Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
What Type of Kids "Succeeded" in Behrens Study?
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:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: "StrugglingTeens" ---"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?"
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: "Ellen Behrens" ---"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."
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---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).
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version