bain Capital's fiduciary interest in Aspen that drives a "only profit matters" plan at Aspen.

[Whooter]

Unfortunately, the link points right to all the lies you've been telling about the paper, too.  I think we all have seen your desperation to support these child abusers due to your fiduciary interest in Aspen education.  Just click the link in my signature to see Whooter admit he's in it for the money.  He's rabid now because even Ed Cons have stopped referring to Aspen because of Bain Capital's fiduciary interest in Aspen that drives a "only profit matters" plan at Aspen.

Oh no, DJ is mad and now I have Fiduciary interests in Aspen Education!

lol... So lets conclude that Residential Studies run between 60 - 80% effective and the Behrens study showed us (in one result area) to be between 66 - 78% effective Aspen Schools.

Look at Page 9 of the Study:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population



...

[Troll Control]

"In Phase One, we collected data surrounding admission, discharge, how the children functioned and how they changed during and immediately after treatment," Ellen explained. "In Phase Two, we are looking at the student's progress for up to a year after leaving the program and how it differs from their functioning at the time of discharge. The first Phase explores whether residential treatment works in both the kids and parent's opinion. The next question in Phase Two, which will be released in the first quarter of 2007, is does it last? In other words, do the changes during treatment get better, stay the same, get worse or lose their power after discharge?"

I think people would be hard pressed to show a study of people's opinions is scientifically valid or clinical.  This is why this study was never peer reviewed or published.

Interestingly, "phase 2" was said to be completed in 2007.  It has never been released.  It was supposed to measure if the changes reported in parents' and kids' opinion surveys were lasting or not.  It looks like they didn't get the results they were looking for and decided just to dump the project and never mention it again.

This silence about a highly touted, widely hyped follow up speaks volumes about what they found.  It has been over three years since the research was complete, but they didn't publish a word of it.  Hmmmm...Must not have been supportive of their predrawn conclusions, even after they scrubbed the data of anything that might make the outcome look worse:

"We also tried to eliminate all students discharged from the programs before graduation because the clinical staff thought it was actually an inappropriate placement, or when they felt the program couldn't be helpful to the child."

Even though the data was rigged, it still didn't look good for Aspen, so they shitcanned the second phase that woud show the changes reported didn't last even a year.

This isn't how studies are supposed to work.  They're not supposed to have conclusions before they begin.  This was  a marketing tool that backfired.

[Whooter]

Oh no, the Study was a failure according to DJ!  Someone let the APA know and the Review board who oversaw the study.

lol... So lets conclude that Residential Studies run between 60 - 80% effective and the Behrens study showed us (in one result area) to be between 66 - 78% effective Aspen Schools.

Look at Page 9 of the Study:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.

The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population



...

[Troll Control]

Epic lulz...  Where's that PHASE TWO, Whooter?  

Putting kids into programs makes them worse, according to actual researchers using proper methodology and a control group, unlike Behrens:

The finding that affiliation with deviant peers is associated with increased delinquent behavior is supported in much of the literature on juvenile delinquency (Gifford-Smith et al., 2005). There is a growing consensus regarding the negative impact of treating homogenous groups of youths manifesting antisocial or delinquent behavior (Hoag & Burlingame, 1997). There have been several reports in the literature supporting the potential harmfulness of group intervention for youth manifesting antisocial behavior.

The Cambridge-Somerville Youth study, conducted in the 1940s, used a comprehensive approach to crime prevention. The investigators assigned “delinquency prone” and “average” boys to both the experimental treatment and control groups. Treatment consisted of counseling and social services for five years. An evaluation conducted shortly after the completion of the program failed to find differences between the treated and untreated boys (Powers & Witmer, 1951).

However, 30 years later, further examination of the data indicated statistically significant negative effects reported in boys in the treatment group (McCord, 1978). These findings of clinically induced negative effects associated with peer aggregation were interpreted as causal and not merely correlational (Dishion et al., 2002). Ang and Hughes (2001) performed a meta-analysis of studies of social skills training with antisocial youth. Groups comprised only of antisocial peers produced smaller benefits compared to groups comprised of a mixture of prosocial and antisocial youth. Delinquent youths are reluctant to replace their belief system and behavior with a pro-social set, which creates a therapeutic challenge.

Ang and Hughes (2001) emphasized the higher reinforcement generated by antisocial behavior as compared to prosocial behavior for homogenous groups of antisocial youths. These results might also be partially explained by other findings. Dodge and colleagues (1995) reported that youths who lack social skills fail to identify and attend to social cues from others (i.e., social-information processing theory). It also has been noted that boys who have disruptive behavior disorders often manifest difficulties encoding social cues, generating appropriate responses, and more often, selected aggressive responses to social problem-solving. Another reason for these findings might be attributed to the reinforcing effects of a process referred to as “deviancy training” characterized by positive affective reactions to rule-break talk (Dishion et al., 1999). These investigators focused on preventive interventions for pre- and early adolescence aged youth who were at risk for substance use but had not yet developed SUD. They reported an increase in negative behavior and outcomes in groups for adolescents compared to the control conditions or with a condition that targeted parents only (Dishion et al., 2002; Poulin et al., 2001). Direct observations of deviancy training were associated with escalation in substance use, delinquency, and violent behavior in adolescence (Dishion et al., 1995; Poulin et al., 1999).

This data is precisely why Aspen and Behrens never reported the findings of phase two.  Those kids got worse and Aspen didn't want anyone to know.  Even after cherry-picking the kids and scrubbing the data of all who "failed" at Aspen, they still couldn't rig it enough to publish.