Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry
Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---Overseen by a third party? Paid for by Aspen, you mean. There are plenty of problems with that "study". So many, in fact, that I thought you had long ago given up on defending it. Here's a detailed thread on the topic (of which there are many). Let's keep discussion of the Behrens study to that thread, if we can, as it's closer to the topic than this thread. Far too many threads have been derailed talking about that study.
--- End quote ---
The study was funded by Aspen Education, Conducted by Canyon Research and was overseen by a third party. The 3rd party was WIRB which is an Institutional Review board. They reviewed and approved the study and looked at areas like the Canyon Research employees previous ties to the industry, if they had any financial ties(other than the current study)during the study etc.. WIRB is also responsible for reviewing the majority of drug submissions to the FDA. So they are a reputable firm.
This was a study conducted surveying 1,000 parents and graduates of a few programs. The results were presented at the Annual meeting of the APA American Psychological Association.
If my memory serves me well the study showed that up to 80% of the kids who graduated from the programs studied were still doing well after 2 years. Most people with an anti program bias reject the results, but aside from this small population the study serves as a great piece of information for parents and professionals alike when determining the success of the industry.
The next best thing would be for someone to fund a study who has no ties to the industry and include more programs and track these kids for 2 or more years post graduation.
Review Study here
...
psy:
And the other side of the argument is here. I kindly request we drop it here as everything that can be said on the topic likely already has been.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---And the other side of the argument is here. I kindly request we drop it here as everything that can be said on the topic likely already has been.
--- End quote ---
Psy, I agree we can leave it here, but, I dont know if you are aware that the other side of the argument, you linked to, was written by ASTART. If you have ever visited their web site you would find that they are extremely anti-program. I dont think they could ever give a credible review/assessment of a study conducted on the industry. If you look at the “parents speak out section” the results are 100% negative. They lead you to believe not one child has ever been helped. At least the study states that some kids did well and others did not. Do you really believe they are posting an accurate account of what they hear from parents or report an accurate review of an independent study? Or do they print what they feel fills their agenda?
The study was presented in front of the (APA) American Psychological Association. a small obscure website cant be considered credible when deciding if the study is worthy or not. I think most people would agree.
...
blombrowski:
In full disclosure I'm a member of ASTART - so feel free to take that into consideration. However, the following should not be construed as being in any way representing the viewpoints of ASTART
ASTART is a small ad-hoc organization. And yes it's viewpoints are slanted against entrepreneurial residential treatment, but I wouldn't call the organization anti-residential. It has a strong public health orientation. And a skepticism of the role of the private marketplace to deliver good outcomes when it comes to health care, particularly behavioral health care.
However, the credentials of the individuals who developed the critique of the Behrens study are the kinds of folks who have been asked to keynote conferences, not just provide a poster presentation at them. Robert Friedman facilitated a mental health research conference for almost 25 years.
The critique stands on its own merits. You can take from it what you will. The critique still allows for you to take away from it that parents and youth perceive that the youth has made progress from the time they entered the program to the time that they left the program. That's not nothing. For a lot of families it's enough. As marketing research its something, as public health research it's junk. It doesn't go far beyond being a satisfaction survey.
Now, if ASPEN or one of their representatives wants to return the favor and critique the quality of some of the mental health outcomes research of it's competitors, they're more than welcome to do that. The public health research also suggests that the average person should wait to have a mammogram, bases evidence on recidivism rates and not educational outcomes when it holds MST up as a standard, and advocates policies that would inhibit individuals being able to get the very best care that they can afford, but would lead to the best outcomes across the population.
blombrowski:
http://natsap.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... I-2013.pdf
The Alpine Academy study I referenced in another thread apparently was just published here. There is no study here that is as egregious as the Behrens study in terms of establishing conclusions. And in fact, there is no study that singularly features ASEPN programs - Jared Balmer has left ASPEN to start his own 36 bed program focusing on anxiety disorders in boys.
I want to give NATSAP credit for not engaging in deception with the research that they have peer-reviewed. But what's left is pretty weak in terms of outcomes.
In all, what's presented is pretty weak in terms of who they treat, how they treat it, and what the final outcomes are. And the singular message is, that youth respond to structure and accountability, but the NATSAP programs don't have the power to remake families (well, they could if they actually provided more than parent seminars and actually did some real family work) or society.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version