Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
What Type of Kids "Succeeded" in Behrens Study?
Troll Control:
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:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version