Author Topic: What Type of Kids "Succeeded" in Behrens Study? (Read 18898 times)

Whooter · « **Reply #30 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:08:21 PM »

The “typical” client in the programs is a white, upper-middle to upper-class,
16 year old male or female with prior treatment failures, who is functioning below average
academically and has multiple psycho-social problems. The most common problems treated are
disruptive behavior, substance use, and mood disorders. Most adolescents do not have a legal
record.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #31 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:10:18 PM »

Whooter, show us the follow up report from phase two. How did these kids do one year out? More "treatment failures"?

Whooter · « **Reply #32 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:15:40 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

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.

You are quoting studies (with no links) about kids who are delinquents. You are mixing up the demographics. Your typical kid who attends an Aspen Program does not have a record. Here is a description:

The “typical” client in the programs is a white, upper-middle to upper-class,
16 year old male or female with prior treatment failures, who is functioning below average
academically and has multiple psycho-social problems. The most common problems treated are
disruptive behavior, substance use, and mood disorders. Most adolescents do not have a legal
record.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #33 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:21:08 PM »

Those studies say that aggregating deviant teens increases delinquency. Probably a lot of those kids in Behrens' study ended up in jail after the program.

Where's that follow up that was finished in 2007? I'd like to see those results.

Whooter · « **Reply #34 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:43:12 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Those studies say that aggregating deviant teens increases delinquency. Probably a lot of those kids in Behrens' study ended up in jail after the program.

Where's that follow up that was finished in 2007? I'd like to see those results.

Thats better. You really cant compare the two. The majority of kids in Aspen Programs never went to jail/juvy and most 80%+? ( I think) had failed previous treatment of some type locally prior to being placed. If we compared the kids who left the program to those in a normal cross section of teens it would be interesting to see if they remained normal or had deviated from the norm as far as delinquency goes (got better or worse or remained the same).

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #35 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:46:57 PM »

Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.

How about that 2007 data from the follow up? I'm sure it proves your point, right? Why not put it out there for all to see? Is it because those kids still ahd an 80% treatment failure rate? I bet it is. But you'll post it and let us know.

Whooter · « **Reply #36 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:50:49 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.

The control group could be the 1,000 kids in this study and they could compare this to a typical cross section of teens to see how they compare.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #37 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:54:19 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.

How about that 2007 data from the follow up? I'm sure it proves your point, right? Why not put it out there for all to see? Is it because those kids still ahd an 80% treatment failure rate? I bet it is. But you'll post it and let us know.

You didn't respond about the 2007 data.

Quote from: "Whooter"

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.

The control group could be the 1,000 kids in this study and they could compare this to a typical cross section of teens to see how they compare.

Also, I thought you said you understood studies. The "1000 kids" in this study can't be a control, because they are the experimental group. You should know that. You'd need 1000 kids that didn't go to programs as the control. Your lack of basic understanding of control and experimental groups casts a large shadow on your credibility on this topic.

2007 follow up data? How did the experimental group do one year out?

Whooter · « **Reply #38 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:01:32 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.

How about that 2007 data from the follow up? I'm sure it proves your point, right? Why not put it out there for all to see? Is it because those kids still ahd an 80% treatment failure rate? I bet it is. But you'll post it and let us know.

You didn't respond about the 2007 data.

Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.

The control group could be the 1,000 kids in this study and they could compare this to a typical cross section of teens to see how they compare.

Also, I thought you said you understood studies. The "1000 kids" in this study can't be a control, because they are the experimental group. You should know that. You'd need 1000 kids that didn't go to programs as the control. Your lack of basic understanding of control and experimental groups casts a large shadow on your credibility on this topic.

2007 follow up data? How did the experimental group do one year out?

Nice try DJ, what I am saying is take the 1,000 kids (From this study) that are known to have graduated from a program and then compare them to the average cross section of teenagers. We could see if the kids from a program did better or worse than the average kid who never went to a program.

I think the results would be interesting to most people.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #39 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:18:40 PM »

Maybe so, but your calling an experimental group a "control group" highlights your ignorance on the topic of studies and shows you can't be relied upon for factual data about them. People should have healthy doubt when reading your posts about studies and how they work.

Well, that, plus this.

Whooter · « **Reply #40 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:24:42 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

Maybe so, but your calling an experimental group a "control group" highlights your ignorance on the topic of studies and shows you can't be relied upon for factual data about them. People should have healthy doubt when reading your posts about studies and how they work.

Well, that, plus this.

Ha,Ha,Ha sorry to put your nose out of joint, DJ... up comes the fiduciary post!! lol

You do have a difficult time discussing these items. If you don't feel it would be an interesting study just say so. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, its healthy and promotes discussion. You dont have to take every position so personally.

Just say you disagree with me.. its okay.

...

Troll Control · « **Reply #41 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:33:55 PM »

I do disagree with almost everything you say, but I feel it should be pointed out who butters your bread.

Also, you clearly, demonstrably have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to studies. You don't even know the difference between control groups and experimental groups and you were saying last week that regulation on human studies applied to high school exams and not research. You just have no idea.

On top of that, you're in the tank for Aspen. Your compulsiveness and rabidity here show that. You'll do or say anything, regardless of how stupid it is, to cover up Aspen's abuse and the fact that their research is a crock of shit - unpublished, unreviewed, no follow up and Aspen PAID to present it the APA which specifically doesn't endorse presenters.

People should know they're dealing with a sheister when they interact with you. That's all I'm saying. You made this reputation for yourself and you get mad when people point it out. But it's your fault you said and did these things.

Whooter · « **Reply #42 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:42:25 PM »

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

I do disagree with almost everything you say, but I feel it should be pointed out who butters your bread.

Also, you clearly, demonstrably have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to studies. You don't even know the difference between control groups and experimental groups and you were saying last week that regulation on human studies applied to high school exams and not research. You just have no idea.

On top of that, you're in the tank for Aspen. Your compulsiveness and rabidity here show that. You'll do or say anything, regardless of how stupid it is, to cover up Aspen's abuse and the fact that their research is a crock of shit - unpublished, unreviewed, no follow up and Aspen PAID to present it the APA which specifically doesn't endorse presenters.

People should know they're dealing with a sheister when they interact with you. That's all I'm saying. You made this reputation for yourself and you get mad when people point it out. But it's your fault you said and did these things.

Wow, calm down, DJ, its just a discussion. You run around accusing me of working for Aspen just because I am defending a study that has been released. lol

You pointed out that you disagree with me and that is okay. You don't need to throw a fit, its unprofessional. Dont take it so hard, you have brought up some valid points. Like where is the follow-up study? That was a good point that you brought up and worth discussing but you dont have to get mad at me over it. I dont have control over whether the studies are released or not and I am willing to discuss the possible reason with you.

Lets get back on topic if you like and talk about the type of kids that succeeded in this study.

...

Pile of Dead Kids · « **Reply #43 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:46:01 PM »

You know Whooter's getting hammered when he accuses people of "throwing fits". It's just what he does.

Troll Control · « **Reply #44 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:48:53 PM »

Exactly, Pile. I'm as calm as can be. I have no need to get riled up. Whooter's ricebowl is getting broken so he's desperate to change the subject and make it about me. He's the one who admitted a fiduciary interest in Aspen Education and he gets upset when people point it out. If he didn't want it to come back up, he should have never said it. But he did. And now he can't be believed on subjects like this.

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry