Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Whooter on December 02, 2010, 06:49:32 PM
-
When you provide info, if you want it to be taken seriously, it must be independent information.
So that brings us full circle, Gonzo. Below there is an independent writer who wrote a book about spending 14 months in a program. I also provided a link to an independent study which was overseen by a thrid party to insure there was no conflict of interest. They are from the state of Washington (I hope that state is acceptable to you)
Here are a couple of links for you:
1) This was a study conducted surveying 1,000 parents and graduates of a few programs. The study was overseen by WIRB (The Western Institutional Review Board) and they also approved the study. The results were presented at the Annual meeting of the APA American Psychological Association.
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
2) There was a writer who spent 14 months (I thought it was 16 months) inside a program and then wrote a book about his findings
Link (http://http://www.davemarcus.com/content/what-it-takes-pull-me-through-about-book)
A Pulitzer Prize-winning writer untangles the mysteries of the
teenage mind as he witnesses troubled kids transformed by fourteen
months at a school that offers therapy for adolescents in
crisis.
Millions of parents struggle to grasp what goes on in their kids' heads,
on their computers, and among their friends. As an education correspondent
for U.S. News & World Report, David L. Marcus wrestled with similar
questions while reporting on the welter of pressures American teenagers
now face – a resurgent drug culture, proliferating temptations and threats
on-line, skyrocketing suicide rates (three times higher than in the
1960s).
To find answers, Marcus gained unfettered access to students, staff,
and parents at the Academy at Swift River in the hills of western
Massachusetts. The kids at Swift River had already ventured down a
number of perilous paths all parents fear their own children might
take – drug use, violence, theft, internet addictions, eating disorders,
promiscuity. Known for combining intensive academics, a wilderness
program and group therapy, the school helps troubled teenagers emotional
health.
...
-
If there are any programs which are under investigation for abuse or found to be abusive then they should be avoided also. I think we agree here.
You didn't seem to have any issues with HLA while the lawsuits and numerous investigations were going on. Why the sudden change of heart?
-
Aspen programs should be avoided.
Now we're getting somewhere.
-
Below there is an independent writer who wrote a book about spending 14 months in a program.
You can't be serious. Independent??? :rofl: :rofl:
You mean the guy who is a paid consultant for the Academy? Ursus, help me out here darlin'.
And spent 14 months IN a program? Just like the kids, right? Was subjected to the exact same things as the kids, right? Nothing was cleaned up or postponed while he was there, right?? Yeah, I remember when Beth Polson from 60 Minutes came and did her piece on Straight - then the book - then the movie. ALL bullshit. ALL of it.
-
Below there is an independent writer who wrote a book about spending 14 months in a program.
You can't be serious. Independent??? :rofl: :rofl:
You mean the guy who is a paid consultant for the Academy? Ursus, help me out here darlin'.
And spent 14 months IN a program? Just like the kids, right? Was subjected to the exact same things as the kids, right? Nothing was cleaned up or postponed while he was there, right?? Yeah, I remember when Beth Polson from 60 Minutes came and did her piece on Straight - then the book - then the movie. ALL bullshit. ALL of it.
Yes, he lived at ASR and followed a peer group through 14 months and then wrote a book about it. He won a pulitzer prize for another book. I dont hink he would risk discrediting himself by taking money to hide the truth. But you can believe this if you like, Anne. There are many people who believe otherwise and I dont expect you to ever accept anything that would shake your present beliefs of the TTI.
...
-
Below there is an independent writer who wrote a book about spending 14 months in a program.
You can't be serious. Independent??? :rofl: :rofl:
You mean the guy who is a paid consultant for the Academy? Ursus, help me out here darlin'.
And spent 14 months IN a program? Just like the kids, right? Was subjected to the exact same things as the kids, right? Nothing was cleaned up or postponed while he was there, right?? Yeah, I remember when Beth Polson from 60 Minutes came and did her piece on Straight - then the book - then the movie. ALL bullshit. ALL of it.
Yes, he lived at ASR and followed a peer group through 14 months and then wrote a book about it.
That is NOT the same thing as actually going thru the program and having your life depend on whether or not the 'staff' there is qualified, dislikes you for some reason etc. etc. He observed, that's all.
He won a pulitzer prize for another book. I dont hink he would risk discrediting himself by taking money to hide the truth. But you can believe this if you like, Anne. There are many people who believe otherwise and I dont expect you to ever accept anything that would shake your present beliefs of the TTI.
Because, unlike yourself, I've actually been INSIDE the TTI. You're nothing but a mere onlooker.
-
Below there is an independent writer who wrote a book about spending 14 months in a program.
You can't be serious. Independent??? :rofl: :rofl:
You mean the guy who is a paid consultant for the Academy? Ursus, help me out here darlin'.
And spent 14 months IN a program? Just like the kids, right? Was subjected to the exact same things as the kids, right? Nothing was cleaned up or postponed while he was there, right?? Yeah, I remember when Beth Polson from 60 Minutes came and did her piece on Straight - then the book - then the movie. ALL bullshit. ALL of it.
Yes, he lived at ASR and followed a peer group through 14 months and then wrote a book about it.
That is NOT the same thing as actually going thru the program and having your life depend on whether or not the 'staff' there is qualified, dislikes you for some reason etc. etc. He observed, that's all.
He won a pulitzer prize for another book. I dont hink he would risk discrediting himself by taking money to hide the truth. But you can believe this if you like, Anne. There are many people who believe otherwise and I dont expect you to ever accept anything that would shake your present beliefs of the TTI.
Because, unlike yourself, I've actually been INSIDE the TTI. You're nothing but a mere onlooker.
No he wasnt enrolled there Anne lol. He is a grown man, he was a writer for the Washington post I believe at the time and approached ASR to support his latest project. His previous book was on battered woman. Yes he observed. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe that ASR cleaned up and held back for 14 months. I dont even think you believe this.
But like I said earlier, if you dont want to believe it then dont. Keep the information you have in your head and look the other way. The rest of the world will get the same chance as you do to decide for themselves and I think that is the important thing. I think we both can agree on this point.
...
-
No he wasnt enrolled there Anne lol. He is a grown man, he was a writer for the Washington post I believe at the time and approached ASR to support his latest project. His previous book was on battered woman. Yes he observed. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe that ASR cleaned up and held back for 14 months. I dont even think you believe this.
He wasn't there every minute of every day, so yes....I do believe that they cleaned up their act while he was around. Just like Straight did when Beth Polson was around "observing".
-
No he wasnt enrolled there Anne lol. He is a grown man, he was a writer for the Washington post I believe at the time and approached ASR to support his latest project. His previous book was on battered woman. Yes he observed. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe that ASR cleaned up and held back for 14 months. I dont even think you believe this.
He wasn't there every minute of every day, so yes....I do believe that they cleaned up their act while he was around. Just like Straight did when Beth Polson was around "observing".
Then either you read the book and find out for yourself or just continue to believe what you want. I am just presenting the facts. Its your choice to reject it or accept it. We all get to chose for ourselves.
...
-
I am just presenting the facts.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
I am just presenting the facts.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Whooter has no facts. He claims that his daughter was at ASR when Marcus was there and also claims his daughter was there during 9/11 and left in 2002. Only one can be true. He lied about having a daughter in the first place then slipped up on the details of her "program experience" a few times. He says she was in the program 14 months, but in other statements he says "16 months." Only one can be true. He says she graduated high school at ASR but later said she dropped out of HS when she got home. Only one can be true.
He's just jerking everyone's chain with a looooong series of fabrications about his family and ASR. It's all lies and it's obvious when you just scratch the surface.
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he calls a "fact" or his "personal experience." He's been busted out lying about both way too often to have any credibility.
-
Whooter has no facts. He claims that his daughter was at ASR when Marcus was there and also claims his daughter was there during 9/11 and left in 2002. Only one can be true. He lied about having a daughter in the first place then slipped up on the details of her "program experience" a few times. He says she was in the program 14 months, but in other statements he says "16 months." Only one can be true. He says she graduated high school at ASR but later said she dropped out of HS when she got home. Only one can be true.
He's just jerking everyone's chain with a looooong series of fabrications about his family and ASR. It's all lies and it's obvious when you just scratch the surface.
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he calls a "fact" or his "personal experience." He's been busted out lying about both way too often to have any credibility.
Frustration setting in?
...
-
Ha,Ha,Ha Yup a "Pulitzer prized" author is going to sign a contract to lie in his book. Hmmmm...
Are you saying that journalists never lie? If you believe that you are even more ignorant than you appear. And I guarantee that they made him sign a contract. Why would they take the chance of destroying their business? There is no way in hell they would have let him in without guaranteeing that he would not destroy their reputation. The only real footage that has ever been taken from a program is with hidden cameras, like the 20/20 episode on paradise cove.
Oh no she is from Utah, Red flag. I think you convinced all of us, great argument. lol
...
Yes Utah is a huge red flag. How many programs have been shut down that were based in Utah? All of the WWASPS (which even you have admitted to be abusive) programs and sister companies are based out of Utah. Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
-
Are you saying that journalists never lie? If you believe that you are even more ignorant than you appear. And I guarantee that they made him sign a contract. Why would they take the chance of destroying their business? There is no way in hell they would have let him in without guaranteeing that he would not destroy their reputation. The only real footage that has ever been taken from a program is with hidden cameras, like the 20/20 episode on paradise cove.
Well, read up on the guy and decide for yourself. Read the books on battered woman that he wrote, the investigations he has done. Decide if he has integrity. If you decide he doesn't have integrity then disregard the information. That is what I do.
Yes Utah is a huge red flag. How many programs have been shut down that were based in Utah? All of the WWASPS (which even you have admitted to be abusive) programs and sister companies are based out of Utah. Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
lol but that doesnt mean everyone doing business in Utah is evil. The research firm isnt a program, Gonzo, they do research. The oversight committee were from Washington State.
...
-
I am just presenting the facts.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Whooter has no facts. He claims that his daughter was at ASR when Marcus was there and also claims his daughter was there during 9/11 and left in 2002. Only one can be true. He lied about having a daughter in the first place then slipped up on the details of her "program experience" a few times. He says she was in the program 14 months, but in other statements he says "16 months." Only one can be true. He says she graduated high school at ASR but later said she dropped out of HS when she got home. Only one can be true.
He's just jerking everyone's chain with a looooong series of fabrications about his family and ASR. It's all lies and it's obvious when you just scratch the surface.
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he calls a "fact" or his "personal experience." He's been busted out lying about both way too often to have any credibility.
It bears repeating. This person is incredibly dishonest and has been proven so many times by his own statements. His entire story is pure fiction and is therefore not relevant to anything or anyone.
-
Yes Utah is a huge red flag. How many programs have been shut down that were based in Utah? All of the WWASPS (which even you have admitted to be abusive) programs and sister companies are based out of Utah. Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
lol but that doesnt mean everyone doing business in Utah is evil. The research firm isnt a program, Gonzo, they do research. The oversight committee were from Washington State.
Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
(http://http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LGZFKMG2bJA/SVkYQelwuiI/AAAAAAAABRI/n5jCDLyNdD8/s400/bears+repeating.jpg)
-
I am just presenting the facts.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Whooter has no facts. He claims that his daughter was at ASR when Marcus was there and also claims his daughter was there during 9/11 and left in 2002. Only one can be true. He lied about having a daughter in the first place then slipped up on the details of her "program experience" a few times. He says she was in the program 14 months, but in other statements he says "16 months." Only one can be true. He says she graduated high school at ASR but later said she dropped out of HS when she got home. Only one can be true.
He's just jerking everyone's chain with a looooong series of fabrications about his family and ASR. It's all lies and it's obvious when you just scratch the surface.
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he calls a "fact" or his "personal experience." He's been busted out lying about both way too often to have any credibility.
It bears repeating. This person is incredibly dishonest and has been proven so many times by his own statements. His entire story is pure fiction and is therefore not relevant to anything or anyone.
I know that Whoot has been asked before to clear up the inconsistencies in his story but he always seems to dodge it. Gotta side with DJ here.
Kids may be manipulative and lie sometimes but the program staff and program pushers lie way way more IMO.
-
Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
I know but that doesnt mean every business in Utah holds kids against their will. The local Mcdonalds or Ford dealership doesnt hold kids against their will. The research firm which conducted the study doesnt hold kids against their will either. lol.
The logic here just cracks me up sometimes.
...
-
I know that Whoot has been asked before to clear up the inconsistencies in his story but he always seems to dodge it. Gotta side with DJ here.
Kids may be manipulative and lie sometimes but the program staff and program pushers lie way way more IMO.
I do my best to clear up any inconsistencies which I may inadvertently present. I think we all do. But like myself you need to go with your gut, Shaggys. I do the same thing myself.
From my experience I think it depends on the kid. If the child had been honest and consistent prior to entering the program then I would lean towards believing the child. If the child had a history of lying then of course we would need to side with the staff initially.
...
-
From my experience I think it depends on the kid. If the child had been honest and consistent prior to entering the program then I would lean towards believing the child. If the child had a history of lying then of course we would need to side with the staff initially.
...
You disgust me Whooter, you really do. You just let it all hang out here don't you. Programs wouldn't be able to survive if they didn't use the distrust already present between a child and his or her's parents. They are designed to prey on that distrust and exploit it to it's full monetary value. I don't know how you sleep at night.
-
Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
I know but that doesnt mean every business in Utah holds kids against their will. The local Mcdonalds or Ford dealership doesnt hold kids against their will. The research firm which conducted the study doesnt hold kids against their will either. lol.
The logic here just cracks me up sometimes.
...
Is that your logic that cracks you up? Does a Mcdonalds or Ford dealership make money off of holding kids against their will? The "research firm" may not hold kids against their will, but they profit when kids are. Aspen paid for the research. It says so right at the bottom of her report and on her website.
Does a Ford dealership or Mcdonalds in Utah sell magic underpants? Does that mean there are no Mormons in Utah?
-
Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
I know but that doesnt mean every business in Utah holds kids against their will. The local Mcdonalds or Ford dealership doesnt hold kids against their will. The research firm which conducted the study doesnt hold kids against their will either. lol.
The logic here just cracks me up sometimes.
...
Is that your logic that cracks you up? Does a Mcdonalds or Ford dealership make money off of holding kids against their will? The "research firm" may not hold kids against their will, but they profit when kids are. Aspen paid for the research. It says so right at the bottom of her report and on her website.
Does a Ford dealership or Mcdonalds in Utah sell magic underpants? Does that mean there are no Mormons in Utah?
Its a research firm lol. They dont hold kids againt their will, gonzo. People pay them to conduct research on their businesses. The ford dealerships profit when the programs buy cars from them or when the parents come to visit the kids they may eat at McDonalds. But that doesnt mean these businesses are evil.
You have to admit, gonzo, the logic is really twisted and a stretch. This is funny.
...
-
And your lack of logic cracks us up. Can you actually show anyone claiming that McDonald's or Ford Dealerships hold kids hostage, or is this you attempting to distract from the fact that programs in Utah can hold kids against their will?
-
And your lack of logic cracks us up. Can you actually show anyone claiming that McDonald's or Ford Dealerships hold kids hostage, or is this you attempting to distract from the fact that programs in Utah can hold kids against their will?
Ha,Ha,Ha, Thank you Bruce. I think we can safely agree that not all businesses in Utah hold kids hostage. This is a great thread.
All this energy to try to discredit a study because the research firm was in the state of Utah.
...
-
Whooter this is not unlike the time you attempted to claim that McDonalds should be held respondsible for the death of a child who was crushed to death by the overweight "counselor" at a program in North Carolina. I'm not sure what your fixation with that fast food establishment is, but this forum is focused on the abusive theraputic boarding school industry.
-
Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.
But the business that we are talking about is a research firm. They dont even hold kids at all. The study gained approval and was overseen by WIRB (The Western Institutional Review Board) which is located in the state of Washington. The study itself was presented to the APA American Psychological Association during their annual meeting.
This is the study we have been focusing on:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Bought and paid for by who again?
-
Bought and paid for by who again?
All that information is in the "references" section of the study itself, usually at the end. If you are asking if the research firm conducted the study out of the goodness of their hearts for free. I think we all know the answer is "No". I have never heard of a research firm conducting a study for free. Businesses typically pay for the studies themselves which in this case is Aspen Education Group.
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
All that information is in the "references" section of the study itself, usually at the end. If you are asking if the research firm conducted the study out of the goodness of their hearts for free. I think we all know the answer is "No". I have never heard of a research firm conducting a study for free. Businesses typically pay for the studies themselves which in this case is Aspen Education Group.
So Aspen Education Group pays for a "study" and magically it somehow comes out with a glowing review. Imagine that. There's a word for that sort of thing Whooter. No one but you and the paying customer in question takes this thing seriously, let us know when you have an actual independent unbiased study.
-
All that information is in the "references" section of the study itself, usually at the end. If you are asking if the research firm conducted the study out of the goodness of their hearts for free. I think we all know the answer is "No". I have never heard of a research firm conducting a study for free. Businesses typically pay for the studies themselves which in this case is Aspen Education Group.
So Aspen Education Group pays for a "study" and magically it somehow comes out with a glowing review. Imagine that. There's a word for that sort of thing Whooter. No one but you and the paying customer in question takes this thing seriously, let us know when you have an actual independent unbiased study.
No one but me and the paying customer? Only 2 people? Oh my goodness, that cant be worth it. Lets take a look to see if this independent study with 3rd party oversight which was presented to the APA's annual conference which shows these programs to be up to 85% successful is still there!
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oh, Good. Geesh, Bruce, you should notify some people. Seems no one believes you.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
...
-
No one but me and the paying customer? Only 2 people? Oh my goodness, that cant be worth it. Lets take a look to see if this independent study with 3rd party oversight which was presented to the APA's annual conference which shows these programs to be up to 85% successful is still there!
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oh, Good. Geesh, Bruce, you should notify some people. Seems no one believes you.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
...
Here's the biggest problem Whootbag, residential outcomes pg 13. This is where she makes her mistake and is obviously writing an advertisement and not an objective study.
Teens who are released prior to graduating the program against the advice of program staff threw a wrench in her whole analysis. They reported doing much better than her predictions. She counters this by conjecturing that the teens and their parents who left before graduating "consciously or unconciously" lied about problems because of the confrontations between parents and staff for early release.
This is far from objective and even farther from an accurate scientific analysis. It is nothing more than an attempt, and a poor one at that, to disguise a program advertisement in a "medical" report.
I write basic scientific reports on a regular basis, this one does not even adhere to elementary guidelines.
Once again I say, this Dr. ought to be ashamed of herself, not only for selling her morals, but for a well below par analysis.
-
Here's the biggest problem Whootbag, residential outcomes pg 13. This is where she makes her mistake and is obviously writing an advertisement and not an objective study.
Lets stop here for a moment:
You forgot that the study was overseen and approved by a third party review board. (WWIB).
...
-
No one but me and the paying customer? Only 2 people? Oh my goodness, that cant be worth it. Lets take a look to see if this independent study with 3rd party oversight which was presented to the APA's annual conference which shows these programs to be up to 85% successful is still there!
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oh, Good. Geesh, Bruce, you should notify some people. Seems no one believes you.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
...
Here's the biggest problem Whootbag, residential outcomes pg 13. This is where she makes her mistake and is obviously writing an advertisement and not an objective study.
Teens who are released prior to graduating the program against the advice of program staff threw a wrench in her whole analysis. They reported doing much better than her predictions. She counters this by conjecturing that the teens and their parents who left before graduating "consciously or unconciously" lied about problems because of the confrontations between parents and staff for early release.
This is far from objective and even farther from an accurate scientific analysis. It is nothing more than an attempt, and a poor one at that, to disguise a program advertisement in a "medical" report.
I write basic scientific reports on a regular basis, this one does not even adhere to elementary guidelines.
Once again I say, this Dr. ought to be ashamed of herself, not only for selling her morals, but for a well below par analysis.
Gonzo, this "study" has been completely debunked in other threads. It's not science. It's junk.
-
Gonzo, this "study" has been completely debunked in other threads. It's not science. It's junk.
Oh my goodness, "Dysfuntional Yeoman" debunked the study? Someone should notify the American psychiatric Association (APA) and the review board who approved and oversaw the study.
Are we talking about the same study? The one which surveyed 1,000 parents and kids and found that up to 85% of the kids were still on a good path after a year?
Lets take another look:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oh, Good, still intact.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
...
-
Are we talking about the same study? The one which surveyed 1,000 parents and kids and found that up to 85% of the kids were still on a good path after a year?
Lets take another look:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oh, Good, still intact.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
...
So if I am to understand you correctly, you think that just because someone presents a report that it is automatically declared good valid information. I'd give my left nut to live in the fantasy world you've created here.
Show me a response from the APA verifying their whole-hearted acceptance of this study. I've looked, can't seem to find anyone who has jumped on board with this from the APA.
http://cafety.org/component/content/art ... s-aug-2006 (http://cafety.org/component/content/article/121-research/372-upon-discharge-from-programs-teens-report-happiness-aug-2006)
NOTE: This is an ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP funded study. Dr. Behrens is a former employee of an Aspen school - information left undisclosed by Dr. Behrens.
-
Are we talking about the same study? The one which surveyed 1,000 parents and kids and found that up to 85% of the kids were still on a good path after a year?
Lets take another look:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Oh, Good, still intact.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
...
So if I am to understand you correctly, you think that just because someone presents a report that it is automatically declared good valid information. I'd give my left nut to live in the fantasy world you've created here.
Show me a response from the APA verifying their whole-hearted acceptance of this study. I've looked, can't seem to find anyone who has jumped on board with this from the APA.
http://cafety.org/component/content/art ... s-aug-2006 (http://cafety.org/component/content/article/121-research/372-upon-discharge-from-programs-teens-report-happiness-aug-2006)
NOTE: This is an ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP funded study. Dr. Behrens is a former employee of an Aspen school - information left undisclosed by Dr. Behrens.
That is so odd. You mean she didn't tell the APA that she used to work for Aspen Education and as she currently holds Aspen Education as a client, she profits when they profit? How about that Whooter, isn't that just so strange? I mean, her benefitting from these schools wouldn't skew her report at all would it? No, never.
-
That is so odd. You mean she didn't tell the APA that she used to work for Aspen Education and as she currently holds Aspen Education as a client, she profits when they profit? How about that Whooter, isn't that just so strange? I mean, her benefitting from these schools wouldn't skew her report at all would it? No, never.
What do you mean doctors were involved in the heart study! Do you mean to tell me that heart surgeons were actually involved in the "Framingham heart study"? This invalidates the study. These people use to work in hospitals. Conflict of interest !!
See what I mean? anyway, there was a review board which looks for those types of things. They look at how much money is passing hands, who works (ed) for who. Why would someone stand up and say "Oh, I use to be a heart surgeon but now I am involved in a heart study"? People would be saying "why does that matter? Did you take money from them?" ... etc. So to avoid all these questions and confusion they have "review boards" who oversee the study and approve it. They look for these conflict of interests like you mentioned. If the review board found a conflict of interest then they would not approve the study, thats their job.
The study was subsequently presented to the APA at their annual convention.
...
-
That is so odd. You mean she didn't tell the APA that she used to work for Aspen Education and as she currently holds Aspen Education as a client, she profits when they profit? How about that Whooter, isn't that just so strange? I mean, her benefitting from these schools wouldn't skew her report at all would it? No, never.
What do you mean doctors were involved in the heart study! Do you mean to tell me that heart surgeons were actually involved in the "Framingham heart study"? This invalidates the study. These people use to work in hospitals. Conflict of interest !!
See what I mean? anyway, there was a review board which looks for those types of things. They look at how much money is passing hands, who works (ed) for who. Why would someone stand up and say "Oh, I use to be a heart surgeon but now I am involved in a heart study"? People would be saying "why does that matter? Did you take money from them?" ... etc. So to avoid all these questions and confusion they have "review boards" who oversee the study and approve it. They look for these conflict of interests like you mentioned. If the review board found a conflict of interest then they would not approve the study, thats their job.
The study was subsequently presented to the APA at their annual convention.
...
Are you really this stupid or are you making a determined effort?
Comparing the two is completely ridiculous.
There is a conflict of interest.
Maybe someone needs to bring it to the attention of the APA.
You forget one thing Whooter, you are old and past your prime. Some of us just got out of the gate. Corruption is the currency of most if not all government organizations. I'm sorry I have no more time to argue with your stupidity today. Finals week.
-
Show me a response from the APA verifying their whole-hearted acceptance of this study. I've looked, can't seem to find anyone who has jumped on board with this from the APA.
lol, Gonzo, I dont think the APA has given a whole hearted acceptance of anything. They all disagree with each other. Geesh, look at the argument between them on group therapy vs individual therapy alone! lol.
The study was presented at their Annual Meeting and since then no one has come out against it. If they felt it was flawed or was putting kids in harms way they would have spoken out or one or two of them would have because that is what they do. But that hasn't happened.
...
-
That is so odd. You mean she didn't tell the APA that she used to work for Aspen Education and as she currently holds Aspen Education as a client, she profits when they profit? How about that Whooter, isn't that just so strange? I mean, her benefitting from these schools wouldn't skew her report at all would it? No, never.
What do you mean doctors were involved in the heart study! Do you mean to tell me that heart surgeons were actually involved in the "Framingham heart study"? This invalidates the study. These people use to work in hospitals. Conflict of interest !!
See what I mean? anyway, there was a review board which looks for those types of things. They look at how much money is passing hands, who works (ed) for who. Why would someone stand up and say "Oh, I use to be a heart surgeon but now I am involved in a heart study"? People would be saying "why does that matter? Did you take money from them?" ... etc. So to avoid all these questions and confusion they have "review boards" who oversee the study and approve it. They look for these conflict of interests like you mentioned. If the review board found a conflict of interest then they would not approve the study, thats their job.
The study was subsequently presented to the APA at their annual convention.
...
Are you really this stupid or are you making a determined effort?
Comparing the two is completely ridiculous.
There is a conflict of interest.
Maybe someone needs to bring it to the attention of the APA.
You forget one thing Whooter, you are old and past your prime. Some of us just got out of the gate. Corruption is the currency of most if not all government organizations. I'm sorry I have no more time to argue with your stupidity today. Finals week.
I understand that you feel there is a conflict of interest, because you want it to be so. But the review board would have caught any conflict. How is it possible that you know more than they do and that is their job?
Call the APA or the review board and see if you can convince them. They have already looked into it but may fill you in on the details if you sound credible to them. If it gets debunked then they will post a statement. One thing the APA can agree on is they dont want people to get hurt especially kids.
Let us know how it turns out, Gonzo.
...
-
Are you really this stupid or are you making a determined effort?
I'm sorry I have no more time to argue with your stupidity today. Finals week.
Ha,Ha,Ha Thats funny..... Good luck with finals, we can see that you are still learning. Study hard my boy and keep your mind open. I think you will find that the more you learn and the more educated you become the more you will realize how little you know. Once you start to realize this or reach a certain education level you will cease from calling other people stupid. You tilted your hand with your attack as you will soon learn as you gain knowledge.
...
-
That's not really coming from you is it Whooter? I mean if calling people stupid is a sign of closed mindedness what do your constant lies about people who have proven you wrong mean?
That aside you seem unable to get around the fact that this "study" was bought and paid for to a person who already made her living off this industry to begin with. Your doctor analogy is as flawed and off base as all your other analogies. A medical study requires a doctor's review, plus a doctor who takes part in a study isn't working directly to line his own pocket. Your "study"was desgined with that intent and no other. Your kiddie prison industry can easily be conducted by an independent party, but your industry doesn't want that because then the truth about how abusive these programs are would just be reinforced.
Furthermore...
Oh, Good. Geesh, Bruce, you should notify some people. Seems no one believes you.
Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol
According to you if the APA signs off on something it translates to only one person agreeing with what's said. You were unable to understand how any group passes a referendum while you swearing up and down there were only 10,000 psychologist int he US. Remember?
-
Someone should notify the American psychiatric Association (APA) and the review board who approved and oversaw the study. Bruce has indicated that there are 10,000 psychiatrists in the APA and so far after all these years not one of them felt the study is flawed after reviewing it. Just a few fornits posters objected to it so far.
Lets take another look:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Bruce has indicated that there are 10,000 psychiatrists in the APA and so far after all these years not one of them felt the study is flawed after reviewing it.
• Are you trying to imply that 10,000 psychiatrists reviewed this "study?"
• Does listening to a presentation at a conference equate to a "review" for you, Whooter?The study was presented at their Annual Meeting and since then no one has come out against it. If they felt it was flawed or was putting kids in harms way they would have spoken out or one or two of them would have because that is what they do. But that hasn't happened.
[/list]
• And, how many years has this "study" been out?
*I* find it noteworthy that neither Behrens nor Aspen has been able to get it published anywhere. That's when it gets some peer review, lol. Maybe they already tried submitting it and... no one wanted it!
Now, there are some publications where you can pay to have your studies published, but there are still certain STANDARDS to be met by the material in question...
-
*I* find it noteworthy that neither Behrens nor Aspen has been able to get it published anywhere. That's when it gets some peer review, lol. Maybe they already tried submitting it and... no one wanted it!
Now, there are some publications where you can pay to have your studies published, but there are still certain STANDARDS to be met by the material in question...
I wasnt aware that they were trying to get the study published. Do you have a link?
...
-
• And, how many years has this "study" been out?
I believe they presented it to the APA in 2006. It may have come out before then, I dont have an exact date.
It looks like 4 years.
...
-
*I* find it noteworthy that neither Behrens nor Aspen has been able to get it published anywhere. That's when it gets some peer review, lol. Maybe they already tried submitting it and... no one wanted it!
Now, there are some publications where you can pay to have your studies published, but there are still certain STANDARDS to be met by the material in question...
:notworthy:
-
What would it gain them if they had the study published? We dont know if they even pursued this path or not. From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.
I am not sure what is involved in the whole process so I couldnt speak as to why they took the path they did.
...
-
What would it gain them if they had the study published?
About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.
We dont know if they even pursued this path or not. From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.
What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.
-
What would it gain them if they had the study published?
About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.
We dont know if they even pursued this path or not. From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.
What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.
I actually dont see it that way. If the study had been published I think it would catch the eye of professionals but it wouldnt make a difference with parents. Most parents would see the study with the same level of credibility whether it were published or not.
If these programs were being referred to by more professionals then I think they would go after this market, get the study published and get their name under the noses of these professionals.
The key is to know who your customer is and market specifically to them.
...
-
What would it gain them if they had the study published?
About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.
We dont know if they even pursued this path or not. From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.
What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.
This is what I said all along. If this work was worth anything scientifically it would have been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. That fact that it was not and that the follow up at one year was done but the results were never released is really the smoking gun that the study is bunk and the follow up showed the opposite of what Aspen and Whooter claim. Therefore they 86ed it and never showed it to anyone.
Beherens study = unpublished, unreviewed garbage.
-
As far as we can see Aspen is quite content with not having their studies published. I think they work well as a marketing boost and put forth the effort to publish the results would not place the results in front of the people who make a difference in their business.
...
-
What would it gain them if they had the study published?
About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.
We dont know if they even pursued this path or not. From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.
What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.
As I said before Whooter, "everytime you post/speak you leave no doubt". You have no idea just what you want to say. Try this, shut yourself down and try to listen. There are great teachers here willing to help but you must be quiet and be willing to learn.
-
Ha,Ha,Ha Thats funny..... Good luck with finals, we can see that you are still learning. Study hard my boy and keep your mind open. I think you will find that the more you learn and the more educated you become the more you will realize how little you know. Once you start to realize this or reach a certain education level you will cease from calling other people stupid. You tilted your hand with your attack as you will soon learn as you gain knowledge.
...
After I finish with my BA I plan on going to law school. Trust me Whootbag, you do not want to wish me luck. Also I can guarantee that my level of education exceeds yours, and no matter how far I go, I will never cease to point out to stupid people that they are in fact stupid.
Intelligently pointing out your stupidity has been a complete waste of time. Of course, pointing out the obvious is just as wasteful, but is much less time consuming than systematically exposing the absence of intelligence oozing from your posts.
And regarding your Dr. friend. I noticed that you actually pointed out yourself.
What would it gain them if they had the study published?
We dont know if they even pursued this path or not. From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.
I actually dont see it that way. If the study had been published I think it would catch the eye of professionals but it wouldnt make a difference with parents. Most parents would see the study with the same level of credibility whether it were published or not.
If these programs were being referred to by more professionals then I think they would go after this market, get the study published and get their name under the noses of these professionals.
The key is to know who your customer is and market specifically to them.
...
So after all your mad ravings about how this was a genuine unbiased study, you clearly state that it is just a marketing tool.
I will restate my earlier question, can you show me one study that was paid for by a company that ended up discrediting that company and caused it to lose business? Since this has never happened, it kind of destroys the credibility here don't you think? That last part was rhetorical, don't hurt yourself.
-
After I finish with my BA I plan on going to law school. Trust me Whootbag, you do not want to wish me luck. Also I can guarantee that my level of education exceeds yours, and no matter how far I go, I will never cease to point out to stupid people that they are in fact stupid.
Intelligently pointing out your stupidity has been a complete waste of time. Of course, pointing out the obvious is just as wasteful, but is much less time consuming than systematically exposing the absence of intelligence oozing from your posts.
And regarding your Dr. friend. I noticed that you actually pointed out yourself.
Oh geesh, here we go again with another poster trying to point out how smart he is. You should check with DJ before you start bragging about how smart you are. He bragged for years about MBA’s and Phds until we checked and found out he was making it up. He contradicted himself and edited posts all over the place to keep his lies straight.
So okay lets get it over with: “You are smarter than me Gonzotherapy” . Do you feel better?
So after all your mad ravings about how this was a genuine unbiased study, you clearly state that it is just a marketing tool.
It is an independent study with third party oversight, yes. You just claimed a little further up how smart you are. If you owned a company and had a study done of your business via customer feedback and it turned out to be below your expectations you would shove it in a drawer somewhere. If it turned out to be great you would use it to further build your business. Most people of average intelligence realize this. Of course they are going to use this in their marketing.
The cars with 5 star crash ratings put that in their brochure. The ones with 1 star ratings probably not so much, maybe they focus on their lower price in their commercials.
Do you see what I mean?
I will restate my earlier question, can you show me one study that was paid for by a company that ended up discrediting that company and caused it to lose business? Since this has never happened, it kind of destroys the credibility here don't you think? That last part was rhetorical, don't hurt yourself.
Why would someone advertise or present a study that makes a company look bad? Wouldn’t you want to burn it? Lower your price and hope you can stay afloat. You paid for it. Keep studying. Gonzo.
...
-
@ Whooter. I found myself feeling interested in some comments of yours saying that today’s programs don’t contain the same kind of ‘brainwashing’ tactics (I prefer the term thought reform for certain reasons) and abuses that they did 30 yrs ago in programs like Seed and Straight.
But along with abusive programs like the Seed and Straight you have included Cedu in your list of program models you think have been sufficiently removed from the program mainstream, yet Cedu closed in 2005. 5 yrs ago is not a long time. May I ask what it is about Cedu that makes you personally consider it abusive?
.
-
If it's published it's subject to further review and criticism. All the more reason they don't want it published. It's nothing more than an obvious advertisement full of junk science.
-
If it's published it's subject to further review and criticism. All the more reason they don't want it published.
This is a good point, Bruce. They may not want to go through the whole publishing process and then having to defend the study. The board at Aspen might have voted down the funds to support the effort not seeing any return on investment. That is another way to look at it.
It's nothing more than an obvious advertisement full of junk science.
Well I dont agree with you here, the study itself was solid. They surveyed about 1,000 parents and their children. the study was conducted by an independent research firm and they hired a review board to oversee the study and approve it.
...
-
Well I dont agree with you here, the study itself was solid. They surveyed about 1,000 parents and their children. the study was conducted by an independent research firm and they hired a review board to oversee the study and approve it.
The marketing tool was done by a ed con who makes her living sending kids to be locked up in places like Aspen. I realize who I'm talking to when I ask this, but do you truly not see any conflict on interest in this?
-
Well I dont agree with you here, the study itself was solid. They surveyed about 1,000 parents and their children. the study was conducted by an independent research firm and they hired a review board to oversee the study and approve it.
The marketing tool was done by a ed con who makes her living sending kids to be locked up in places like Aspen. I realize who I'm talking to when I ask this, but do you truly not see any conflict on interest in this?
I think that you want to see a problem with it because of your position on the industry. I remember friends coming up with reasons why it was okay to still smoke cigarettes because most of the people conducting the cancer studies were doctors and therefore had a conflict of interest. Many worked in the medical industry prior to being involved in the studies. "These guys worked with smokers for christs sake!" they would say, "Of course they would find health issues with smoking!"
The flaw in your argument is that the study was overseen by WIRB which is a review board which looks specifically for conflict of interests that that would bias the study.
I remember presenting a study by a student from Colgate University and the responses on fornits were :"The girl has no program experience how would she know what questions to ask?" lol
Do you see what I mean?
...
-
I remember presenting a study by a student from Colgate University and the responses on fornits were :"The girl has no program experience how would she know what questions to ask?" lol
Do you see what I mean?
You didn't answer the question. Do you not see it as a conflict on interest when an ed con who has a working relationship with Aspen produces a marketing tool that claims their programs are successful. A marketing tool which is then never published or subject to peer review?
-
@Gonzo - Don't take Whooter's attacks personally. You have to understand Whooter is a trust fund baby who has never succeeded at anything on his own his entire life. Everything he has was given to him via inheritance. He has a bit of an inferiority complex that he tries to compensate for by attacking people who intimidate him intellectually. His daddy's money got him into college even though he couldn't hack it academically, but he dropped out after only one year. Coincidentally, he never held a job for more than one year for his entire life either. See, Gonzo, he's a failure in every respect from being a dad to holding a job to dropping out of college and he tries to cover his insecurities by attacking others who are obviously now more successful than him or who soon will be. Let it roll off your back. He's a desperate troll. Fornits is all he has since his wife left him and his family doesn't speak to him.
-
I remember presenting a study by a student from Colgate University and the responses on fornits were :"The girl has no program experience how would she know what questions to ask?" lol
Do you see what I mean?
You didn't answer the question. Do you not see it as a conflict on interest when an ed con who has a working relationship with Aspen produces a marketing tool that claims their programs are successful. A marketing tool which is then never published or subject to peer review?
Who has a working relationship with Aspen?
There is a research firm which is being paid by Aspen to conduct a study of their business. This study was overseen and approved by an independent review board. So the research firm has a relationship with Aspen as they are being paid to conduct a study for them.
...
-
The person behind the marketing tool, the one who conducted the whole thing, she's an ed con who refers kids to Aspen programs.
-
The person behind the marketing tool, the one who conducted the whole thing, she's an ed con who refers kids to Aspen programs.
Link?
...
-
I remember presenting a study by a student from Colgate University and the responses on fornits were :"The girl has no program experience how would she know what questions to ask?" lol
Do you see what I mean?
No.....you "presented" a college kid's paper as a if it were an actual study done on the program. It was not. Again, disingenuous at best, outright deception more likely.
-
This is what I said all along. If this work was worth anything scientifically it would have been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. That fact that it was not and that the follow up at one year was done but the results were never released is really the smoking gun that the study is bunk and the follow up showed the opposite of what Aspen and Whooter claim. Therefore they 86ed it and never showed it to anyone.
Beherens study = unpublished, unreviewed garbage.
:tup:
-
There appears to be continued confusion around the study conducted by Ellen Behrens. While she and other industry pundits claim it was an Independent Study, nothing could be further from the truth.
1999 Behrens Clinical Director for Youth care
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5360.shtml)
"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. As a result, the operating assumption of the study is that the students included in the analyzed data were those who were appropriately placed."
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5494.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5494.shtml)
Comment: ....It would be helpful to know more about Dr. Behren’s research design and methodology. I presume she drew a random sample for the study; otherwise, the results cannot be generalized to the school/residential population at large.
Jerry W Clark
Dba Behavioral Services Ltd
Reno, NV
No Jerry, she didn't. Families from 9 Aspen programs participated in her "study". She and all her staff have links to Aspen programs.
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887)
Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc)
2006 Behrens is a contributor to NATSAPs "Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5456.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_5456.shtml)
ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP APPLAUDS STUDY
(April 26, 2007) According to an article on PRNewswire, Elliot Sainer, President of Aspen Education Group (AEG), Cerritos, CA, announced "AEG is extremely pleased to learn of the very positive findings from the final phase of our industry's first long-term, multi-year clinical study on the effectiveness of private therapeutic residential programs for adolescents. AEG will continue to advocate for new industry research that will further illustrate and promote the best practices and methodologies and enhance our industry's abilities to produce positive and long-lasting results in adolescent therapeutic education."
I guess he was pleased. He paid her to present AEG in the best possible light.
:beat: :beat: :beat:
Let's also not forget that several of these pograms were charged with child abuse and some were shut down for it. Some kids have even died from neglect and abuse in these very same programs Aspen wants us to believe are "effective" and "safe."
-
I remember presenting a study by a student from Colgate University and the responses on fornits were :"The girl has no program experience how would she know what questions to ask?" lol
Do you see what I mean?
No.....you "presented" a college kid's paper as a if it were an actual study done on the program. It was not. Again, disingenuous at best, outright deception more likely.
A graduate student (Valerie Shapiro) of Colgate university. The study was published in the Colgate Universities School of sciences. Many here rejected it because they felt she had no experience with the industry and therefore didnt know what questions to ask.
My point is that all studies, articles and books will be rejected here on fornits if they show any positive effects. But I still like to post them because if spreads awareness even if you reject it.
...
-
Looks like DJ beat me to the punch. She's been sufficently linked to Aspen. Any rebuttal?
-
Looks like DJ beat me to the punch. She's been sufficently linked to Aspen. Any rebuttal?
So you can not provide any link that anyone involved in the study was an edcon who referred kids to Aspen? This is what you mentioned earlier. As far as doing consulting work I dont see this as a conflict of interest.
...
-
As far as doing consulting work I dont see this as a conflict of interest.
What kind of consulting?
-
Looks like DJ beat me to the punch. She's been sufficently linked to Aspen. Any rebuttal?
So you can not provide any link that anyone involved in the study was an edcon who referred kids to Aspen? This is what you mentioned earlier. As far as doing consulting work I dont see this as a conflict of interest.
...
Any financial link whatsoever would be a conflict of interest. Right?
-
Looks like DJ beat me to the punch. She's been sufficently linked to Aspen. Any rebuttal?
So you can not provide any link that anyone involved in the study was an edcon who referred kids to Aspen? This is what you mentioned earlier. As far as doing consulting work I dont see this as a conflict of interest.
...
Any financial link whatsoever would be a conflict of interest. Right?
No, not necessarily, there are guidelines that the review board goes by. Number of years since any employment, type of relationship, amount of money earned over the past year, 3 years etc.
But being a consultant to a Business and then performing a study for them there would be no conflict there that I could see. The review board looked over this information and apparently there was no ethical violation or conflict of interest.
...
-
Looks like DJ beat me to the punch. She's been sufficently linked to Aspen. Any rebuttal?
So you can not provide any link that anyone involved in the study was an edcon who referred kids to Aspen? This is what you mentioned earlier. As far as doing consulting work I dont see this as a conflict of interest.
...
Any financial link whatsoever would be a conflict of interest. Right?
Absoultely, most assuredly, yes, shaggys. This is a massive conflict of interest that was not disclosed to the review board. This is part of the reason that this work has never been peer reviewed or published. It fails on its face before one even gets to the bogus "data."
-
Let's keep in mind that Whooter has no understanding of human research when we read his drivel. His responses are false and intended to mislead readers.
Let's have a look at what constitutes a conflict of interest in the research setting, shall we?
Reportable Interests means any personal interest or relationship that would reasonably appear to affect or be affected by the research, including but not limited to those with monetary value, such as salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria); equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests); and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights), as further described in Section III below.
III. Disclosure of Reportable Interests
Principal Investigators and Key Personnel should disclose the Reportable Interests related to a particular research project involving human subjects not only for themselves, but also for a spouse or domestic partner and dependent children. Reportable Interests include:
a. compensation for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria), or in-kind payments, other than from a primary employer, in the prior calendar year and projected over the next twelve months; (EDITOR NOTE: BEHRENS WAS ACTIVELY CONSULTING FOR AEG AT THE TIME OF THIS WORK)
b. royalty income or the right to receive future royalties under a patent, license, or copyright, if the research project is directly related to the licensed technology or work;
c. equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests, including equity holdings the value of which cannot readily be determined by reference to publicly available prices);
d. intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights);
e. gifts or funds available to an investigator from a sponsor of the research in addition to the funding for the current research project;
f. funding expected to significantly exceed the projected costs of conducting the current research project; and
g. another personal interest or relationship that may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
Obvioulsy Behrens was in violation of several of these COI rules and did not disclose her COI to the WIRB or they would not have issued certificates for this work. What a surprise! Aspen and Behrens lied. Who woulda thunk it?
Obviously this is why this work has never been reviewed or published. It fails on its face before you even open the binder!
-
The local Mcdonalds or Ford dealership doesnt hold kids against their will.
...
This may be a little off topic, but do you know what Whootie orders when he's at McDonald's? Yep, you guessed it-----"A large bag of dicks, please. And be sure to give me extra sauce."
-
As DJ mentioned above, the review board looks at all potential conflicts of interest to determine if the study can move forward and gain approval. There are allowances for people and businesses to have a relationship as long as they meet certain guidelines. If there is a conflict of interest then the study will not be approved. Thats what they are being paid top insure otherwise they would not be needed. vIf someone refuses to submit their records then of course they would not approve the study.
If a few of us here at fornits can find consulting records on the internet I am sure a oversight commission would be able to find this easy enough. It is well documented as we can all see.
...
-
Behrens did not disclose. She had a direct financial relationship with Aspen and was actively consulting for them at the time. This was not disclosed or the study would not be approved. Hence no peer review and no publication, which, for those of you that don't know and are mislead by Whooter, does not cost the researcher one thin dime. It's free. If this work were worth anything, anything at all scientifically, it would have been peer reviewed and published. It wasn't.
-
Behrens did not disclose. She had a direct financial relationship with Aspen and was actively consulting for them at the time. This was not disclosed or the study would not be approved. Hence no peer review and no publication, which, for those of you that don't know and are mislead by Whooter, does not cost the researcher one thin dime. It's free. If this work were worth anything, anything at all scientifically, it would have been peer reviewed and published. It wasn't.
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.
...
-
Yes she did disclose it
Souce?
-
Yes she did disclose it
Souce?
The approval board will not move forward until all documents, sources of income are disclosed. The fact the study got approved shows that all paperwork was submitted. The income statements and tax documents that she filed to the IRS would reflect her consulting work and fees she received. So yes they were disclosed. If she refused to submit any or all her past tax documents they would not have approved the study.
...
-
Interesting outcomes from the study:
After treatment in an Aspen residential program, both parents and teens indicated the teens' emotional problems had been reduced to a normal range. Aspen's programs helped teens develop a better sense of self, providing the confidence to be less susceptible to peer pressure and other outside influences.
...
-
The approval board will not move forward until all documents, sources of income are disclosed. The fact the study got approved shows that all paperwork was submitted. The income statements and tax documents that she filed to the IRS would reflect her consulting work and fees she received. So yes they were disclosed. If she refused to submit any or all her past tax documents they would not have approved the study.
So what you're saying is, is that you're guessing and actually have nothing. What we have is the review boards standards showing any study conducted by a person with conflict of interest, which Ms. Behrens clearly had, would not be approved. This of course means, unless you can show evidence of an exception, that she lied to the board and was dishonest. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Whooter, this blatent conflict of interest and clear policy violation should be brought to the review boards attention immediately.
-
The approval board will not move forward until all documents, sources of income are disclosed. The fact the study got approved shows that all paperwork was submitted. The income statements and tax documents that she filed to the IRS would reflect her consulting work and fees she received. So yes they were disclosed. If she refused to submit any or all her past tax documents they would not have approved the study.
So what you're saying is, is that you're guessing and actually have nothing. What we have is the review boards standards showing any study conducted by a person with conflict of interest, which Ms. Behrens clearly had, would not be approved. This of course means, unless you can show evidence of an exception, that she lied to the board and was dishonest. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Whooter, this blatent conflict of interest and clear policy violation should be brought to the review boards attention immediately.
Looks like RB has this one summed up pretty well. Dishonesty and financial conflict of interest = no cred. Case closed?
-
Well lets take another look:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
The offical position is still that the study is valid and was overseen by an independent review board. If you have a smoking gun then you should let the oversight commission know. In the mean time we have no choice but to go with what the oversight commission says.
If there is a change of any kind I will post it here and you let us know if you hear any changes to the studies status.
-
The smoking gun has already been fired Whooter, hence why it's smoking. This woman lied. Even you can't be oblivious to the fact that she had a working relationship and recieved payments from Aspen. Even if you do remain obstinate it does nothing to change the facts, and ruin this marketing tools credibility.
-
The smoking gun has already been fired Whooter, hence why it's smoking. This woman lied. Even you can't be oblivious to the fact that she had a working relationship and recieved payments from Aspen. Even if you do remain obstinate it does nothing to change the facts, and ruin this marketing tools credibility.
wow, you guys work fast, good work. Let me know when the review board reverses their approval of the study. Until then (unfortunately for you) the study still stands because it is still approved, valid and was presented at the APA annual conference. These are the facts as of today.
Let us all know what the oversight committee says.
...
-
While we are waiting lets take a look at some of the results of the study:
Both parents and teens agreed the teens' behavior was not in the normal range of a typical teenager prior to treatment. However, at discharge, teens were far more cooperative, with their negative behaviors diminished to 'normal' levels.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
deleted September 8, 2011
-
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
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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?
-
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 (http://http://www.psych.org/Resources/Membership.aspx)
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
(http://http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1049/thisthreadagain.jpg)
-
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
-
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... (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32271&start=0)
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 (http://http://www.psych.org/Resources/Membership.aspx)
...
-
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.
...
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
Exactly. This is the same as saying the study is invalid. Unless you are a reader of fornits the words have no impact on the study itself.
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.
No, you continue to lie here, Bruce. Who is on the programs payroll? You have failed to provide this persons name and proof.
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?
Lets say they have this study and trying to decide whether to publish it or not. They need to budget a certain amount to polish up the wording for publication. Decide which publications to target. They need to anticipate costs to defend the study etc. Then they need to assess to see if the costs are justified i.e. they can see a return on their investment. If they cannot then they would decide to target their present audience and use it in their marketing program. Why would anyone spend the money?
Conducted by a person with a major conflict of interest and in clear violation of the APA's own standards. Can you explain that?
The study was overseen by a third party review board which looks for conflicts of interest. That is their job. If you feel they missed something then you should contact them. You and I cannot sit here and dictate what was done or not.
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?
I might have, I would need to go back and read the conversation we were having at that time, 5 years ago? Bur for todays conversation I have shown you that you were in error and provided a link to support my estimate.
The American Psychiatric Association - with more than 38,000 members in the U.S., Canada, and worldwide.....
Link (http://http://www.psych.org/Resources/Membership.aspx)
...
-
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?
You can check for yourself:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
But WIRB would not have approved the study to begin with if there was a conflict which they felt would affect the validity of the study. So in either case an asterisk would not be needed. I think we can agree here.
...
-
Let's keep in mind that Whooter has no understanding of human research when we read his drivel. His responses are false and intended to mislead readers.
Let's have a look at what constitutes a conflict of interest in the research setting, shall we?
Reportable Interests means any personal interest or relationship that would reasonably appear to affect or be affected by the research, including but not limited to those with monetary value, such as salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria); equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests); and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights), as further described in Section III below.
III. Disclosure of Reportable Interests
Principal Investigators and Key Personnel should disclose the Reportable Interests related to a particular research project involving human subjects not only for themselves, but also for a spouse or domestic partner and dependent children. Reportable Interests include:
a. compensation for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria), or in-kind payments, other than from a primary employer, in the prior calendar year and projected over the next twelve months; (EDITOR NOTE: BEHRENS WAS ACTIVELY CONSULTING FOR AEG AT THE TIME OF THIS WORK)
b. royalty income or the right to receive future royalties under a patent, license, or copyright, if the research project is directly related to the licensed technology or work;
c. equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests, including equity holdings the value of which cannot readily be determined by reference to publicly available prices);
d. intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights);
e. gifts or funds available to an investigator from a sponsor of the research in addition to the funding for the current research project;
f. funding expected to significantly exceed the projected costs of conducting the current research project; and
g. another personal interest or relationship that may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
Obvioulsy Behrens was in violation of several of these COI rules and did not disclose her COI to the WIRB or they would not have issued certificates for this work. What a surprise! Aspen and Behrens lied. Who woulda thunk it?
Obviously this is why this work has never been reviewed or published. It fails on its face before you even open the binder!
It's apparent that this information bout Behrens' financial ties to Aspen was not disclosed.
This is also likely why Behrens used an IRB from another country.
The IRB cannot act on what it doesn't know. Whooter's argument falls flat because, using his logic, we can safely say that no underaged drinkers have ever imbibed at bars because the bartenders check their IDs. Clearly this leaves out the fact that kids use fake IDs, just like Behrens did not provide proper documentation for the IRB. They didn't know the financial ties because nobody told them and they aren't even based in the US.
I see now that Whooter is lying again about the American Psychiatric Association whom he claims this work was presented before. That's an outright lie that he has been caught in already in another thread where he was forced to admit he was lying about it.
-
It's apparent that this information bout Behrens' financial ties to Aspen was not disclosed.
This is also likely why Behrens used an IRB from another country.
The IRB cannot act on what it doesn't know. Whooter's argument falls flat because, using his logic, we can safely say that no underaged drinkers have ever imbibed at bars because the bartenders check their IDs. Clearly this leaves out the fact that kids use fake IDs, just like Behrens did not provide proper documentation for the IRB. They didn't know the financial ties because nobody told them and they aren't even based in the US.
Western Institutional Review Board, 3535 SEVENTH AVE SW • OLYMPIA, WA (The last I checked Olympia Washington was part of the US.)
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.
Gonzo is going to answer all your questions regarding conflicts of interest on this study, DJ, after he hears back from WIRB and the APA. You just need to be patient. Don’t be too tough on him. In the mean time we need to rely on the facts at hand which is that the study is valid until proven otherwise by an overview board.
I see now that Whooter is lying again about the American Psychiatric Association whom he claims this work was presented before. That's an outright lie that he has been caught in already in another thread where he was forced to admit he was lying about it.
Here is a link you can check for yourself:
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes
in Private Residential Treatment
Presented at the 114th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association at New Orleans, Louisiana, August, 2006
lol
...
-
Exactly. This is the same as saying the study is invalid. Unless you are a reader of fornits the words have no impact on the study itself.
You're still missing it, apparently on purpose. You claimed that the whole world (aside from fornits) had accepted the study as being valid. When I ask you for proof you claim the absence of negative comments proves your claim. You are using a lack of evidence as proof. This is never a valid argument and only shows that you cannot prove your claim.
No, you continue to lie here, Bruce. Who is on the programs payroll? You have failed to provide this persons name and proof.
Ellen Behrens. The links regarding her connections and monies received from Aspen have already been provided. Scroll back a few pages.
Why would anyone spend the money?
Again, because if the science were sound and industry under such constant criticsm would want to broadcast the information as far and wide as possible. What you're talking about is akin to the tobacco industry conducting a study proving that cigarettes are suddenly not harmful, and then deciding not to publish their study. The only reason they wouldn't is if the study was suspect. Which in the case of your marketing tool, it is.
-
You're still missing it, apparently on purpose. You claimed that the whole world (aside from fornits) had accepted the study as being valid. When I ask you for proof you claim the absence of negative comments proves your claim. You are using a lack of evidence as proof. This is never a valid argument and only shows that you cannot prove your claim.
It may be but it does not take away from the fact that you have not brought any evidence of negative response to the study outside of fornits. The study was presented to the APA yearly convention. We need to stay with what we know as fact until evidence is brought to the table which shows otherwise.
Ellen Behrens. The links regarding her connections and monies received from Aspen have already been provided. Scroll back a few pages.
You keep avoiding this which shows you do not have any evidence of conflict of interest. You are assuming WIRB was not doing their job in oversight and/or people not disclosing information about themselves you need to demonstrate proof which you have not. Unless WIRB pulls their support of this study then it needs to stand as it is, you and I can not overturn the study. You can personally decide it is invalid and that is okay, we can all decide for ourselves.
Again, because if the science were sound and industry under such constant criticsm would want to broadcast the information as far and wide as possible. What you're talking about is akin to the tobacco industry conducting a study proving that cigarettes are suddenly not harmful, and then deciding not to publish their study. The only reason they wouldn't is if the study was suspect. Which in the case of your marketing tool, it is.
Actually they would probably want to get the information out to the smokers. The smoker market would not be those who read medical journals. They would start marketing the findings targeting their customers who are the lower class to lower middle class. This would be the best return on their investment, I think we can all agree here.
...
-
The study was overseen by a third party review board which looks for conflicts of interest. That is their job. If you feel they missed something then you should contact them. You and I cannot sit here and dictate what was done or not.
What we can do is view the standards the APA uses to determine conflict of interest. We can also view the connection Ellen had to Aspen and clearly see she was in violation of those same standards. DJ's analogy regarding kids in bars is correct. According to you, because the drinking age in the US is 21, no one under that age ever drinks in a bar. Given that Ms. Behrens has several connections to Aspen, and given that the standards show it's a violation, and given that you have lied about it in an attempt to cover it up, chances are there was a violation, and she did not fully disclose. Do you have any evidence that suggest otherwise?
I have shown you that you were in error and provided a link to support my estimate
What was I in error regarding Whooter?
But WIRB would not have approved the study to begin with if there was a conflict which they felt would affect the validity of the study. So in either case an asterisk would not be needed. I think we can agree here.
Not at all. Once again you are incorrect. Let me ask you, if Ms. Behrens had not disclosed would there have been an issue?
-
It may be but it does not take away from the fact that you have not brought any evidence of negative response to the study outside of fornits
You keep trying to make this about others Whooter. It's about you, and your claim that you have yet to back up. You claimed that the whole world, aside from fornits, had accepted this marketing tool. Can you prove it? Remember, an absence of evidence is not the same as proof.
You keep avoiding this which shows you do not have any evidence of conflict of interest.
What do you believe I'm avoiding? It's been firmly established that Ms. Behrens has several connections to Aspen prior to the marketing tool being conducted. According to the APA's standards there can only be two explinations. She either didn't fully disclose, or an exception was made. Do you have any supporting links showing why an exception would be made?
Actually they would probably want to get the information out to the smokers. The smoker market would not be those who read medical journals. They would start marketing the findings targeting their customers who are the lower class to lower middle class. This would be the best return on their investment, I think we can all agree here.
You keep attempting to speak for others. Why is that? As for your response, you prove our point. By not publishing it and only releasing it to their existing customers, they avoid peer review and criticsm. Since the science is junk that's their intended goal anyway. Same situation with this marketing tool. Thank you for proving that Aspen is afraid of publishing it because they know it won't hold up.
-
What we can do is view the standards the APA uses to determine conflict of interest. We can also view the connection Ellen had to Aspen and clearly see she was in violation of those same standards. DJ's analogy regarding kids in bars is correct. According to you, because the drinking age in the US is 21, no one under that age ever drinks in a bar. Given that Ms. Behrens has several connections to Aspen, and given that the standards show it's a violation, and given that you have lied about it in an attempt to cover it up, chances are there was a violation, and she did not fully disclose. Do you have any evidence that suggest otherwise?
Chances are isn’t good enough. According to your logic chances are there was a person on the smoking study that smoked cigarettes and therefore we can conclude that smoking is not harmful.
We are a few people from fornits,Bruce, we cannot validate or invalidate any study. Gonzotherapy is contacting WIRB with the information you are speaking of and we will see what WIRB has to say. They have the power to pull the plug on the study, not you or I. I don’t see any conflict of interest and as far as my searches go outside of fornits no one else does either. The only ones who I have heard that have a problem with it are here on fornits.
Not at all. Once again you are incorrect. Let me ask you, if Ms. Behrens had not disclosed would there have been an issue?
If she had not disclosed her financial statements then WIRB would not have approved the study. The oversight committee doesn’t take peoples word for anything they check their financial records. If she was getting an income from Aspen then the oversight committee would have seen it. That’s what they do.
...
-
Chances are isn’t good enough. According to your logic chances are there was a person on the smoking study that smoked cigarettes and therefore we can conclude that smoking is not harmful.
You still aren't getting it, again I believe intentionally. If this were a study done by the tobacco industry it would be akin to the person conducting it being a tobacco farmer, whose crops were sold to cigarette manufacturers. Would that in your mind represent a conflict of interest?
I don’t see any conflict of interest and as far as my searches go outside of fornits no one else does either. The only ones who I have heard that have a problem with it are here on fornits.
What would according to you, (we already know what the APA's standards are) be considered a conflict of interest? As far as other people go you're ignoring that this marketing tool was never published for that exact reason. They only sent it out to people who were already on board with it. They don't want unbiased people viewing this thing because of just how suspect it really is.
If she had not disclosed her financial statements then WIRB would not have approved the study.
[/quote][/quote]
And you know this how exactly? Please cite your source.
-
Chances are isn’t good enough. According to your logic chances are there was a person on the smoking study that smoked cigarettes and therefore we can conclude that smoking is not harmful.
You still aren't getting it, again I believe intentionally. If this were a study done by the tobacco industry it would be akin to the person conducting it being a tobacco farmer, whose crops were sold to cigarette manufacturers. Would that in your mind represent a conflict of interest?
I don’t see any conflict of interest and as far as my searches go outside of fornits no one else does either. The only ones who I have heard that have a problem with it are here on fornits.
What would according to you, (we already know what the APA's standards are) be considered a conflict of interest? As far as other people go you're ignoring that this marketing tool was never published for that exact reason. They only sent it out to people who were already on board with it. They don't want unbiased people viewing this thing because of just how suspect it really is.
If she had not disclosed her financial statements then WIRB would not have approved the study.
And you know this how exactly? Please cite your source.
I know it because the study got approved. If there was any financial conflicts with Aspen it would had turned up on her financial statements. lol
Court case #239:
Judge: "WIRB, Did Ellen Brehrens have any financial interest with Aspen?
WIRB: "No, your honor"
Judge: "How do you know that"?
WIRB: "We asked her your honor and she said she did not."
Judge: "Thats good enough for me, you run a tight ship WIRB, good work. Case closed.... Next on the docket!"
lol
...
-
I know it because the study got approved. If there was any financial conflicts with Aspen it would had turned up on her financial statements. lol
So again, according to you no teenager in the United States is ever able to buy alcohol. That's a bold statement, I'm not sure it's grounded in much truth though. In your mind is it even possible she didn't disclose?
Court case #239:
Judge: "WIRB, Did Ellen Brehrens have any financial interest with Aspen?
WIRB: "No, your honor"
Judge: "How do you know that"?
WIRB: "We asked her your honor and she said she did not."
Judge: "Thats good enough for me, you run a tight ship WIRB, good work. Case closed.... Next on the docket!"
lol
Prosecuter: Your honor I'd like to request that you recuse yourself due to your gross negligence and overwhelming incompetence. The person on trial simply says so and without looking at a scrap of evidence you take it face value? Is it possible the person is lying? While we're at it are you either on their payroll, or are you simply a moron?
Judge: You're out of order, I haven't seen any evidence suggeesting Ms. Behrens had any connection to or received any compensation from AEG prior to her marketing tool being conducted.....
Prosecuter: Oh you mean like this....
There appears to be continued confusion around the study conducted by Ellen Behrens. While she and other industry pundits claim it was an Independent Study, nothing could be further from the truth.
1999 Behrens Clinical Director for Youth care
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a) ... me=Behrens
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre) ... 060817.htm
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p) ... 0626.shtml
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p) ... 5360.shtml
"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. As a result, the operating assumption of the study is that the students included in the analyzed data were those who were appropriately placed."
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p) ... 5494.shtml
Comment: ....It would be helpful to know more about Dr. Behren’s research design and methodology. I presume she drew a random sample for the study; otherwise, the results cannot be generalized to the school/residential population at large.
Jerry W Clark
Dba Behavioral Services Ltd
Reno, NV
No Jerry, she didn't. Families from 9 Aspen programs participated in her "study". She and all her staff have links to Aspen programs.
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887
Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc)
2006 Behrens is a contributor to NATSAPs "Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p) ... 5456.shtml
ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP APPLAUDS STUDY
(April 26, 2007) According to an article on PRNewswire, Elliot Sainer, President of Aspen Education Group (AEG), Cerritos, CA, announced "AEG is extremely pleased to learn of the very positive findings from the final phase of our industry's first long-term, multi-year clinical study on the effectiveness of private therapeutic residential programs for adolescents. AEG will continue to advocate for new industry research that will further illustrate and promote the best practices and methodologies and enhance our industry's abilities to produce positive and long-lasting results in adolescent therapeutic education."
I guess he was pleased. He paid her to present AEG in the best possible light.
Judge: Oh shucks....case reopened I guess. Clearly Ms. Behrens did have several major conflicts of interests in relation to AEG. Who knew there would be evidence and stuff?
Prosecuter: Idiot.
-
So again, according to you no teenager in the United States is ever able to buy alcohol. That's a bold statement, I'm not sure it's grounded in much truth though.
???
In your mind is it even possible she didn't disclose?
No its not. It would be on her financial statements, Bruce. When you file your taxes you dont just jot down a figure on the back of a napkin and send it in. They need documents 1040's 1099's etc. WIRB isnt going to just ask if they have a conflict of interest they are going to ask for your records and then they will review them. These need to match what Apsen claims they paid you on their financial records and what was reported to the IRS. They all need to add up.
WIRB has guidelines that they go by that defines conflict of interest. You can receive payment from the company in the past, but it cant be within the last 365 days, for example and the amount you profit cannot exceed a certain amount etc. etc.etc.
...
-
No its not. It would be on her financial statements, Bruce. When you file your taxes you dont just jot down a figure on the back of a napkin and send it in. They need documents 1040's 1099's etc. WIRB isnt going to just ask if they have a conflict of interest they are going to ask for your records and then they will review them. These need to match what Apsen claims they paid you on their financial records and what was reported to the IRS. They all need to add up.
WIRB has guidelines that they go by that defines conflict of interest. You can receive payment from the company in the past, but it cant be within the last 365 days, for example and the amount you profit cannot exceed a certain amount etc. etc.etc.
So now you're not only claiming that no teenager ever buys alcohol in the US, and no adult ever cheats on their taxes. My goodness Whooter, what sort of ivory tower world do you live in?
You don't seem able to explain away all the work she did for AEG, so since that violates the APA's standards, and according to you she didn't lie, why did they approve her marketing tool?
-
No its not. It would be on her financial statements, Bruce. When you file your taxes you dont just jot down a figure on the back of a napkin and send it in. They need documents 1040's 1099's etc. WIRB isnt going to just ask if they have a conflict of interest they are going to ask for your records and then they will review them. These need to match what Apsen claims they paid you on their financial records and what was reported to the IRS. They all need to add up.
WIRB has guidelines that they go by that defines conflict of interest. You can receive payment from the company in the past, but it cant be within the last 365 days, for example and the amount you profit cannot exceed a certain amount etc. etc.etc.
So now you're not only claiming that no teenager ever buys alcohol in the US, and no adult ever cheats on their taxes. My goodness Whooter, what sort of ivory tower world do you live in?
You don't seem able to explain away all the work she did for AEG, so since that violates the APA's standards, and according to you she didn't lie, why did they approve her marketing tool?
Bruce, I dont even think the hardest core anti-program person is going to believe that you know she cheated on her taxes. Thats a stretch even for you to believe. lol.
So we have a study which was overseen by a third party review board and you claim that one person on the team cheated on her taxes so this invalidates the study...Hmmm okay. Good luck with that one.
...
-
Bruce, I dont even think the hardest core anti-program person is going to believe that you know she cheated on her taxes. Thats a stretch even for you to believe. lol.
So we have a study which was overseen by a third party review board and you claim that one person on the team cheated on her taxes so this invalidates the study...Hmmm okay. Good luck with that one.
Once again Whooter attempts to make his own issues about someone else. Whooter can you show any posting I have made in which I indicated that I believed Ms. Behrens or any other specific person had cheated on their taxes?
-
Bruce, I dont even think the hardest core anti-program person is going to believe that you know she cheated on her taxes. Thats a stretch even for you to believe. lol.
So we have a study which was overseen by a third party review board and you claim that one person on the team cheated on her taxes so this invalidates the study...Hmmm okay. Good luck with that one.
Once again Whooter attempts to make his own issues about someone else. Whooter can you show any posting I have made in which I indicated that I believed Ms. Behrens or any other specific person had cheated on their taxes?
Thank you, Bruce, so we can agree that you dont have any proof that she lied or cheated on her taxes. Her financial records would show her past affiliations with Aspen from a financial standpoint. The review board investigates the financial ties of the study committee members to the firm being studied and vice versa. After review of her financial statement they approved the study and they moved forward with it.
If you feel she wasn't truthful then that is your privilege. Gonzotherapy has already contacted WIRB so we can wait to see what occurs. Until that time the study is still valid. I dont see how anyone could overturn it at this point. WIRB will be making that call and we need to wait.
...
-
Thank you, Bruce, so we can agree that you dont have any proof that she lied or cheated on her taxes. Her financial records would show her past affiliations with Aspen from a financial standpoint. The review board investigates the financial ties of the study committee members to the firm being studied and vice versa. After review of her financial statement they approved the study and they moved forward with it.
If you feel she wasn't truthful then that is your privilege. Gonzotherapy has already contacted WIRB so we can wait to see what occurs. Until that time the study is still valid. I dont see how anyone could overturn it at this point. WIRB will be making that call and we need to wait.
So you can't point to any such posting then, and were just caught lying again. No surprise there. So then what we have is a situation in which Ms. Behrens either failed to disclose to the APA her working relationship with AEG, or was granted an exception. Whooter claims an exception was granted but he cannot find any source which suggest one could even be granted. Nor is he able to prove his claim that the whole world is behind the marketing tool in question. That being the case until we hear otherwise we can all now agree the study is invalid by those on fornits and was conducted by a person with a conflict of interest. We'll all be interested to see what Gonzo learns and can pick up at that point. Till then we've agreed the study will be considered junk on here and nothing more can be said on the matter.
What's next?
-
We'll all be interested to see what Gonzo learns and can pick up at that point.
lol, At least we agree here, Bruce.
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
I am just presenting the facts.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Whooter has no facts. He claims that his daughter was at ASR when Marcus was there and also claims his daughter was there during 9/11 and left in 2002. Only one can be true. He lied about having a daughter in the first place then slipped up on the details of her "program experience" a few times. He says she was in the program 14 months, but in other statements he says "16 months." Only one can be true. He says she graduated high school at ASR but later said she dropped out of HS when she got home. Only one can be true.
He's just jerking everyone's chain with a looooong series of fabrications about his family and ASR. It's all lies and it's obvious when you just scratch the surface.
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he calls a "fact" or his "personal experience." He's been busted out lying about both way too often to have any credibility.
It bears repeating. This person is incredibly dishonest and has been proven so many times by his own statements. His entire story is pure fiction and is therefore not relevant to anything or anyone.
I know that Whoot has been asked before to clear up the inconsistencies in his story but he always seems to dodge it. Gotta side with DJ here.
Kids may be manipulative and lie sometimes but the program staff and program pushers lie way way more IMO.
Most readers get this same impression, shaggys. Whooter's entire "family story" was proven to be made up, by his own admissions, so it's really hard to believe anything he says beyond those made up family members and program stories. He tells a different story each time and those stories are mutually exclusive, so we know that most of it is made up at best and at worst, all of it.
This entire thread is designed to cast doubt on abuse survivors and was set up for this purpose to get the focus off of Whooter's many, many lies.
I understand that many people would not do what I did and it is considered lying. I understood at the time I posted that it wasn't truthful.
and...
I fabricated a son
See what I mean? The guy admits to making up family members and intentionally lying to suit his agenda. What more do you need to know about this fountain of misinformation?
-
Okay back on topic.
I also provided a link to an independent study which was overseen by a thrid party to insure there was no conflict of interest. They are from the state of Washington (I hope that state is acceptable to everyone lol)
1) This was a study conducted surveying 1,000 parents and graduates of a few programs. The study was overseen by WIRB (The Western Institutional Review Board) and they also approved the study. The results were presented at the Annual meeting of the APA American Psychological Association.
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
Thanks for the link, DJ, lets take a look at what you provided us:
According to the study, most teens with serious behavioral or emotional problems that have not responded to other treatments - such as individual or group therapy, medications and psychiatric hospitalization - improve during treatment at a private residential treatment program.
Results showed that teens attending licensed private residential treatment programs experienced significant improvements in all psychological and behavioral problems studied.
The findings, presented on August 12 at the American Psychological Association, the largest association of psychologists worldwide......
I tend to agree so far, but we should look at DJ's link a little closer to determine more detail of the outcome.
...
-
I am just presenting the facts.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Whooter has no facts. He claims that his daughter was at ASR when Marcus was there and also claims his daughter was there during 9/11 and left in 2002. Only one can be true. He lied about having a daughter in the first place then slipped up on the details of her "program experience" a few times. He says she was in the program 14 months, but in other statements he says "16 months." Only one can be true. He says she graduated high school at ASR but later said she dropped out of HS when she got home. Only one can be true.
He's just jerking everyone's chain with a looooong series of fabrications about his family and ASR. It's all lies and it's obvious when you just scratch the surface.
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he calls a "fact" or his "personal experience." He's been busted out lying about both way too often to have any credibility.
It bears repeating. This person is incredibly dishonest and has been proven so many times by his own statements. His entire story is pure fiction and is therefore not relevant to anything or anyone.
I know that Whoot has been asked before to clear up the inconsistencies in his story but he always seems to dodge it. Gotta side with DJ here.
Kids may be manipulative and lie sometimes but the program staff and program pushers lie way way more IMO.
Most readers get this same impression, shaggys. Whooter's entire "family story" was proven to be made up, by his own admissions, so it's really hard to believe anything he says beyond those made up family members and program stories. He tells a different story each time and those stories are mutually exclusive, so we know that most of it is made up at best and at worst, all of it.
This entire thread is designed to cast doubt on abuse survivors and was set up for this purpose to get the focus off of Whooter's many, many lies.
I understand that many people would not do what I did and it is considered lying. I understood at the time I posted that it wasn't truthful.
and...
I fabricated a son
See what I mean? The guy admits to making up family members and intentionally lying to suit his agenda. What more do you need to know about this fountain of misinformation?
Unfortunately Whooter's history of lies and deception need to be entered into the record of these type of discussions. It is on topic to point this out.
I tend to agree
I'm glad we all see this is relevant to any discussions involving Whooter, an Asped Ed fiduciary with an agenda to promote Aspen programs. I just want readers to be clear on why Whooter presents so much misinformation.
-
DJ, lets stay on the topic of the independent study. I can respond to your personal attacks in the OFFA if you like:
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
This research demonstrates what we've always believed - that research-driven and evidence-based private residential programs can help turn around teens in trouble. This information will give new hope to thousands of families who have been struggling with the difficult decision of how to best help a child."
...
-
I think we can all agree that saying "Whooter is a liar" is not a personal attack. It's simply the public record on display at Fornits.
I fabricated a son
I understand that many people would not do what I did and it is considered lying. I understood at the time I posted that it wasn't truthful.
He readily admits he's a liar, so I see no attack in describing him as he describes himself.
I can see why Whooter would not want readers to know how much or to what extent he has lied here (and admitted), but it is certainly not a personal attack or off topic to say "Whooter is a liar" because he already admitted he made up his family and program experience. It's all fabricated. My pointing it out is simply bringing readers up to speed so they can consider the source when reading Whooter's unverifiable, factually bereft speculations.
"Caveat emptor," parents. Whooter and his TTI colleagues have something to sell you and will be dishonest in any way they deem necessary to get you to sign your child into a program. Aspen Education is notorious for its false advertising and has even been called out by other TTI entities for lying in its advertising. Whooter has admitted to being an Aspen Education fiduciary, so he should be scrutinized like the company he represents.
We're just keeping it all above board, which Whooter clearly wishes we would not.
-
We're just keeping it all above board, which Whooter clearly wishes we would not.
Look, DJ, I dont mind the attacks and am always for getting things out into the open. I can take it. I just wanted to stay on topic here. Please take this into the OFFA thread or start a new new thread on this topic. I can respond to you there.
...
-
I think we can all agree that saying "Whooter is a liar" is not a personal attack. It's simply the public record on display at Fornits.
I fabricated a son
I understand that many people would not do what I did and it is considered lying. I understood at the time I posted that it wasn't truthful.
He readily admits he's a liar, so I see no attack in describing him as he describes himself.
I can see why Whooter would not want readers to know how much or to what extent he has lied here (and admitted), but it is certainly not a personal attack or off topic to say "Whooter is a liar" because he already admitted he made up his family and program experience. It's all fabricated. My pointing it out is simply bringing readers up to speed so they can consider the source when reading Whooter's unverifiable, factually bereft speculations.
"Caveat emptor," parents. Whooter and his TTI colleagues have something to sell you and will be dishonest in any way they deem necessary to get you to sign your child into a program. Aspen Education is notorious for its false advertising and has even been called out by other TTI entities for lying in its advertising. Whooter has admitted to being an Aspen Education fiduciary, so he should be scrutinized like the company he represents.
We're just keeping it all above board, which Whooter clearly wishes we would not.
This is no more an "attack" than saying "Whooter is an Aspen fiduciary." You admitted both already: you are a liar and an Aspen fiduciary. How is that an attack? You may not be proud of your lies here, but I am just quoting you calling yourself a liar. That's no attack.
-
DJ, lets stay on the topic of the independent study. I can respond to your personal attacks in the OFFA if you like:
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
This research demonstrates what we've always believed - that research-driven and evidence-based private residential programs can help turn around teens in trouble. This information will give new hope to thousands of families who have been struggling with the difficult decision of how to best help a child."
...
-
I think we can all agree that saying "Whooter is a liar" is not a personal attack. It's simply the public record on display at Fornits.
I fabricated a son
I understand that many people would not do what I did and it is considered lying. I understood at the time I posted that it wasn't truthful.
He readily admits he's a liar, so I see no attack in describing him as he describes himself.
I can see why Whooter would not want readers to know how much or to what extent he has lied here (and admitted), but it is certainly not a personal attack or off topic to say "Whooter is a liar" because he already admitted he made up his family and program experience. It's all fabricated. My pointing it out is simply bringing readers up to speed so they can consider the source when reading Whooter's unverifiable, factually bereft speculations.
"Caveat emptor," parents. Whooter and his TTI colleagues have something to sell you and will be dishonest in any way they deem necessary to get you to sign your child into a program. Aspen Education is notorious for its false advertising and has even been called out by other TTI entities for lying in its advertising. Whooter has admitted to being an Aspen Education fiduciary, so he should be scrutinized like the company he represents.
We're just keeping it all above board, which Whooter clearly wishes we would not.
This is no more an "attack" than saying "Whooter is an Aspen fiduciary." You admitted both already: you are a liar and an Aspen fiduciary. How is that an attack? You may not be proud of your lies here, but I am just quoting you calling yourself a liar. That's no attack.
You must have missed my response to your repetitive posting. Here, read it again, get over it and move on. Your trying to change the subject doesn't change what you already admitted about yourself.
-
I think everyone has seen you point, DJ, myself included. Lets get back on topic which is the study.
...
-
Fine, we all agree you are lying about it. Thanks for admitting it anyway.
Take note, readers, Whooter admitted he lies all the time, so be sure to challenge every detail of his phony stories to get to the truth.
-
Fine, we all agree you are lying about it. Thanks for admitting it anyway.
Take note, readers, Whooter admitted he lies all the time, so be sure to challenge every detail of his phony stories to get to the truth.
Okay lets move on.
...
-
Taking a look at another link provided by DJ in an earlier post:
Link (http://http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc)
“Until now, our industry has relied on anecdotal evidence and individual success stories to substantiate the outstanding work that has been done by high-quality, private residential treatment programs throughout the United States,” said Jan Moss, executive director of the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, a national organization representing programs and professionals assisting young people with emotional and behavioral difficulties. “This research demonstrates what we’ve always believed – that research-driven and evidence-based private residential programs can help turn around teens in trouble. This information will give new hope to thousands of families who have been struggling with the difficult decision of how to best help a child.”
...
-
Let's clear up some more disinformation. That post was someone else's and I quoted it. I did not write it. Whooter knows this, but he's trying to spin things as if "we all agree" which we do not. Just a heads up for the readers. That is a quote from another poster and not me.
-
Let's clear up some more disinformation. That post was someone else's and I quoted it. I did not write it. Whooter knows this, but he's trying to spin things as if "we all agree" which we do not. Just a heads up for the readers. That is a quote from another poster and not me.
You are correct, DJ. "guest4NKQD" who posted a few links to various sites outside of fornits. You re-posted that post in this thread. These are the links that I am referring to. Thanks for clearing that up. I apologize for the confusion.
...
-
Most adolescents improve during residential treatment. Though reported outcomes vary widely,
ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during
residential treatment (Curry, 1991; Curtis et al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005; Wells, 1991).
The following factors have been shown to predict outcome: age, intelligence, degree of pathology,
stability of the discharge placement, aftercare participation, and the absence of externalizing
behaviors (Connor, Miller, Cunninghan, & Melloni, 2002; Epstein, 2004; Gorske, Srebalus,
Walls, 2003; Wells, 1991) Specifically, research suggests that adolescent females with high IQ,
less severe dysfunction, acute and late onset, better academic ability, absence of learning
disorders, low levels of behavioral problems, and high levels of internalizing problems tend to
have positive outcomes. Some researchers have concluded that residential treatment is best for
higher functioning, less vulnerable youth (Connor et al., 2002). One recent study that sampled
from 17 public residential treatment programs, found that age and race predicted outcomes
(Lyons, McCulloch, & Romansky, 2006), with mid-aged adolescents and African American
adolescents having relatively worse outcomes. It bears repeating that the degree to which the
findings within this corpus of research apply top r i va t e residential treatment programs is largely
unknown.
...
-
I thought this study had already been exposed as hogwash a couple of days ago. What are you doing Whoot? Just because you have a superfly cool new avatar does not give you the right to come here and beat this dead horse.
BTW will somebody PM me with an avatar i can use that will put Whooters to shame. This is ridiculous.
-
I thought this study had already been exposed as hogwash a couple of days ago.
Apparently fonits is the only forum which believes this. So a few people are out trying to drum up support. Until then I guess we need to stick with the study as being valid.
What are you doing Whoot? Just because you have a superfly cool new avatar does not give you the right to come here and beat this dead horse.
BTW will somebody PM me with an avatar i can use that will put Whooters to shame. This is ridiculous.
Thanks shaggys.
...
-
As I am waiting for a response back from the review board, I think that a few things still can be said about how this study was conducted and what the information she has presented here actually means. I do not think in any way that the questions asked and the answers recorded are wrong, I don't beleive that she completely shirked her medical duty to present accurate information.
The real problems contained within the study is the absence of data from further down the road. As most of us who have gone through these programs recognize, the damage done isn't apparent for several years following discharge. I know personally that I thought the program I was in was good for me for several years following my release; and this of course was a program that was shut down, along with many of its sister programs in the late 90s early 2000s, for extremely abusive conditions.
Also she made the assumption that teens and parents of teens released against program recommendations lied in their responses and underreported problems because of the confrontations they had with staff about early release. Basically she is saying that these parents and teens are liars because her original hypotheses was incorrect. (great science!!!)
If you were to go that far in making that assumption, I believe you would also have to assume that graduates of the program are liars as well. I mean who has greater motivation to lie about their progress than the person whos freedom depends on it? How many convicts tell the parole board, "Hey man, as soon as I get out of here I'm gonna kill, rape, and steal the first chance I get."
The data is not the problem here, it's the lack of complete data, and some of the inferred evidence. Also, the methodology of programs is to only move up and graduate the kids who would score higher on these specific tests. You will not graduate a program without convincing the program that you are "all better now."
If I was to take a thousand kids and wanted to change their behavior, any behavior. Say I wanted all these kids to eat a pound of brussel sprouts every day; if I took these kids and beat them every day unless they showed their love for the sprouts, and forced them to eat brussell sprouts and tell me how much they love them, and tell me how great brussell sprouts are. If I told them that until they could show me that they really loved brussell sprouts, they would be stuck in my crazy brussell sprout camp. And I spent a year with these kids watching their every move, making sure they didn't write home and talk bad about the sprouts, or tell anyone else they didn't like them, or ever gag on their sprouts. And if they did they would get a beating and be back to sprout level one, I guarantee you I would have some sprout lovin' little bastards.
Now if I did a study and documented who didn't like sprouts at the beginning and who didn't like sprouts at the end, I would get positive results, does that mean my methods are ok? Does that mean that years down the road many of these kids aren't going to have a giant sprout chasing them around in their nightmares.
This study doesn't prove anything that psychology hasn't known for many years, if you encourage one behavior and discourage another, behavior will change. What the study doesn't cover, but should if it wants any kind of real recognition, is what are the longterm effects of this sort of behavior modification. Is it a good way to change a behavior, ask any child psychologist, or even a dog trainer for that matter, positive reinforcement works much better than discipline.
-
As I am waiting for a response back from the review board, I think that a few things still can be said about how this study was conducted and what the information she has presented here actually means. I do not think in any way that the questions asked and the answers recorded are wrong, I don't beleive that she completely shirked her medical duty to present accurate information.
The real problems contained within the study is the absence of data from further down the road. As most of us who have gone through these programs recognize, the damage done isn't apparent for several years following discharge. I know personally that I thought the program I was in was good for me for several years following my release; and this of course was a program that was shut down, along with many of its sister programs in the late 90s early 2000s, for extremely abusive conditions.
Also she made the assumption that teens and parents of teens released against program recommendations lied in their responses and underreported problems because of the confrontations they had with staff about early release. Basically she is saying that these parents and teens are liars because her original hypotheses was incorrect. (great science!!!)
If you were to go that far in making that assumption, I believe you would also have to assume that graduates of the program are liars as well. I mean who has greater motivation to lie about their progress than the person whos freedom depends on it? How many convicts tell the parole board, "Hey man, as soon as I get out of here I'm gonna kill, rape, and steal the first chance I get."
The data is not the problem here, it's the lack of complete data, and some of the inferred evidence. Also, the methodology of programs is to only move up and graduate the kids who would score higher on these specific tests. You will not graduate a program without convincing the program that you are "all better now."
If I was to take a thousand kids and wanted to change their behavior, any behavior. Say I wanted all these kids to eat a pound of brussel sprouts every day; if I took these kids and beat them every day unless they showed their love for the sprouts, and forced them to eat brussell sprouts and tell me how much they love them, and tell me how great brussell sprouts are. If I told them that until they could show me that they really loved brussell sprouts, they would be stuck in my crazy brussell sprout camp. And I spent a year with these kids watching their every move, making sure they didn't write home and talk bad about the sprouts, or tell anyone else they didn't like them, or ever gag on their sprouts. And if they did they would get a beating and be back to sprout level one, I guarantee you I would have some sprout lovin' little bastards.
Now if I did a study and documented who didn't like sprouts at the beginning and who didn't like sprouts at the end, I would get positive results, does that mean my methods are ok? Does that mean that years down the road many of these kids aren't going to have a giant sprout chasing them around in their nightmares.
This study doesn't prove anything that psychology hasn't known for many years, if you encourage one behavior and discourage another, behavior will change. What the study doesn't cover, but should if it wants any kind of real recognition, is what are the longterm effects of this sort of behavior modification. Is it a good way to change a behavior, ask any child psychologist, or even a dog trainer for that matter, positive reinforcement works much better than discipline.
Thats a great perspective, Gonzo, I like the Brussel Sprout analogy! I think we can agree that we would like to see how long these behaviors last. I disagree with your thoughts that positive reinforcement is not used. I believe this varies from program to program. Some use positive reinforcement, others use discipline and still others a combination of both or harsh consequences.
I know for sure that not all the kids feel pressured to say the right thing on the study, but I am sure some do. It all comes down to Behavior Modification and how long lasting it is. I think that depends on many factors, the environment the kids go back to, their attitudes and parents' attitudes towards a commitment to lasting change.
As the child psychologists see these changes first hand and witness the turn around in the children it will further reinforce that these programs are effective and predominantly non-punitive behavior modification can create positive change in adolescence.
...
-
I think everyone has seen you point, DJ, myself included. Lets get back on topic which is the study.
...
Why bother? We've all agreed that until Gonzo hears something back suggesting otherwise, the marketing tool will be considered invalid, and junk science. There's nothing futher to discuss until then.
-
I think everyone has seen you point, DJ, myself included. Lets get back on topic which is the study.
...
Why bother? We've all agreed that until Gonzo hears something back suggesting otherwise, the marketing tool will be considered invalid, and junk science. There's nothing futher to discuss until then.
One of the strengths of an open forum is that we can present studies and data, provide links and then decide for ourselves whether or not we want to believe it or not and individually decide how much credence we apply to each item. We dont need to follow a majority opinion or be pressured to conform to a group consensus if we chose not to.
I am of the opinion that the study is valid, but I always keep my mind open to others opinion and input. So I think we should keep the discussion going for those of use who feel the study has validity and if for no other reason to at least keep people informed and up to date. I think this is one of those areas where can all agree.
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
The title to this thread is "Independent Study Shows Success". A study of Aspen Ed bought and paid for by Aspen Ed isn't exactly independent.
-
The title to this thread is "Independent Study Shows Success". A study of Aspen Ed bought and paid for by Aspen Ed isn't exactly independent.
Thank you, Anne.
-
I am of the opinion that the study is valid,
I'm shocked....truly shocked. ::)
but I always keep my mind open to others opinion and input.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
The title to this thread is "Independent Study Shows Success". A study of Aspen Ed bought and paid for by Aspen Ed isn't exactly independent.
Notice it was not conducted by Aspen. It was independently done. Aspen paid someone to conduct the study for them. I pay people to do my taxes, fix my cars, shovel my sidewalk, perform annual physicals on me and my family, put on a new roof, add on an addition etc. They are independents, yes they get paid like everyone else does. Who would put food on the researchers table if their clients did not pay them?
Why would you expect people to conduct research for free? That it a very odd argument.
...
-
It was independently done. Aspen paid someone to conduct the study for them.
And there is the oxymoron. It can't be independent if the subject is also the customer.
-
It was independently done. Aspen paid someone to conduct the study for them.
And there is the oxymoron. It can't be independent if the subject is also the customer.
Say you hired an independent contractor to put an addition onto your home. Is he going to work for free? If not how is he going to get paid?
Say you hire and independent accountant to do your taxes. Do they work for free? If you pay him/her to do your taxes does that mean they are no longer independent?
Do you see what I mean?
...
-
It was independently done. Aspen paid someone to conduct the study for them.
And there is the oxymoron. It can't be independent if the subject is also the customer.
Say you hired an independent contractor to put an addition onto your home. Is he going to work for free? If not how is he going to get paid?
Say you hire and independent accountant to do your taxes. Do they work for free? If you pay him/her to do your taxes does that mean they are no longer independent?
Do you see what I mean?
Again.....apples and oranges. The contractor isn't evaluating the homeowners work. Aspen Ed hired someone to evaluate their work. You are really bad at analogies.
-
Still having trouble with fruit John?
If I hire a contractor to build an addition onto my house or hire a accountant to do my taxes I'm hiring him to do a service for me, something that affects no one else. He's not evaluating my services to others.
If I pay someone to tell me I'm doing a good job at something then it sort of loses it's meaning. No different then when Buchi made major campaign contributions and was suddenly awared a commendation from the Georgia House. Both your crap study and Buchi's plaque were bought and paid for.
-
Again.....apples and oranges. The contractor isn't evaluating the homeowners work. Aspen Ed hired someone to evaluate their work. You are really bad at analogies.
The accountant isnt performing studies on programs, the building contractor isnt doing the homeowners taxes and The research firm isnt putting on an addition. They all provide different services but what they do have in common is they work independently, this is a fact whether you want to believe it or not.
...
-
Again.....apples and oranges. The contractor isn't evaluating the homeowners work. Aspen Ed hired someone to evaluate their work. You are really bad at analogies.
The accountant isnt performing studies on programs, the building contractor isnt doing the homeowners taxes and The research firm isnt putting on an addition. They all provide different services but what they do have in common is they work independently, this is a fact whether you want to believe it or not.
Maybe you missed this.......
Still having trouble with fruit John?
If I hire a contractor to build an addition onto my house or hire a accountant to do my taxes I'm hiring him to do a service for me, something that affects no one else. He's not evaluating my services to others.
If I pay someone to tell me I'm doing a good job at something then it sort of loses it's meaning. No different then when Buchi made major campaign contributions and was suddenly awared a commendation from the Georgia House. Both your crap study and Buchi's plaque were bought and paid for.
-
Again.....apples and oranges. The contractor isn't evaluating the homeowners work. Aspen Ed hired someone to evaluate their work. You are really bad at analogies.
The accountant isnt performing studies on programs, the building contractor isnt doing the homeowners taxes and The research firm isnt putting on an addition. They all provide different services but what they do have in common is they work independently, this is a fact whether you want to believe it or not.
Maybe you missed this.......
No, I didnt miss it, Anne, Bruce was directing that question to another poster, if John doesnt answer after a little while maybe I will jump in and give my two cents. but out of courtesy we should give the person Bruce is addressing a chance to respond.
...
-
Again.....apples and oranges. The contractor isn't evaluating the homeowners work. Aspen Ed hired someone to evaluate their work. You are really bad at analogies.
The accountant isnt performing studies on programs, the building contractor isnt doing the homeowners taxes and The research firm isnt putting on an addition. They all provide different services but what they do have in common is they work independently, this is a fact whether you want to believe it or not.
Maybe you missed this.......
No, I didnt miss it, Anne, Bruce was directing that question to another poster, if John doesnt answer after a little while maybe I will jump in and give my two cents. but out of courtesy we should give the person Bruce is addressing a chance to respond.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
Still applies to you, whoever you are (and it is by belief that you are John). If someone hires a firm to evaluate their own performance, it's not independent no matter how much you try and twist it.
-
Again.....apples and oranges. The contractor isn't evaluating the homeowners work. Aspen Ed hired someone to evaluate their work. You are really bad at analogies.
The accountant isnt performing studies on programs, the building contractor isnt doing the homeowners taxes and The research firm isnt putting on an addition. They all provide different services but what they do have in common is they work independently, this is a fact whether you want to believe it or not.
Maybe you missed this.......
No, I didnt miss it, Anne, Bruce was directing that question to another poster, if John doesnt answer after a little while maybe I will jump in and give my two cents. but out of courtesy we should give the person Bruce is addressing a chance to respond.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
Still applies to you, whoever you are (and it is by belief that you are John). If someone hires a firm to evaluate their own performance, it's not independent no matter how much you try and twist it.
So if someone hires an independent contractor to work on their house than it is not independent either and since the accountant is getting paid then they cant be independent either etc. etc. they all provide services, some evaluate performance, some build additions and some do tax work. We are all free to believe what we want and if you dont want them to be independent then that is okay.
...
-
Still can't get around it can you?
Do you understand the difference between hiring someone to conduct an evaluation versus hiring someone to provide a service?
As for your name I'll always refer to you by whatever name you like, just keep in mind we already know who you are. Calling you something else won't change that.
You let me know what name you'd like to go by for now. Afterall, you've posted under so many it's hard to keep track.
-
Still can't get around it can you?
Do you understand the difference between hiring someone to conduct an evaluation versus hiring someone to provide a service?
As for your name I'll always refer to you by whatever name you like, just keep in mind we already know who you are. Calling you something else won't change that.
You let me know what name you'd like to go by for now. Afterall, you've posted under so many it's hard to keep track.
lol, Its fun to watch you lose an argument. The insults start to spill out. You can call me "Whooter" if you want a response. If you want to speak with John, Peter, watchful Yeoman, then address the post accordingly. It is not too complicated.
Listen up, Bruce. The accountant doesnt put on additions at Aspen Ranch, the researcher doesnt do Aspens' Taxes, and the plumber doesnt rewire their community hall. But they are all independent contractors, they dont report to Aspen, they report to themselves. They get paid to provide a service by the recipient.
...
-
lol, Its fun to watch you lose an argument.
How would you know? You've never won one.
They get paid to provide a service by the recipient.
So you still don't understand the difference between providing a service, and conducting an evaluation? I thought you went to college?
-
lol, Its fun to watch you lose an argument.
How would you know? You've never won one.
They get paid to provide a service by the recipient.
So you still don't understand the difference between providing a service, and conducting an evaluation? I thought you went to college?
Squiggy, I can see that you are having difficulty with this. If you want to think the study was not independent than this is your right. What is important is getting the information out to the readers so that they can decide for themselves. I think we can all agree to this point.
...
-
Looks like Whootie is on the ropes, you always seem to bring out the name calling whenever you get desperate.
Obviously you're having trouble understanding the difference between services rendered, and evaluations conducted. This of course added to the fact that you have no idea what "independent study" even means. I can tell this is going to take awhile. Let's start with something a little more simple for you. Are you familiar with the idea of product placement and corporate sponsorship?
-
Squiggy, just for clarification purposes lets supply a link so the readers can view the study for themselves while we are discussing it.
...
-
Just add an asterisk that states "The following is brought to you by Aspen Education Group".
-
Just add an asterisk that states "The following is brought to you by Aspen Education Group".
Outcome study shows success.
Outcome Study * (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
*-Funded by Aspen Education group. The Western Institutional Review Board
approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
...
-
Just add an asterisk that states "The following is brought to you by Aspen Education Group".
Outcome study shows success.
Outcome Study * (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
*-Funded by Aspen Education group. The Western Institutional Review Board
approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
...
So you've finally come to accept this entire crap study was nothing more than a Aspen commerical. Took a long time for that break through for you Johnny. Congrats. Now that you understand that I think we can move forward to other topics.
-
Just add an asterisk that states "The following is brought to you by Aspen Education Group".
Outcome study shows success.
Outcome Study * (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
*-Funded by Aspen Education group. The Western Institutional Review Board
approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
...
So you've finally come to accept this entire crap study was nothing more than a Aspen commerical. Took a long time for that break through for you Johnny. Congrats. Now that you understand that I think we can move forward to other topics.
Squiggy, Yes they will use the independent study (with 3rd party oversight) for marketing purposes too. I think that is what has many here up in arms. Not only did the study show an overwhelming percentage of success but this also offers them an opportunity to use the study for their marketing campaign. This bothers some people here, but I have always believed that it is a good idea to have people make up their own minds for themselves.
...
-
Squiggy, Yes they will use the independent study (with 3rd party oversight) for marketing purposes too. I think that is what has many here up in arms. Not only did the study show an overwhelming percentage of success but this also offers them an opportunity to use the study for their marketing campaign. This bothers some people here, but I have always believed that it is a good idea to have people make up their own minds for themselves.
So you believe that junk science conducted by biased parties for a paying customer should be passed off to potential consumers without disclaimers attached?
-
Squiggy, Yes they will use the independent study (with 3rd party oversight) for marketing purposes too. I think that is what has many here up in arms. Not only did the study show an overwhelming percentage of success but this also offers them an opportunity to use the study for their marketing campaign. This bothers some people here, but I have always believed that it is a good idea to have people make up their own minds for themselves.
So you believe that junk science conducted by biased parties for a paying customer should be passed off to potential consumers without disclaimers attached?
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it is okay to pass off something that is not true.
...
-
So if someone hires an independent contractor to work on their house than it is not independent either and since the accountant is getting paid then they cant be independent either etc. etc. they all provide services, some evaluate performance, some build additions and some do tax work. We are all free to believe what we want and if you dont want them to be independent then that is okay.
It still wouldn't be evaluating the performance of the homeowner. That's what Aspen Ed did.....hire a firm to evaluate their own performance. You're not this stupid. You know the difference.
-
Obviously you're having trouble understanding the difference between services rendered, and evaluations conducted.
:tup: :tup:
-
I trust this thread will continue to be as confusing and convoluted as possible. Already it is replete with inconsistencies, misconceptions, fallacies, and deliberate misquotations. Let's keep them coming.. Whooter, you're up; if things were starting to make sense, I trust you can and will fix that.
-
So if someone hires an independent contractor to work on their house than it is not independent either and since the accountant is getting paid then they cant be independent either etc. etc. they all provide services, some evaluate performance, some build additions and some do tax work. We are all free to believe what we want and if you dont want them to be independent then that is okay.
It still wouldn't be evaluating the performance of the homeowner. That's what Aspen Ed did.....hire a firm to evaluate their own performance. You're not this stupid. You know the difference.
Of course they did Anne. They did not evaluate their own performance they hired someone to do it, an independent agency. They hire people to evaluate their financial performance as well and create a report on it. They hire people to conduct independent audits of their financial status. Why is this hard to understand?
...
-
So if someone hires an independent contractor to work on their house than it is not independent either and since the accountant is getting paid then they cant be independent either etc. etc. they all provide services, some evaluate performance, some build additions and some do tax work. We are all free to believe what we want and if you dont want them to be independent then that is okay.
It still wouldn't be evaluating the performance of the homeowner. That's what Aspen Ed did.....hire a firm to evaluate their own performance. You're not this stupid. You know the difference.
Of course they did Anne. They did not evaluate their own performance they hired someone to do it, an independent agency. They hire people to evaluate their financial performance as well and create a report on it. They hire people to conduct independent audits of their financial status. Why is this hard to understand?
Because the firm that does the evaluating wouldn't get good referrals if they told the truth. Why is this hard to understand?
-
So if someone hires an independent contractor to work on their house than it is not independent either and since the accountant is getting paid then they cant be independent either etc. etc. they all provide services, some evaluate performance, some build additions and some do tax work. We are all free to believe what we want and if you dont want them to be independent then that is okay.
It still wouldn't be evaluating the performance of the homeowner. That's what Aspen Ed did.....hire a firm to evaluate their own performance. You're not this stupid. You know the difference.
Of course they did Anne. They did not evaluate their own performance they hired someone to do it, an independent agency. They hire people to evaluate their financial performance as well and create a report on it. They hire people to conduct independent audits of their financial status. Why is this hard to understand?
Because the firm that does the evaluating wouldn't get good referrals if they told the truth. Why is this hard to understand?
Thats the nature of the business. If the guy doing their taxes has to give them the bad news that they are making less money then maybe they will not get good referral also. Everyone knows going in what the risks are.
...
-
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it is okay to pass off something that is not true
Hard pressed? Not at all. You lie about things all the time. The reason all of us (except you) are is because the entire TTI industry operates based on lies.
-
I am sorry that you cannot have a civil conversation, Bruce, and have a need to call people liars.
...
-
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it is okay to pass off something that is not true
Hard pressed? Not at all. You lie about things all the time. The reason all of us (except you) are is because the entire TTI industry operates based on lies.
I am sorry that you cannot have a civil conversation, Bruce.
You try and make people think that you're trying to have a civil conversation but you're so passive-aggressive that it ruins your attempts.
-
They did not evaluate their own performance they hired someone to do it
So they bought and paid for a glowing review. The only one on here who doesn't see that as a problem is you.
They hire people to evaluate their financial performance as well and create a report on it. They hire people to conduct independent audits of their financial status. Why is this hard to understand?
So not only are you confused on the difference between services rendered and evaluations conducted, but now you don't understand the difference between a product evaluation and internal audit. Where did you go to college again?
-
They did not evaluate their own performance they hired someone to do it
So they bought and paid for a glowing review. The only one on here who doesn't see that as a problem is you.
They hire people to evaluate their financial performance as well and create a report on it. They hire people to conduct independent audits of their financial status. Why is this hard to understand?
So not only are you confused on the difference between services rendered and evaluations conducted, but now you don't understand the difference between a product evaluation and internal audit. Where did you go to college again?
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
-
I am sorry that you cannot have a civil conversation, Bruce, and have a need to call people liars.
...
I have a need to tell the truth. This is not an insult, it's a fact. You have a track record of lying about other posters whenever you feel cornered. Now we can waste time with with me providing countless of examples of you lying, followed up by you refusing to address or acknowledge any of them. The entire conversation will get derailed and the whole thing will get moved into OFFA and become another breeding ground for your sock puppets and porn links.
Or we can simply accept the fact that you are a liar, and stay on the topic at hand. That being this crap marketing survey.
-
I am sorry that you cannot have a civil conversation, Bruce, and have a need to call people liars.
...
I have a need to tell the truth. This is not an insult, it's a fact. You have a track record of lying about other posters whenever you feel cornered. Now we can waste time with with me providing countless of examples of you lying, followed up by you refusing to address or acknowledge any of them. The entire conversation will get derailed and the whole thing will get moved into OFFA and become another breeding ground for your sock puppets and porn links.
Or we can simply accept the fact that you are a liar, and stay on the topic at hand. That being this crap marketing survey.
All I can say is that I feel bad for you. Its Christmas eve and you are filled with all this anger. I hope you are able to find a way to enjoy the season, Bruce.
...
-
There's no anger here Whooter, I'm simply calling it like it is. There's a new year coming and a chance to make things anew. Really start over with a new leaf and try and stop all of your self defeating behavior. I hope you'll take that opportunity.
You think about that, but in the meantime let's get back to the topic at hand.
You were having issues understanding the difference between an internal audit and a product evaluation.
Let me put it to you this way; If big tobacco came out with some study that was never published or submitted for peer review which they bought and paid for that said smoking in no way causes or contributes to cancer would you believe it?
-
Let me put it to you this way; If big tobacco came out with some study that was never published or submitted for peer review which they bought and paid for that said smoking in no way causes or contributes to cancer would you believe it?
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
-
Let me put it to you this way; If big tobacco came out with some study that was never published or submitted for peer review which they bought and paid for that said smoking in no way causes or contributes to cancer would you believe it?
I would have to look at the study and how it was conducted. was it overseen by a review board and approved? It would be an interesting read I think we could agree.
What if a Research study came out and said that Aspen programs are grossly ineffective and even abusive in some instances. Would you believe that study?
...
-
Let me put it to you this way; If big tobacco came out with some study that was never published or submitted for peer review which they bought and paid for that said smoking in no way causes or contributes to cancer would you believe it?
I would have to look at the study and how it was conducted. was it overseen by a review board and approved? It would be an interesting read I think we could agree.
What if a Research study came out and said that Aspen programs are grossly ineffective and even abusive in some instances. Would you believe that study?
If it's independent. This "study" was not.
-
If it's independent. This "study" was not.
So each of us decides based on our own requirements. Some of us would believe the studies while others would not and I think that is the way it should be. No one can force us to believe anything we dont want to. The main thing is to get the information out to the people and allow them to decide for themselves.
...
-
If it's independent. This "study" was not.
So each of us decides based on our own requirements. Some of us would believe the studies while others would not and I think that is the way it should be. No one can force us to believe anything we dont want to. The main thing is to get the information out to the people and allow them to decide for themselves.
But you twist the information and not only that, you have no experience inside those places. We do.
-
If it's independent. This "study" was not.
So each of us decides based on our own requirements. Some of us would believe the studies while others would not and I think that is the way it should be. No one can force us to believe anything we dont want to. The main thing is to get the information out to the people and allow them to decide for themselves.
But you twist the information and not only that, you have no experience inside those places. We do.
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date.
...
-
If it's independent. This "study" was not.
So each of us decides based on our own requirements. Some of us would believe the studies while others would not and I think that is the way it should be. No one can force us to believe anything we dont want to. The main thing is to get the information out to the people and allow them to decide for themselves.
But you twist the information and not only that, you have no experience inside those places. We do.
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date.
You have OUTSIDE experience. You have no idea what it's like to be inside one of those places for years at a time.
-
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date
You have a limited outsiders experience that does not come close to our first hand experiences. Your information is by no means up to date or accurate.
-
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date
You have a limited outsiders experience that does not come close to our first hand experiences. Your information is by no means up to date or accurate.
seems we disagree on this.
...
-
That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
Since you like analogies so much I'll give you one I've given you before.
Let's say next Veterans Day you approach a group of Veitnam vets and say, "Hey guys, man that war was hell. I wasn't there, but I saw 'Platoon' like 5 times so I know exactly what it was like. " These guys are either going to laugh at you or beat the crap out of you.
You have no idea what it was like for us because first and foremost you were never there, but two your opinion is biased by the fact that you earn your living off of this industry. Of course you're going to look at it in a postive light.
-
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date
You have a limited outsiders experience that does not come close to our first hand experiences. Your information is by no means up to date or accurate.
seems we disagree on this.
So, what......you're saying that you spent a couple of years inside one of these hellholes?
-
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date
You have a limited outsiders experience that does not come close to our first hand experiences. Your information is by no means up to date or accurate.
seems we disagree on this.
So, what......you're saying that you spent a couple of years inside one of these hellholes?
citation.
...
-
Here's yet another thread on Behren's Study, fwiw:
- "Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes" (Behrens, 2006)
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684)
Thats a great link/find, Ursus. I wish there was a way to connect all of the discussions under one topic. There were some great discussion in that thread.
...
-
When you provide info, if you want it to be taken seriously, it must be independent information.
So that brings us full circle, Gonzo. Below there is an independent writer who wrote a book about spending 14 months in a program. I also provided a link to an independent study which was overseen by a thrid party to insure there was no conflict of interest. They are from the state of Washington (I hope that state is acceptable to you)
Here are a couple of links for you:
1) This was a study conducted surveying 1,000 parents and graduates of a few programs. The study was overseen by WIRB (The Western Institutional Review Board) and they also approved the study. The results were presented at the Annual meeting of the APA American Psychological Association.
Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
2) There was a writer who spent 14 months (I thought it was 16 months) inside a program and then wrote a book about his findings
Link (http://http://www.davemarcus.com/content/what-it-takes-pull-me-through-about-book)
A Pulitzer Prize-winning writer untangles the mysteries of the
teenage mind as he witnesses troubled kids transformed by fourteen
months at a school that offers therapy for adolescents in
crisis.
Millions of parents struggle to grasp what goes on in their kids' heads,
on their computers, and among their friends. As an education correspondent
for U.S. News & World Report, David L. Marcus wrestled with similar
questions while reporting on the welter of pressures American teenagers
now face – a resurgent drug culture, proliferating temptations and threats
on-line, skyrocketing suicide rates (three times higher than in the
1960s).
To find answers, Marcus gained unfettered access to students, staff,
and parents at the Academy at Swift River in the hills of western
Massachusetts. The kids at Swift River had already ventured down a
number of perilous paths all parents fear their own children might
take – drug use, violence, theft, internet addictions, eating disorders,
promiscuity. Known for combining intensive academics, a wilderness
program and group therapy, the school helps troubled teenagers emotional
health.
...
-
Do you have money invested there?
No, I have no investments in the industry at all.
...
Guest3, Whooter is not being honest about his financial ties to RCS. Some time ago Whooter admitted he was a fiduciary in a deal between Aspen Ed and HLA. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=23299&p=283976&hilit=fiduciary#p283976).
When is this supposed to take place?
Well the announcement takes place after the lawyers sign off on the deal, but they usually wait until the transfer is ready to take place.
The legal transfer typically takes place at the beginning of the new quarter (or fiscal year).
So based on this I would expect the announcement would come at anytime and the transfer could occur on Tuesday October 1, 2007 or early January 2008.
...
How is it that you are in a position to have knowledge about the acquisition of HLA?
I apologize for being vague, I have a fiduciary duty which prevents me from speaking in any specific terms in this area and can only comment on information which is first made public by either party involved, this could be misconstrued as Tipping
He wouldn't say which one he was working for at the time, but it is speculated he was working for Aspen. When he couldn't close the deal for Aspen to buy HLA, they fired him. Now he spends his days promoting their competition, RCS.
-
I have experience with the TTI , it is just different than yours and more up to date
You have a limited outsiders experience that does not come close to our first hand experiences. Your information is by no means up to date or accurate.
seems we disagree on this.
So, what......you're saying that you spent a couple of years inside one of these hellholes?
Whooter was a client at SIBS for a year or two...
He made staff trainee, if memory serves.
-
I don't know if anyone else has actually read this study? It seems like a legit statistical analysis. Interesting to me for a couple a reasons. One is this finding: "Adolescents were also surveyed for their appraisal of their communication quality, compliance, and relationship quality. Unlike their parents, they rated themselves as “adequate” on most items at admission. By discharge the adolescents appraised their communication, compliance, and relationships as “good.”
I'm guessing that the kids interviewed weren't subjected to stuff that some on this forum have been, or they wouldn't report good outcomes - so check out the RTF's the participants went to.
I have no opinion on the reporter's story, since he may or may not have observed the real facts of the place.
-
I don't know if anyone else has actually read this study? It seems like a legit statistical analysis. Interesting to me for a couple a reasons. One is this finding: "Adolescents were also surveyed for their appraisal of their communication quality, compliance, and relationship quality. Unlike their parents, they rated themselves as “adequate” on most items at admission. By discharge the adolescents appraised their communication, compliance, and relationships as “good.”
I'm guessing that the kids interviewed weren't subjected to stuff that some on this forum have been, or they wouldn't report good outcomes - so check out the RTF's the participants went to.
I have no opinion on the reporter's story, since he may or may not have observed the real facts of the place.
Nice try, but if ya actually read the study with the care needed to glean a quote for yer point, you would have noticed that both authors are decidedly female, namely Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., and Kristin Satterfield, B.S.
That noted, let us continue...
- This "study," or survey, was performed on kids from nine Aspen programs, and the primary author is Ellen Behrens. Conflict of interest, perchance? Moreover, these programs are not inherently different from one another to any significant degree.
- The "study" assayed only two time points: at admission, and at discharge. In other words, the kids were basically still under the influence of the program. What would YOU say, when handed such an exit survey, if your answers could possibly result in continued time at this program or another?
- There was no control group. Moreover, there was no independent professional assessment of the parent and adolescent self-reports (e.g., by a psych professional not affiliated with the program). Moreover, the fact that kids generally grow up to a certain degree during said time period anyway, program or no program, was not factored into analysis of results.
- There is absolutely NO follow up data, which would certainly give a far more accurate reflection of the alleged "benefit" of these program experiences.
- This "study" is not peer-reviewed. It was presented at an APA meeting, and that was the end of its academic journey. Did ya ever stop to reflect on ... WHY? With all the expense entailed, you'd think Aspen would have at least tried to publish such a "plum," eh? Perhaps they did try. :D
What is actually being measured here is simply the kid's and his or her parents' perception of change between start of program and the conclusion of program, and while still on the program's turf. No more. And no less.
In fact, when all is said and done, the results say more about the folks who set up and conducted the so-called assay, then they do 'bout the subjects whose opinions were being collected.
-
Nice try (??) but the "he" I was referring to was the reporter that went to live at a treatment facility (the second link posted by Whooter.)
But back to the study... I don't know who Ellen Behrens is, but this evaluation was clearly conducted and written by a professional evaluator. (I recognize this from my own graduate studies in program evaluation and analysis.)
A comparison group is not necessary for this kind of impact evaluation. The research design and methods described are still solid - it is a non-experimental design evaluation with a pre-test and post-test. I agree that an additional later post-discharge analysis would be ideal, and so did the authors. Here is what the authors said:
"Future research in private residential treatment needs to address the question of post-discharge maintenance of treatment gains. The residential treatment literature indicates that a significant portion of adolescents who function well at discharge subsequently experience a decline when transferred to a lower level-of-care (Curry, 1991; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005). The second phase of this study will explore that issue using the private residential data of the present study as the point of comparison.
Private residential treatment research would also benefit from process-focused studies that
attempt to attribute change to specific components of treatment. Private residential care is so
multi-facetted and complex that it is less an intervention and more a “tapestry” of interventions
(Fahlberg, 1990). As such, attempts to tie program components to outcomes would have
profound clinical implications.
Whether in process or outcome studies, future research in private residential treatment should pay
attention to the role of three factors: the “trajectory of change”, family involvement, and
aftercare. "
I am guessing that later post-discharge surveys were not done because they are difficult to obtain. By the way, regarding the pre-tests post-tests here, credible researchers would administer the tests themselves and if that is not possible, would ensure that the integrity of the measures were maintained. I.e. nobody would be holding a stick (literally or figuratively) over the participants heads. And by the way, in this study the kids and their parents both reported improvement.
Are you sure this study was not peer-reviewed? In any case, it was certainly vetted if it was presented for 50 minutes at the APA convention.
I just think the study is interesting and would like to see more of this kind of thing.
-
this thread needs to be put down, in the same spirit as an old, sickly dog needs put down, it doesnt take some phd to see what is what here, what is that welldeservrd success? "rioting" and a pussy riot it was, what ? pissing off the facility's adjoining comunity? how is this bullshit success? Sorry I dont say this often, but this thread has provrd its point,and thusly, imho, out lived its purpose.(like nobody saw this coming) think twice,act once. The who is done here. next........
-
Love me, hate me ,or maybe see the truth I speak...... I dont care. If my program couldnt shut me up, your best bet is a big(178grain or up) bullet between the eyes. This shit needs to end(not fornits,the Idea that fuckers can keep doing this shit to kids) If I gotta do whatever,then try me.seriously ,charge me and lets see where it goes. cunts.I got big balls and not much to loose thse days.
-
Nice try (??) but the "he" I was referring to was the reporter that went to live at a treatment facility (the second link posted by Whooter.)
Sorry, I misread part of your post last night. I interpreted your last sentence as referring to the same subject matter as the rest of your post, namely, the so-called "independent study" of the topic title. I had NO idea you were addressing Whooter's previous post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32211&p=395819#p392315), point by point (or something akin to that).
-
@Ursus - No problem!
@ seamus - not sure what you are referring to, but I just read the original post and a few (not all) of the responses yesterday. Thought I would put in my 2 cents since this is an open forum.
-
:guesswho: :jerry: :jerry:
It's trying to establish a new identity. That didn't take long.