Independent Study Shows Success.

[Whooter]

Until then unfortunately the study still stands because it is still approved, valid and was presented at the APA annual conference

.......and remains unpublished for fear of critique and peer review. Let us know if that ever changes Whooter. In the mean time post the results of the adverstisement in question to your hearts content. The rate at which these places are shutting down, it doesn't seem to be doing much good.

You may have a point on the publishing strategy.  If they published the report they would have to spend resources to defend it.  They would have to ask themselves if they would get a return on their investment if published.  It may be more profitable to just use it as a marketing tool and target the parents versus publishing it and targeting professionals.

I think we can both agree (wow that doesn't happen often!)  that if the places close down then the studies dont really mean that much.  But as long as they are open the studies remain valid and useful to Aspen.



...

[Judge Joe Brown]

deleted September 8, 2011

[Whooter]

Yes she did disclose it. The study got approved. If you really feel that she didnt disclose info and you have a smoking gun give the oversight commission a call. I am sure they would like to blow the lid off of a research firm and get some free advertisement for themselves.
Let us know how it turns out. I'll keep watching the papers.

Page number
Author
Year published
Social security number
DOB
Make and model of your first car
First place of employment
Monies contributed to N Koreans
The name of the first video game you played

Many of the following answers are true:

Page number: 22
Author: Sid Burman
Year published : 2007
Social security number: 482-54-7022
DOB: 04/18/57
Make and model of your first car: 1968 Camaro
First place of employment:  Paper boy
Monies contributed to N Koreans:  12 WON
The name of the first video game you played: Pong




...

[Gonzotherapy]

So I have read through this study, as much as I can bear of it, and I don't even see where the results from a year out are. I see the results at admittance and discharge, but nothing at 12 months. Maybe I'm just missing it, but all of the results I see charted are between admittance and discharge.

I also see that she declares over and over that further research needs to be done, and she says that there will be a second part to this study which will document results years down the road from discharge. Where is that study? Is it in progress? When will she be presenting that to the APA?

And, just to satisfy my own curiosity, I have contacted the oversight committee, I am currently awaiting a response. When I get a response from them I will be contacting the APA and I will attempt to get a clearer image of what exactly presenting a study at one of their conferences means, and why they did not see a conflict of interest between Ellen Behrens profiting from this "scientific" study that she conducted. I am also going to find out if anyone there even accepts this study as good, quality science; I've read it, and it seems like a very shoddy analysis of information to me.

One benefit of being a student, Whooter, is that people at organizations like these are very willing to talk to you. I've had enough of your quasi-psychology, lets see what the real professionals have to say about it.

[Whooter]

So I have read through this study, as much as I can bear of it, and I don't even see where the results from a year out are. I see the results at admittance and discharge, but nothing at 12 months. Maybe I'm just missing it, but all of the results I see charted are between admittance and discharge.

No, I think you are right.  There was another study that looked at graduates from zero to 12 months "post" graduation.  This was an AARC study I believe.

I also see that she declares over and over that further research needs to be done, and she says that there will be a second part to this study which will document results years down the road from discharge. Where is that study? Is it in progress? When will she be presenting that to the APA?

I believe they were planning a follow-up study to compliment this one looking at students a year out.  I dont know what the status is of this but I hope it comes out soon.

And, just to satisfy my own curiosity, I have contacted the oversight committee, I am currently awaiting a response. When I get a response from them I will be contacting the APA and I will attempt to get a clearer image of what exactly presenting a study at one of their conferences means, and why they did not see a conflict of interest between Ellen Behrens profiting from this "scientific" study that she conducted. I am also going to find out if anyone there even accepts this study as good, quality science; I've read it, and it seems like a very shoddy analysis of information to me.

Now there you go, gonzo, thats the way to get answers.  I think you see that sitting around here claiming the study is debunked when the rest of the world accepts it is just foolishness.  Fornits doesnt have the final word on the validity of a study by a long shot.  lol.
The APA has about 38,000 members so you will want to gain a healthy sample to get a feel for their position on this study.

One benefit of being a student, Whooter, is that people at organizations like these are very willing to talk to you. I've had enough of your quasi-psychology(Gonzotherapy? lol), lets see what the real professionals have to say about it.

Thats a good point.  You could tell them you are a student and interested in the business of validating and overseeing studies.  My advice is to be persistent, professional and above all polite and try calling several different people until you get one who is willing (or has the time) to talk to you.

Here are some guidelines that you can keep by your side when on the phone to them (They are from their own web site)

The investigator or study staff will be considered to have a financial conflict of interest if the investigator, investigator’s immediate family, the study staff, or the study staff’s family
1.   Has a financial interest in the research with value that cannot be readily determined (for example, stock that is not publicly traded);
2.   Has a financial interest in the research with value that exceeds $10,000 other than payments for conducting the trial as outlined in the clinical trials agreement;
3.   Has a financial interest in the research with value that exceeds 5% ownership;
4.   Has received or will receive compensation with value that may be affected by the outcome of the study;
5.   Has a proprietary interest in the research, such as a patent, trademark, copyright, or licensing agreement;
6.   Has received or will receive payments other than payment for the conduct of clinical research from the sponsor that exceed $10,000 in the last 365 days;
7.   Is an employee of the agency or company sponsoring the research;
8.   Is on the board of directors of the sponsor;
9.   Has a financial interest that requires disclosure to the sponsor or funding source; or
10.   Has any other financial interest that the investigator believes may interfere with his or her ability to protect subjects.
Diversified mutual funds or similar instruments in which the shareholder has no control over the equities held by the fund are not considered to present a conflict of interest.





...

[RobertBruce]

the rest of the world accepts it

Source? And what's this talk of 38,000 members? You so ardently claimed before that there were only 10,000 psychologist in the US. Why the change of heart?

[Whooter]

the rest of the world accepts it

Source?

A conclusion on my part.  Run a few searches on the study and the study's' author and the only negative responses towards it will be fornits.

And what's this talk of 38,000 members?

The American Psychiatric Association - with more than 38,000 members in the U.S., Canada, and worldwide - is the voice of psychiatry for your patients and our profession.
Link

 

You so ardently claimed before that there were only 10,000 psychologist in the US. Why the change of heart?

I believe it was "practitioners" and we ended up adding another zero to the figure and then some.



...

[RobertBruce]

A conclusion on my part

So once again you're guessing, have nothing, and are attempting to pass of your opinion, which has no credibility, as fact. Moving forward then.

Run a few searches on the study and the study's' author and the only negative responses towards it will be fornits.

Amazing what not publishing your marketing tool will do to protect you from criticism. I thought we agreed that the only reason they held off on publishing is to avoid having to defend their marketing tool? Furthermore the only positive remarks I've encountered so far have been from programmies themselves. Also meaningless and biased.

I believe it was "practitioners" and we ended up adding another zero to the figure and then some.

There is no 'we', there is you, who were wrong. I'm glad to see you can admit that now.

[Whooter]

So once again you're guessing, have nothing, and are attempting to pass of your opinion, which has no credibility, as fact. Moving forward then.

A conclusion is not a guess.  It is based on facts or available information.

Amazing what not publishing your marketing tool will do to protect you from criticism. I thought we agreed that the only reason they held off on publishing is to avoid having to defend their marketing tool? Furthermore the only positive remarks I've encountered so far have been from programmies themselves. Also meaningless and biased.

I dont remember us all agreeing that they held off to avoid having to defend it.  It was a possible reason.  I dont think any of us know what their reasoning was/is.
If you can find some negative responses to the study outside of fornits just supply a link and we can take a look.  But until that time fornits is the only negative response to the study.

There is no 'we', there is you, who were wrong. I'm glad to see you can admit that now.

Actually you are wrong.  My link clearly states there was 38,000 APA members world wide.  You are free to check for yourself, Bruce.



...

[Pile of Dead Kids]

[RobertBruce]

A conclusion is not a guess. It is based on facts or available information.

Neither of which you seem to have. You claimed the whole world had accepted the validity of the marketing tool in question, with posters on fornits being the only handouts. You have no way of verfying this, and it is a baseless and nonsensical comment.

I dont remember us all agreeing that they held off to avoid having to defend it. It was a possible reason. I dont think any of us know what their reasoning was/is.

The rest of us agreed. You were the only holdout. Can you speculate on any other possible reason to not publish other than fear of criticsm?

If you can find some negative responses to the study outside of fornits just supply a link and we can take a look. But until that time fornits is the only negative response to the study.

I have no idea whether that is true or not, what I do know is that this marketing tool was never published and thus never subject to peer review. Can you explain that?

Actually you are wrong. My link clearly states there was 38,000 APA members world wide. You are free to check for yourself, Bruce.

No I'm not. Here's you:

TheWho wrote
There are probably 10,000 professionals in the U.S.

http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16007&p=202713&hilit=10%2C000#p202713

[Whooter]

Neither of which you seem to have. You claimed the whole world had accepted the validity of the marketing tool in question, with posters on fornits being the only handouts. You have no way of verfying this, and it is a baseless and nonsensical comment.

So you cannot come up with any negative comments towards the study other than fornits.  This is what I told you in the beginning, so we both came to the same conclusion that the study is valid and viewed positively outside of fornits.

The rest of us agreed. You were the only holdout. Can you speculate on any other possible reason to not publish other than fear of criticsm?

I would say the cost of defending the the study versus the return on the investment.  In order for us to know we would have had to be part of the decision process, which we were not, so we can all sit here and guess but we really do not know.

I have no idea whether that is true or not, what I do know is that this marketing tool was never published and thus never subject to peer review. Can you explain that?

Unless we were in the room when they decided to publish it or not than all we can do is speculate.  What we do know is there is a study with third party oversight that was presented to the APA annual conference.

TheWho wrote
There are probably 10,000 professionals in the U.S.

Your link points to an old discussion, we can continue that if you like, but lets not derail this thread discussing other topics
You could ask the question here...

My previous link clearly states there was 38,000 APA members world wide. You are free to check for yourself, Bruce.

The American Psychiatric Association - with more than 38,000 members in the U.S., Canada, and worldwide.....
Link



...

[Whooter]

Getting back to the study:

In the conclusion paragraphs:

Furthermore, parents and adolescents reported significant adolescent improvement on
communication, family relationships, and compliance by the point of discharge. It seems that
during treatment adolescents experience broad improvement, across many areas of functioning.



...

[RobertBruce]

So you cannot come up with any negative comments towards the study other than fornits

Are you really trying to use the argument that an absence of evidence is the same as proof? To follow that logic allows me to make the following claim: "Whooter attacks rapes and murders small animals. Until he can prove otherwise this remains true."

Are you following?

This is what I told you in the beginning, so we both came to the same conclusion that the study is valid and viewed positively outside of fornits.

Can you point to any posting I have made where I made any such claim? You cannot, and are in fact lying again. What we have establishes is that the marketing tool in question was never published or peer reviewed. We have also concluded that the marketing survey was conducted by a person on a programs payroll representing a major conflict of interest. These are the facts, everything else is just speculation and wishful thinking on your part.

I would say the cost of defending the the study versus the return on the investment. In order for us to know we would have had to be part of the decision process, which we were not, so we can all sit here and guess but we really do not know.

If the science behind the marketing survey is sound, then the return on the investment should be quite substantial. Why would that be a deterent to publishing unless the science was not sound?

Unless we were in the room when they decided to publish it or not than all we can do is speculate. What we do know is there is a study with third party oversight that was presented to the APA annual conference.

Conducted by a person with a major conflict of interest and in clear violation of the APA's own standards. Can you explain that?

Your link points to an old discussion, we can continue that if you like, but lets not derail this thread discussing other topics

I'm aware it's an old conversation, and I'm aware of what your current claim is. What I'm trying to determine is why you changed your mind? Did you at some point discover you were wrong in your estimates?

[RobertBruce]

Furthermore, parents and adolescents reported significant adolescent improvement on
communication, family relationships, and compliance by the point of discharge. It seems that
during treatment adolescents experience broad improvement, across many areas of functioning.

I wonder if there's an asterisk with a disclaimer detailing the conflict of interest between the marketing tool conductor and those who sponsored it?