Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Aspen Education Group => Topic started by: Troll Control on July 30, 2010, 11:01:37 AM
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
Wow....so kids that truly needed help, not quack "therapy", didn't fare so well. Hmmmm. And why send a kid away if they're not in real trouble? Why were these kids that "had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a mood disorder," even there in the first place? Parents....do your damn job and quit farming it out to strangers!
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
These would be the ones to be more likely to report a positive outcome.
Think about the kids who had high levels of psycho-social symptoms, then add a mood disorder, then add a negative experience in the program along with parents who were not satisfied. They would be at the other end and would not be as likely to report a positive outcome.
So the further the child had to be brought along to get them into the "Normal" range the less likely they would be to succeed or report a favorable outcome.
...
-
I found this interesting:
The average length of stay was 8.6 months for those discharged with maximum benefit
and 6.5 months for who were discharged with partial benefit or against program advice. The
majority discharged with program approval: 53% with maximum benefit, 19% prematurely but
with approval, 15% against program advice, 8% needed treatment beyond the scope of the
program, and 3% “other” discharge status.
It shows that 8% of the children were discharged early because they needed help outside the scope of the program. I found this interesting because there was always this feeling that programs would keep kids even if they were not getting the help they needed or were not a good fit.
I think as screening processes improve they will be able to reduce the number od kids who are accepted and are not a good fit for the program.
This is one of the strengths of having studies done.
...
-
If you look at the data, the kids who had to be "brought further long" were dropped from the program or pulled by their parents because the level of care they were sold wasn't evident. This accounts for 26% of the kids surveyed. 3% also completed the program but got worse.
Only 31% (compared with 60-80% of those in traditional treatment who were diagnosed with real mental issues) showed statistically relevent improvement (2 standard deviations of self-reported change) and those kids were the one's without any real problems. 97% had a primary presenting problem of "rule breaking."
In other words, these kids never needed to be placed. Aspen's "success rate" is two and a half times lower than traditional treatment even though the vast majority of the kids had no real issues (74%).
Aspen got rid of the kids with real problems (8%) and kept the ones who were easy to deal with, even though most didn't need to be there (74%). So they do keep kids that don't need to be there at all, provided they don't require any help and they just collect the checks.
-
The majority of adolescents were treated for multiple problems (85.5%). The most frequent treatment foci were disruptive
behavior disorders (44%), substance use disorders (36%), and mood disorder (31%) (percentages
did not total 100% because participants could have more than one problem).
So 85.5% of the kids were there for multiple reasons and 8% of the kids the program felt would not be successful and they were discharged early.
...
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
Wow....so kids that truly needed help, not quack "therapy", didn't fare so well. Hmmmm. And why send a kid away if they're not in real trouble? Why were these kids that "had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a mood disorder," even there in the first place? Parents....do your damn job and quit farming it out to strangers!
Yep, you hit it on the head, Anne.
-
I found this interesting. The kids with the lower grade point averages (had greater behavioral issues) but managed to improve to the same levels as those with less externalized behavior issues by the time they were discharged.
These analyses suggest adolescents with low grade point averages reportedly had a
relatively higher amount of externalizing behavior at admission, coupled with a greater degree of
change on externalizing behavior during treatment, leading them to discharge with externalizing
scores within the normal range and comparable to those with high grade point averages.
...
-
I found this (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30873) interesting.
More evidence that this report is just for marketing purposes. 31% success rate is not very impressive either.
-
I found this (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30873) interesting.
More evidence that this report is just for marketing purposes. 31% success rate is not very impressive either.
31% wouldnt be, I think we agree, but the 60-80% that these programs see as success rates is pretty good.
check out the study:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
I found this (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30873) interesting.
More evidence that this report is just for marketing purposes. 31% success rate is not very impressive either.
This thread is about Behrens' study. You keep referencing a group of studies by other researchers. Start a new thread if you want and post their work. Here we're talking about Behrens and Aspen. What are you trying to hide by not using proper attribution to the authors, Whooter? Even Behrens cited them properly, but not you. :beat:
You can comment on this (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30873) if you like. It's right on topic. But you probably won't, lols.
-
Along with the 60-80% success rate:
The majority of adolescents were treated for multiple problems (85.5%). The most frequent treatment foci were disruptive
behavior disorders (44%), substance use disorders (36%), and mood disorder (31%) (percentages
did not total 100% because participants could have more than one problem).
So 85.5% of the kids were there for multiple reasons and 8% of the kids the program felt would not be successful and they were discharged early.
...
-
Whooter,
Glad to see you back at work, hope you have a successful day. Stay out of the pot holes.
danny
-
It appears that more girls recovered to the normal range than boys did. Take a look:
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.
...
-
Along with the 60-80% success rate:
...
Why do you keep lying, Whooter? Just because you lost the argument doesn't mean you should baltantly lie to try to cover up that fact.
60-80% success rate is not part of Behrens' work. It's from other studies she referenced done by other researchers. Why do you fail to cite this properly, Whooter? Why do you mix this in with Behrens' work as if it is hers?
You are really desperate at this point. That fiduciary interest in Aspen must be weighing heavy on you now since the programs Behrens studied have been charged with abuse and killing kids and the Ed Cons are onto the scam and cutting off referrals.
-
Let me illustrate Whooter's big lie here real quick. He keeps claiming 60-80% success rates of "programs" in the Behrens work but those figures come from other researchers unaffiliated with Behrens or Aspen programs. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
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).
Notice the researchers are Curry, Curtis, Epstein, Hair and Wells.
What did these people study?
One issue with this body
of literature pertains to the samples, which were drawn primarily from public residential
treatment programs (Curtis, Alexander, & Longhofer, 2001; Hair, 2005). Public residential
treatment clients are typically referred thru public avenues (juvenile justice system, child
protection agencies, or public mental health systems) (Curtis, et. al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair2005) and funded with public money
60-80% success rates are associated with publicly funded treatment where clients come from juvenile justice, child protection agencies and public mental health avenues. What these researchers studied has nothing whatsoever to do with the "parent choice TTI industry" of which Aspen Education is a part.
Whooter is intentionally lying to try to make this look like the data refer to Aspen programs which were studied by Behrens. He lost the argument, so now he just spam-trolls with blatant, provable lies. Behrens showed Aspen had only a 31% success rate. Whooter desperately wants to cover this up and conflate the studies.
What does that tell you about the data from Aspen programs which he is trying to hide? Hmmm....
-
lol, this study really gets to you. I am the only one supporting my posts with links.
Here lets take another look:
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.
So we can see 66 -78% success by this measurement alone.
I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Let me illustrate Whooter's big lie here real quick. He keeps claiming 60-80% success rates of "programs" in the Behrens work but those figures come from other researchers unaffiliated with Behrens or Aspen programs. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
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).
Notice the researchers are Curry, Curtis, Epstein, Hair and Wells.
What did these people study?
One issue with this body
of literature pertains to the samples, which were drawn primarily from public residential
treatment programs (Curtis, Alexander, & Longhofer, 2001; Hair, 2005). Public residential
treatment clients are typically referred thru public avenues (juvenile justice system, child
protection agencies, or public mental health systems) (Curtis, et. al., 2001; Epstein, 2004; Hair2005) and funded with public money
60-80% success rates are associated with publicly funded treatment where clients come from juvenile justice, child protection agencies and public mental health avenues. What these researchers studied has nothing whatsoever to do with the "parent choice TTI industry" of which Aspen Education is a part.
Whooter is intentionally lying to try to make this look like the data refer to Aspen programs which were studied by Behrens. He lost the argument, so now he just spam-trolls with blatant, provable lies. Behrens showed Aspen had only a 31% success rate. Whooter desperately wants to cover this up and conflate the studies.
What does that tell you about the data from Aspen programs which he is trying to hide? Hmmm....
I think everyone sees the lies you've been telling here and your credibility is so bad that everyone just now assumes you're making it all up and skip your posts.
-
lol, this study really gets to you. I am the only one supporting my posts with links.
Here lets take another look:
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.
So we can see 66 -78% success by this measurement alone.
I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
:rofl:
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
Wow....so kids that truly needed help, not quack "therapy", didn't fare so well. Hmmmm. And why send a kid away if they're not in real trouble? Why were these kids that "had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a mood disorder," even there in the first place? Parents....do your damn job and quit farming it out to strangers!
Yes, plus these strangers keep getting charged with child abuse and shut down. There has never been any follow up either.
-
lol, this study really gets to you. I am the only one supporting my posts with links.
Here lets take another look:
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population.
So we can see 66 -78% success by this measurement alone.
I see this as consistent with the 60-80% success rates of Residential Treatments in previous studies.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
The majority (89%) reported symptoms at discharge that
qualify them as “recovered”, because scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw score 45). Eightynine
percent of male adolescents exceeded cut-off scores on both measures of clinical
significance suggesting that the reported change in symptoms was both of sufficient quantity and
quality that it is considered clinically meaningful.
Furthermore, 89% of the parents of female adolescents reported
discharge symptoms that qualify as “recovered” because scores exceed the cut-off score (raw
score 45). Combining the criteria, 89% of parents of adolescent females reported a change in
symptoms that was suggestive of recovery and reliable change.
wow!! 89%
Where is the link? Oh No!!! lol
Here it is:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
:feedtrolls: :spam: :roflmao:
If all you can do is make up "data" and spam-troll you've got problems. Where have we seen this before (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=16007)?
-
:feedtrolls: :spam: :roflmao:
If all you can do is make up "data" and spam-troll you've got problems. Where have we seen this before (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=16007)?
Ha,Ha,Ha I supplied a link with each post... read 'em and weep.
I think you should go back to the abuse angle, DJ, the study facts wont change.
...
-
Unfortunately, the link points right to all the lies you've been telling about the paper, too. I think we all have seen your desperation to support these child abusers due to your fiduciary interest in Aspen education. Just click the link in my signature to see Whooter admit he's in it for the money. He's rabid now because even Ed Cons have stopped referring to Aspen because of Bain Capital's fiduciary interest in Aspen that drives a "only profit matters" plan at Aspen.
-
Unfortunately, the link points right to all the lies you've been telling about the paper, too. I think we all have seen your desperation to support these child abusers due to your fiduciary interest in Aspen education. Just click the link in my signature to see Whooter admit he's in it for the money. He's rabid now because even Ed Cons have stopped referring to Aspen because of Bain Capital's fiduciary interest in Aspen that drives a "only profit matters" plan at Aspen.
Oh no, DJ is mad and now I have Fiduciary interests in Aspen Education!
lol... So lets conclude that Residential Studies run between 60 - 80% effective and the Behrens study showed us (in one result area) to be between 66 - 78% effective Aspen Schools.
Look at Page 9 of the Study:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population
...
-
"In Phase One, we collected data surrounding admission, discharge, how the children functioned and how they changed during and immediately after treatment," Ellen explained. "In Phase Two, we are looking at the student's progress for up to a year after leaving the program and how it differs from their functioning at the time of discharge. The first Phase explores whether residential treatment works in both the kids and parent's opinion. The next question in Phase Two, which will be released in the first quarter of 2007, is does it last? In other words, do the changes during treatment get better, stay the same, get worse or lose their power after discharge?"
I think people would be hard pressed to show a study of people's opinions is scientifically valid or clinical. This is why this study was never peer reviewed or published.
Interestingly, "phase 2" was said to be completed in 2007. It has never been released. It was supposed to measure if the changes reported in parents' and kids' opinion surveys were lasting or not. It looks like they didn't get the results they were looking for and decided just to dump the project and never mention it again.
This silence about a highly touted, widely hyped follow up speaks volumes about what they found. It has been over three years since the research was complete, but they didn't publish a word of it. Hmmmm...Must not have been supportive of their predrawn conclusions, even after they scrubbed the data of anything that might make the outcome look worse:
"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."
Even though the data was rigged, it still didn't look good for Aspen, so they shitcanned the second phase that woud show the changes reported didn't last even a year.
This isn't how studies are supposed to work. They're not supposed to have conclusions before they begin. This was a marketing tool that backfired.
-
Oh no, the Study was a failure according to DJ! Someone let the APA know and the Review board who oversaw the study.
lol... So lets conclude that Residential Studies run between 60 - 80% effective and the Behrens study showed us (in one result area) to be between 66 - 78% effective Aspen Schools.
Look at Page 9 of the Study:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
The majority of male adolescents (66%) reported symptoms at
discharge that qualified them as “recovered” because their scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw
score 44). In other words, by the point of discharge the majority of males reported symptoms that
were more comparable to the normal population than to the clinical population
...
-
Epic lulz... Where's that PHASE TWO, Whooter?
Putting kids into programs makes them worse, according to actual researchers using proper methodology and a control group, unlike Behrens:
The finding that affiliation with deviant peers is associated with increased delinquent behavior is supported in much of the literature on juvenile delinquency (Gifford-Smith et al., 2005). There is a growing consensus regarding the negative impact of treating homogenous groups of youths manifesting antisocial or delinquent behavior (Hoag & Burlingame, 1997). There have been several reports in the literature supporting the potential harmfulness of group intervention for youth manifesting antisocial behavior.
The Cambridge-Somerville Youth study, conducted in the 1940s, used a comprehensive approach to crime prevention. The investigators assigned “delinquency prone” and “average” boys to both the experimental treatment and control groups. Treatment consisted of counseling and social services for five years. An evaluation conducted shortly after the completion of the program failed to find differences between the treated and untreated boys (Powers & Witmer, 1951).
However, 30 years later, further examination of the data indicated statistically significant negative effects reported in boys in the treatment group (McCord, 1978). These findings of clinically induced negative effects associated with peer aggregation were interpreted as causal and not merely correlational (Dishion et al., 2002). Ang and Hughes (2001) performed a meta-analysis of studies of social skills training with antisocial youth. Groups comprised only of antisocial peers produced smaller benefits compared to groups comprised of a mixture of prosocial and antisocial youth. Delinquent youths are reluctant to replace their belief system and behavior with a pro-social set, which creates a therapeutic challenge.
Ang and Hughes (2001) emphasized the higher reinforcement generated by antisocial behavior as compared to prosocial behavior for homogenous groups of antisocial youths. These results might also be partially explained by other findings. Dodge and colleagues (1995) reported that youths who lack social skills fail to identify and attend to social cues from others (i.e., social-information processing theory). It also has been noted that boys who have disruptive behavior disorders often manifest difficulties encoding social cues, generating appropriate responses, and more often, selected aggressive responses to social problem-solving. Another reason for these findings might be attributed to the reinforcing effects of a process referred to as “deviancy training” characterized by positive affective reactions to rule-break talk (Dishion et al., 1999). These investigators focused on preventive interventions for pre- and early adolescence aged youth who were at risk for substance use but had not yet developed SUD. They reported an increase in negative behavior and outcomes in groups for adolescents compared to the control conditions or with a condition that targeted parents only (Dishion et al., 2002; Poulin et al., 2001). Direct observations of deviancy training were associated with escalation in substance use, delinquency, and violent behavior in adolescence (Dishion et al., 1995; Poulin et al., 1999).
This data is precisely why Aspen and Behrens never reported the findings of phase two. Those kids got worse and Aspen didn't want anyone to know. Even after cherry-picking the kids and scrubbing the data of all who "failed" at Aspen, they still couldn't rig it enough to publish.
-
The “typical” client in the programs is a white, upper-middle to upper-class,
16 year old male or female with prior treatment failures, who is functioning below average
academically and has multiple psycho-social problems. The most common problems treated are
disruptive behavior, substance use, and mood disorders. Most adolescents do not have a legal
record.
...
-
Whooter, show us the follow up report from phase two. How did these kids do one year out? More "treatment failures"?
-
Epic lulz... Where's that PHASE TWO, Whooter?
Putting kids into programs makes them worse, according to actual researchers using proper methodology and a control group, unlike Behrens:
The finding that affiliation with deviant peers is associated with increased delinquent behavior is supported in much of the literature on juvenile delinquency (Gifford-Smith et al., 2005). There is a growing consensus regarding the negative impact of treating homogenous groups of youths manifesting antisocial or delinquent behavior (Hoag & Burlingame, 1997). There have been several reports in the literature supporting the potential harmfulness of group intervention for youth manifesting antisocial behavior.
You are quoting studies (with no links) about kids who are delinquents. You are mixing up the demographics. Your typical kid who attends an Aspen Program does not have a record. Here is a description:
The “typical” client in the programs is a white, upper-middle to upper-class,
16 year old male or female with prior treatment failures, who is functioning below average
academically and has multiple psycho-social problems. The most common problems treated are
disruptive behavior, substance use, and mood disorders. Most adolescents do not have a legal
record.
...
-
Those studies say that aggregating deviant teens increases delinquency. Probably a lot of those kids in Behrens' study ended up in jail after the program.
Where's that follow up that was finished in 2007? I'd like to see those results.
-
Those studies say that aggregating deviant teens increases delinquency. Probably a lot of those kids in Behrens' study ended up in jail after the program.
Where's that follow up that was finished in 2007? I'd like to see those results.
Thats better. You really cant compare the two. The majority of kids in Aspen Programs never went to jail/juvy and most 80%+? ( I think) had failed previous treatment of some type locally prior to being placed. If we compared the kids who left the program to those in a normal cross section of teens it would be interesting to see if they remained normal or had deviated from the norm as far as delinquency goes (got better or worse or remained the same).
...
-
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
How about that 2007 data from the follow up? I'm sure it proves your point, right? Why not put it out there for all to see? Is it because those kids still ahd an 80% treatment failure rate? I bet it is. But you'll post it and let us know.
-
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
The control group could be the 1,000 kids in this study and they could compare this to a typical cross section of teens to see how they compare.
...
-
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
How about that 2007 data from the follow up? I'm sure it proves your point, right? Why not put it out there for all to see? Is it because those kids still ahd an 80% treatment failure rate? I bet it is. But you'll post it and let us know.
You didn't respond about the 2007 data.
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
The control group could be the 1,000 kids in this study and they could compare this to a typical cross section of teens to see how they compare.
Also, I thought you said you understood studies. The "1000 kids" in this study can't be a control, because they are the experimental group. You should know that. You'd need 1000 kids that didn't go to programs as the control. Your lack of basic understanding of control and experimental groups casts a large shadow on your credibility on this topic.
2007 follow up data? How did the experimental group do one year out?
-
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
How about that 2007 data from the follow up? I'm sure it proves your point, right? Why not put it out there for all to see? Is it because those kids still ahd an 80% treatment failure rate? I bet it is. But you'll post it and let us know.
You didn't respond about the 2007 data.
Yeah, but that would require what's called a "control group" which this study didn't have.
The control group could be the 1,000 kids in this study and they could compare this to a typical cross section of teens to see how they compare.
Also, I thought you said you understood studies. The "1000 kids" in this study can't be a control, because they are the experimental group. You should know that. You'd need 1000 kids that didn't go to programs as the control. Your lack of basic understanding of control and experimental groups casts a large shadow on your credibility on this topic.
2007 follow up data? How did the experimental group do one year out?
Nice try DJ, what I am saying is take the 1,000 kids (From this study) that are known to have graduated from a program and then compare them to the average cross section of teenagers. We could see if the kids from a program did better or worse than the average kid who never went to a program.
I think the results would be interesting to most people.
...
-
Maybe so, but your calling an experimental group a "control group" highlights your ignorance on the topic of studies and shows you can't be relied upon for factual data about them. People should have healthy doubt when reading your posts about studies and how they work.
Well, that, plus this (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=23299&p=283976&hilit=+fiduciary#p283976).
-
Maybe so, but your calling an experimental group a "control group" highlights your ignorance on the topic of studies and shows you can't be relied upon for factual data about them. People should have healthy doubt when reading your posts about studies and how they work.
Well, that, plus this (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=23299&p=283976&hilit=+fiduciary#p283976).
Ha,Ha,Ha sorry to put your nose out of joint, DJ... up comes the fiduciary post!! lol
You do have a difficult time discussing these items. If you don't feel it would be an interesting study just say so. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, its healthy and promotes discussion. You dont have to take every position so personally.
Just say you disagree with me.. its okay.
...
-
I do disagree with almost everything you say, but I feel it should be pointed out who butters your bread.
Also, you clearly, demonstrably have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to studies. You don't even know the difference between control groups and experimental groups and you were saying last week that regulation on human studies applied to high school exams and not research. You just have no idea.
On top of that, you're in the tank for Aspen. Your compulsiveness and rabidity here show that. You'll do or say anything, regardless of how stupid it is, to cover up Aspen's abuse and the fact that their research is a crock of shit - unpublished, unreviewed, no follow up and Aspen PAID to present it the APA which specifically doesn't endorse presenters.
People should know they're dealing with a sheister when they interact with you. That's all I'm saying. You made this reputation for yourself and you get mad when people point it out. But it's your fault you said and did these things.
-
I do disagree with almost everything you say, but I feel it should be pointed out who butters your bread.
Also, you clearly, demonstrably have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to studies. You don't even know the difference between control groups and experimental groups and you were saying last week that regulation on human studies applied to high school exams and not research. You just have no idea.
On top of that, you're in the tank for Aspen. Your compulsiveness and rabidity here show that. You'll do or say anything, regardless of how stupid it is, to cover up Aspen's abuse and the fact that their research is a crock of shit - unpublished, unreviewed, no follow up and Aspen PAID to present it the APA which specifically doesn't endorse presenters.
People should know they're dealing with a sheister when they interact with you. That's all I'm saying. You made this reputation for yourself and you get mad when people point it out. But it's your fault you said and did these things.
Wow, calm down, DJ, its just a discussion. You run around accusing me of working for Aspen just because I am defending a study that has been released. lol
You pointed out that you disagree with me and that is okay. You don't need to throw a fit, its unprofessional. Dont take it so hard, you have brought up some valid points. Like where is the follow-up study? That was a good point that you brought up and worth discussing but you dont have to get mad at me over it. I dont have control over whether the studies are released or not and I am willing to discuss the possible reason with you.
Lets get back on topic if you like and talk about the type of kids that succeeded in this study.
...
-
You know Whooter's getting hammered when he accuses people of "throwing fits". It's just what he does.
-
Exactly, Pile. I'm as calm as can be. I have no need to get riled up. Whooter's ricebowl is getting broken so he's desperate to change the subject and make it about me. He's the one who admitted a fiduciary interest in Aspen Education and he gets upset when people point it out. If he didn't want it to come back up, he should have never said it. But he did. And now he can't be believed on subjects like this.
-
Here is another snippet:
Of the 203 female adolescents who completed the YSR at admission and discharge, 90% reported
some degree or amount of symptom reduction. Of that, 48% reported improvement that exceeds
the cut-off for reliable change (>29 raw score points) and 42% reported improvement below the
cut-off for reliable change (<29 raw score points).
Page 9 again:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
And now he's reduced to throwing out quotes from a "study" that was already thoroughly debunked.
The thing can say whatever it wants. It's not scientific, never was peer reviewed, relied on self-reporting, excluded portions of what would have been the sample, and the promised follow-up was simply never done. If you like, we can throw quotes from the Eddas at you to tell you all about how the world is grown from the tree Yggdrasil. It has exactly as much scientific weight.
-
So again Whooter's admitting only 48% success (this is for girls, BTW - only 31% for boys, a similar sample to other research which showed more than double the success rate) while public programs show 60-80% success maintained over the follow up period of a clinical longitudinal study.
This study has no follow up, is not clinical, no control group, no data acquired outside of program walls. Even with all of this data scrubbing and faulty methodology, it's still far less successful than public programs right out of the box, not to mention a year or more out.
-
So again Whooter's admitting only 48% success (this is for girls, BTW - only 31% for boys, a similar sample to other research which showed more than double the success rate) while public programs show 60-80% success maintained over the follow up period of a clinical longitudinal study.
This study has no follow up, is not clinical, no control group, no data acquired outside of program walls. Even with all of this data scrubbing and faulty methodology, it's still far less successful than public programs right out of the box, not to mention a year or more out.
Hmmmm.......Combining these criteria, 78% of adolescent females
reported a change in symptoms that was consistent with recovery and reliable change.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Whooter you're an ed con. WOW!!! I didn't know that! How many children are you responsible for placing in programs?
-
Great question.
-
Take a look at the males in the study and they were a little lower:
Combining the reliability and recovery scores statistically, 66% of adolescent males reported a change in
symptoms that was both of sufficient quantity and quality that it was considered clinically
meaningful or clinically significant.
Page 9
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
And now he's reduced to throwing out quotes from a "study" that was already thoroughly debunked.
The thing can say whatever it wants. It's not scientific, never was peer reviewed, relied on self-reporting, excluded portions of what would have been the sample, and the promised follow-up was simply never done. If you like, we can throw quotes from the Edda's at you to tell you all about how the world is grown from the tree Yggdrasil. It has exactly as much scientific weight.
poop......
-
Whooter you're an ed con. WOW!!! I didn't know that! How many children are you responsible for placing in programs?
Inartfully dodged...
-
He is affiliated with Lon Woodbury. WOW!!!
-
And now he's reduced to throwing out quotes from a "study" that was already thoroughly debunked.
The thing can say whatever it wants. It's not scientific, never was peer reviewed, relied on self-reporting, excluded portions of what would have been the sample, and the promised follow-up was simply never done. If you like, we can throw quotes from the Eddas at you to tell you all about how the world is grown from the tree Yggdrasil. It has exactly as much scientific weight.
I would love to make babies with you under the "world tree" and have you quote Edda to me. We will create scientific weight.
-
And now he's reduced to throwing out quotes from a "study" that was already thoroughly debunked.
The thing can say whatever it wants. It's not scientific, never was peer reviewed, relied on self-reporting, excluded portions of what would have been the sample, and the promised follow-up was simply never done. If you like, we can throw quotes from the Eddas at you to tell you all about how the world is grown from the tree Yggdrasil. It has exactly as much scientific weight.
I would love to make babies with you under the "world tree" and have you quote Edda to me. We will create scientific weight.
Is this Danny 1, 2 or 3? :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
Easy with the trolling, Danny. We have a topic here.
-
And now he's reduced to throwing out quotes from a "study" that was already thoroughly debunked.
The thing can say whatever it wants. It's not scientific, never was peer reviewed, relied on self-reporting, excluded portions of what would have been the sample, and the promised follow-up was simply never done. If you like, we can throw quotes from the Eddas at you to tell you all about how the world is grown from the tree Yggdrasil. It has exactly as much scientific weight.
I would love to make babies with you under the "world tree" and have you quote Edda to me. We will create scientific weight.
Is this Danny 1, 2 or 3? :roflmao: :roflmao:
I was asked to stop spamming and I will respect that wish.
-
Thanks, bro. Much appreciated. Back to the topic at hand...
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
-
Yep, we have heard that before. Give spammy Danny twenty minutes he'll be at it again. WOW!!!
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
I think this is a really good point.
Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released. The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).... the ones with the more difficult issues have a lower likelihood of succeeding.
...
-
Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.
Why would they be accepted in the first place? Just to collect a few checks until they become a handful? Why no screening of placements?
Also, Ms. Behrens released them from her data sample as well in order to scrub the results clean. Not exactly the way scientists behave, eh? No wonder this work was never reviewed or published.
-
Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.
Why would they be accepted in the first place? Just to collect a few checks until they become a handful? Why no screening of placements?
Also, Ms. Behrens released them from her data sample as well in order to scrub the results clean. Not exactly the way scientists behave, eh? No wonder this work was never reviewed or published.
good question. They lose money on the kids they place and then end up leaving. When a kid enters a program they budget and project earnings based on a 12 to 16 month stay and if the kid leaves then they realize a financial loss.
They screen the kids the best they can. My daughter was required to be tested prior to acceptance and sometimes they just mis diagnose kids. The kid enters the program and just doesn't fit in. Instead of keeping the kid on and collecting money from the parents they release him back. Its the right thing to do in my opinion.
I think the study was clear that they didn't include these kids in the data set. The reason they note it is so people can understand the population which was studied. If they included the kids that were released then that would be noted also.
If they can improve on their acceptance criteria and reduce their rejection rate well below 8% they would be more efficient as a program.
...
-
Just to be clear, 8% is not a "rejection rate." It's the percentage of kids that they willingly accept and then later can't handle.
I also disagree that they lose money on these kids. They're clocking over $5k/month per kid and not even providing treatment. That's $5k or more per month for babysitting and/or locking up kids. So even if they pay some cromagnon staff member $25k/per year, they'd make out like a bandit even if they had to use one on one enforcement techniques.
Plus, you claim their budget numbers infer that the kids will be there 12-16 months, but even this crappy study shows they only average 8.6 months - almost no kids stay for the time Aspen wants them to stay.
They obviously know this, so it appears they're taking inappropriate placements to make up for losses.
-
Just to be clear, 8% is not a "rejection rate." It's the percentage of kids that they willingly accept and then later can't handle.
I also disagree that they lose money on these kids. They're clocking over $5k/month per kid and not even providing treatment. That's $5k or more per month for babysitting and/or locking up kids. So even if they pay some cromagnon staff member $25k/per year, they'd make out like a bandit even if they had to use one on one enforcement techniques.
Plus, you claim their budget numbers infer that the kids will be there 12-16 months, but even this crappy study shows they only average 8.6 months - almost no kids stay for the time Aspen wants them to stay.
They obviously know this, so it appears they're taking inappropriate placements to make up for losses.
I call it "Rejection rate" and/or "fall out". I understand you disagree, and thats okay, but I see it as a loss. Anytime you take on a commitment for 8 months or 16 months (depending on the program) and the child stays less it is a loss and missed opportunity.
If for example they have an open bed and just want to fill it for a few months and take a parents money, well then that would not be a loss. But any business plan would reject this , they would want to contract , lay off some staff and moth ball the bed rather than fill it for a few weeks.. especially with a kid that doesn’t fit in and may be disruptive.
The ideal situation is to properly screen the children and parents for those who will fill a peer group and run the full time. This way they can predict their expenses and staff payroll.
...
-
That's funny. Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...
Mothball an empty bed? You're unhinged. The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs." I've heard this verbatim many times. Empty beds means empty accounts. That's definitley not how they operate.
The ideal situation is to properly screen the children and parents for those who will fill a peer group and run the full time.
Unfortunately I've seen that this is not remotely true. They want the kids to be in a "forming" peer group as long as possible so they can tell the parents they haven't started the program yet and that it will be few extra months until they finish it.
-
That's funny. Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...
Mothball an empty bed? You're unhinged. The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs." I've heard this verbatim many times. Empty beds means empty accounts. That's definitley not how they operate.
Its okay if you disagree,DJ, I happen to know differently. This may have been the way in the programs you worked in.
I have seen the screening process and seen kids being rejected and the program moved forward with a lighter peer group. They could have easily accepted one of those other kids for a few months until they filled the slot, but they didnt.
...
-
That's funny. Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...
Mothball an empty bed? You're unhinged. The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs." I've heard this verbatim many times. Empty beds means empty accounts. That's definitley not how they operate.
Its okay if you disagree,DJ, I happen to know differently. This may have been the way in the programs you worked in.
I have seen the screening process and seen kids being rejected and the program moved forward with a lighter peer group. They could have easily accepted one of those other kids for a few months until they filled the slot, but they didnt.
And, finally, once again, the truth comes out.
Now where would Whooter, "Just a regular parent with no ties to the TTI," have seen the internal screening processes and selection cycles of programs? How could he have been in the room when children were being evaluated, and seen the selection deliberations, I wonder?
Wow. Stunning admission there. You can hear him saying "It might have been that way in programs you worked for DJ, but not the ones I work for. Bravo.
Quoted For Truth, too. That closes that issue. Whooter admits working for programs.
-
That's funny. Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...
Mothball an empty bed? You're unhinged. The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs." I've heard this verbatim many times. Empty beds means empty accounts. That's definitley not how they operate.
Its okay if you disagree,DJ, I happen to know differently. This may have been the way in the programs you worked in.
I have seen the screening process and seen kids being rejected and the program moved forward with a lighter peer group. They could have easily accepted one of those other kids for a few months until they filled the slot, but they didnt.
And, finally, once again, the truth comes out.
Now where would Whooter, "Just a regular parent with no ties to the TTI," have seen the internal screening processes and selection cycles of programs? How could he have been in the room when children were being evaluated, and seen the selection deliberations, I wonder?
Wow. Stunning admission there. You can hear him saying "It might have been that way in programs you worked for DJ, but not the ones I work for. Bravo.
Quoted For Truth, too. That closes that issue. Whooter admits working for programs.
lol, Jeesh, DJ, you really do have a thing for this whole Aspen employee spin. I have explained this before. There were a few kids at SUWS with my daughter who didnt get into ASR. I spoke with the admissions director to ask if my daughter was accepted and how they determine this... long story short they dont accept kids if they dont think they will make the full term or have a history of violence etc. As it turns out the peer group my daughter was in moved forward with 2 people short (2 empty beds).
So I know first hand how their screening process works.
-
Pure, unadulterated bologna. You got pinched. Took you a long time to slip up again since the "fiduciary duty" admission. Yeah, maybe once is a mistake, but twice is a pattern...
-
Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.
Why would they be accepted in the first place? Just to collect a few checks until they become a handful? Why no screening of placements?
Also, Ms. Behrens released them from her data sample as well in order to scrub the results clean. Not exactly the way scientists behave, eh? No wonder this work was never reviewed or published.
You raise a good question. They lose money on the kids they place and then end up leaving. When a kid enters a program they budget and project earnings based on a 12 to 16 month stay and if the kid leaves then they realize a financial loss.
They screen the kids the best they can. My daughter was required to be tested prior to acceptance and sometimes they just mis diagnose kids. The kid enters the program and just doesn't fit in. Instead of keeping the kid on and collecting money from the parents they release him back. Its the right thing to do in my opinion.
I think the study clearly spelled out the areas that didn't include these kids in the data set. The reason they note it is so people can understand the population which was studied. If they included the kids that were released then that would be noted also. You need to read the tables carefully to understand which kids were included.
I think we can all agree, from a business standpoint, that if a program can improve on their acceptance criteria and reduce their rejection rate well below 8% they would be more efficient as a program.
...
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
-
What they actually get from here that have to considered.Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.
-
What they actually get from here that have to considered.Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.
Being released is not good for the schools success rate. That is why the schools are getting more and more picky on who they accept into the program. The better schools chose kids which they feel will succeed, move on to college etc. Most schools dont want to take kids who are violent, low IQ, or have mental disorders because that will hurt their success rate and loser their chances of attracting the more affluent families who pay out of pocket with kids who have a higher chance of succeeding.
...
-
Several of these programs now take kids straight from courts and jails. They are far less picky than they used to be because they are going under and getting shut down for abuse pretty often now. Ridge Creek is a recent example that takes both severely disturbed and criminal youths.
-
Several of these programs now take kids straight from courts and jails. They are far less picky than they used to be because they are going under and getting shut down for abuse pretty often now. Ridge Creek is a recent example that takes both severely disturbed and criminal youths.
Someone has to take these kids. These programs need to invest more in oversight, medication and discipline than they do academics. Whereas the schools which take kids who are not violent can allocate more funds towards academics and less to oversight. So I think we need to look at each program individually.
...
-
Ridge Creek School takes criminal and disturbed kids. It says it's a school just like the ones you are talking about. They will generally take any kid whose parents can pay.
-
Ridge Creek School takes criminal and disturbed kids. It says it's a school just like the ones you are talking about. They will generally take any kid whose parents can pay.
I think the state defines them as taking mentally disturbed kids. Even the kids whose parents pay out of pocket are violent offenders. They recently had two girls who attacked a staff person, stole a car etc. There are many programs which will not take these kinds of kids. Places like this need to allocate more towards security and less towards academics if this is the type of kids they are going to attract.
...
-
Most of these "schools" take violent and disturbed kids. Some say they don't, but they do.
-
Most of these "schools" take violent and disturbed kids. Some say they don't, but they do.
I disagree, most schools are very selective on which type of kids they take. Typically the schools which take the more violent kids tend to take kids from the state also. The better schools can afford to be a bit more choosy and take only non violent kids and still fill their beds with clientele who pay out of pocket.
...
-
Any evidence to support this statement? Your word is no good here so you'll have to provide some proof. No offense, but you do work for a program.
-
Any evidence to support this statement? Your word is no good here so you'll have to provide some proof. No offense, but you do work for a program.
What I typically do is to just not believe the source or look it up myself. Its a discussion, DJ, you dont have to believe all or any of what I say and I can discard what you say. This is one of the strengths of an open forum. I am sorry that you are taking every post so pesonally, try to enjoy the discussion.
...
-
Ok. You just made it up. So long as we know it. Thanks.
-
Ok. You just made it up. So long as we know it. Thanks.
No tantrums, DJ, I just happen to disagree with your stated opinions on certain issues, don't take it so personally.
...
-
Still no evidence, I see. As long as we all know you just fabricated the information we can move forward with the discussion knowing that.
-
Here is another fact:
Of the 155 males who completed the YSR at admission and discharge, 81% of
adolescent males reported some amount or degree of symptom reduction.
Page 9 :
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting. Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.
-
These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.
Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.
The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.
So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).
Kids with severe problems do not do very well in therapeutic boarding schools, if the schools can do a better job screening the kids prior to acceptance we will see these success rates go from the present 86% up into the 90% level. This would benefit the children and the parents.
...
-
If you look at the data, the kids who had to be "brought further long" were dropped from the program or pulled by their parents because the level of care they were sold wasn't evident. This accounts for 26% of the kids surveyed. 3% also completed the program but got worse.
Only 31% (compared with 60-80% of those in traditional treatment who were diagnosed with real mental issues) showed statistically relevent improvement (2 standard deviations of self-reported change) and those kids were the one's without any real problems. 97% had a primary presenting problem of "rule breaking."
In other words, these kids never needed to be placed. Aspen's "success rate" is two and a half times lower than traditional treatment even though the vast majority of the kids had no real issues (74%).
Aspen got rid of the kids with real problems (8%) and kept the ones who were easy to deal with, even though most didn't need to be there (74%). So they do keep kids that don't need to be there at all, provided they don't require any help and they just collect the checks.
Very interesting revelations when you start to drill down into the reported data.
-
I agree, if they can do a better jog screening these kids during acceptance they can raise the success rate from about 86% (presently) to well into the 90% range.
The next decade should be exciting.
...
-
Anyway, it's interesting to see if you Google "Behrens study" the number one return is "Programs In Behrens Study Charged with Abuse".
It's important to search the topic and see for yourself parents. Whatever the results of this work are spun to be, some of the programs that were studied were charged with abuse or even shut down for child deaths at the facility. The program "family" that was studied, Aspen Education Group, admitted openly in court that they do not provide therapy of any kind as a defense to HIPAA violations.
Check it out for yourself. Google it.
-
It's important to search the topic and see for yourself parents.
I think we agree here, DJ. Here is a link for the parents to take a look at:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
I noticed that study is posted only on Aspen Ed marketing sites. It doesn't appear in any reputable publications anywhere on the 'net. It was never peer reviewed or published either. It's a marketing tool. And some of the programs in it were charged with abuse and shut down.
See the truth for yourself. (http://http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS312US312&q=behrens+study)
-
The links I provided go directly to an independent site. There is no marketing involved. The study was presented to the APA.
...
-
I noticed that study is posted only on Aspen Ed marketing sites. It doesn't appear in any reputable publications anywhere on the 'net. It was never peer reviewed or published either. It's a marketing tool. And some of the programs in it were charged with abuse and shut down.
See the truth for yourself. (http://http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS312US312&q=behrens+study)
Just Google it for the truth is all I'm saying.
-
I noticed that study is posted only on Aspen Ed marketing sites. It doesn't appear in any reputable publications anywhere on the 'net. It was never peer reviewed or published either. It's a marketing tool. And some of the programs in it were charged with abuse and shut down.
See the truth for yourself. (http://http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS312US312&q=behrens+study)
Just Google it for the truth is all I'm saying.
I think we agree here. The readers should look at all the information the can get and view both sides of the issue. Here is the original study as presented to the APA:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
I noticed that study is posted only on Aspen Ed marketing sites. It doesn't appear in any reputable publications anywhere on the 'net. It was never peer reviewed or published either. It's a marketing tool. And some of the programs in it were charged with abuse and shut down.
See the truth for yourself. (http://http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS312US312&q=behrens+study)
Just Google it for the truth is all I'm saying.
I think we agree here. The readers should look at all the information the can get and view both sides of the issue. Here is the original study as presented to the APA:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
I had to force quit my browser just to get off of the site that Whooter's link takes you to. After several minutes it had loaded one paragraph, so I gave up. I don't know why I bother, I keep thinking that he might finally come up with a valid point one day.
-
He keeps linking to SCRIBD. The actual original is posted on an Aspen Ed website. It was never published or peer reviewed so reputable outlets won't host it, thus it lives on Aspen's marketing site and SCRIBD which is just a doc host.
-
I noticed that study is posted only on Aspen Ed marketing sites. It doesn't appear in any reputable publications anywhere on the 'net. It was never peer reviewed or published either. It's a marketing tool. And some of the programs in it were charged with abuse and shut down.
See the truth for yourself. (http://http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS312US312&q=behrens+study)
Just Google it for the truth is all I'm saying.
I think we agree here. The readers should look at all the information the can get and view both sides of the issue. Here is the original study as presented to the APA:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
I had to force quit my browser just to get off of the site that Whooter's link takes you to. After several minutes it had loaded one paragraph, so I gave up. I don't know why I bother, I keep thinking that he might finally come up with a valid point one day.
The site is scibd.com which is a well known publishing site, recognized by Time Magazine, economists etc. If you are having trouble loading the document then the problem is on your end, Shadyacres. You can also take DJs' suggestion and look at the overview on various Aspen sites, but most readers like to view the original study in it entirety so that they can see the results for themselves.
...
-
Whooter is misleading here, Shady. What is hosted on SCRIBD (a doc host where anybody can upload any document, not a publisher) is not the actual study. That data has never been made public, which says a lot about its veracity, BTW. What is posted is the summary report of the findings of the work. Just want to be clear on that point. This study has never been released to the public nor to subjected to peer reviewers. That's a critical point. The only place it exists is on Aspen marketing sites.
-
Notable users of Scribd include Virginia senator Mark Warner.[35] Former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, New York Times, DealBook, reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin, All Things D Reporter Kara Swisher, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Red Cross, UNICEF, World Economic Forum, The World Bank, Ford Motor Company, HewlettPackard, and Samsung.
So we can see it is a notable site and a great place to host an independent study.
...
-
Any user can upload to SCRIBD. The "upload now" button is right on the page you linked to, lols. That's like saying "Facebook is a reputable site because Sarah Palin posts there." Epic fail.
Not to mention, again, that the study is not published. A summary of it is hosted on a doc site. Big Difference.
-
I think it is interesting that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uses this site to host their documents.
...
-
If I had an independent study that I wished to host for people to read I would choose SCRIBD (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study) also. It just makes sense. It allows many people to access it and it is easy to link to. I think this may be an area where many of us can agree.
...
-
Not to mention no reputable outlet would publish it. That's why it's "self-published" on a doc host site. If it isn't peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal, it's worthless. Hence it only appears on Aspen marketing sites and a doc host site where anyone can upload anything. It's junk.
-
Here is another interesting tidbit:
Over 150 professional publishers including Random House, Wiley, Workman, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Pearson, Harvard University Press and Stanford University Press are now associated with SCRIBD (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study) .
...
-
Please stay on topic. (http://http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS312US312&q=behrens+study) You can start another thread to profess your love of SCRIBD.
-
The “typical” client in the programs is a white, upper-middle to upper-class,
16 year old male or female with prior treatment failures, who is functioning below average
academically and has multiple psycho-social problems. The most common problems treated are
disruptive behavior, substance use, and mood disorders. Most adolescents do not have a legal
record.
Wow....so kids that truly needed help, not quack "therapy", didn't fare so well. Hmmmm. And why send a kid away if they're not in real trouble? Why were these kids that "had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a mood disorder," even there in the first place? Parents....do your damn job and quit farming it out to strangers!
-
The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).
Then why are they there in the first place? Why are parents outsourcing their jobs?
-
Not to mention no reputable outlet would publish it. That's why it's "self-published" on a doc host site. If it isn't peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal, it's worthless. Hence it only appears on Aspen marketing sites and a doc host site where anyone can upload anything. It's junk.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :notworthy:
-
The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).
Then why are they there in the first place? Why are parents outsourcing their jobs?
I didnt say non-problems. The kids with he lower level of problems seemed to benefit the most form their stay at a TBS. Parents sometimes have to outsource their jobs, Anne, if they cannot be solved in the home setting. Parents outsource education where they teach kids to read, sex education etc. and parents send their kids to hospitals for all types of medical issues.
...
-
The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).
Then why are they there in the first place? Why are parents outsourcing their jobs?
Parents sometimes have to outsource their jobs, Anne, if they cannot be solved in the home setting.
Then they're doing a piss-poor, shitty job as parents and the kids have to suffer for that. Unconscionable.
-
The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).
Then why are they there in the first place? Why are parents outsourcing their jobs?
Parents sometimes have to outsource their jobs, Anne, if they cannot be solved in the home setting.
Then they're doing a piss-poor, shitty job as parents and the kids have to suffer for that. Unconscionable.
Depends on your perspective, Anne, some people would think that the parents who do not get outside help for their child are doing a piss-poor job and they are making their kids suffer.
...
-
I'm going to have to agree with Anne Bonney on this one.
-
The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).
Then why are they there in the first place? Why are parents outsourcing their jobs?
Parents sometimes have to outsource their jobs, Anne, if they cannot be solved in the home setting.
Then they're doing a piss-poor, shitty job as parents and the kids have to suffer for that. Unconscionable.
Depends on your perspective, Anne, some people would think that the parents who do not get outside help for their child are doing a piss-poor job and they are making their kids suffer.
The kids wouldn't be suffering if their parents did their jobs in the first place.
-
The kids wouldn't be suffering if their parents did their jobs in the first place.
I disagree, sometimes kids do not respond well to local services. I think the parents would be negligent if they just gave up on them and said "Oh Well local service didnt work lets hope for the best". There are many parents who care enough for their children to look outside their local areas for a solution until they find one. Not all parents give up.
...
-
The kids wouldn't be suffering if their parents did their jobs in the first place.
I disagree, sometimes kids do not respond well to local services.
But they do respond to responsible parenting. Which was my original point, which you ignored. Shocking! ::)
-
The kids wouldn't be suffering if their parents did their jobs in the first place.
I disagree, sometimes kids do not respond well to local services.
But they do respond to responsible parenting. Which was my original point, which you ignored. Shocking! ::)
Not all kids do, Anne, some kids need help outside the home and others need help outside the scope of local services.
...
-
The kids wouldn't be suffering if their parents did their jobs in the first place.
I disagree, sometimes kids do not respond well to local services.
But they do respond to responsible parenting. Which was my original point, which you ignored. Shocking! ::)
Not all kids do, Anne, some kids need help outside the home and others need help outside the scope of local services.
And those are the ones who need TRUE help.....not quackery from pseudo-"scientists" or pseudo-"therapists".
-
The kids wouldn't be suffering if their parents did their jobs in the first place.
I disagree, sometimes kids do not respond well to local services.
But they do respond to responsible parenting. Which was my original point, which you ignored. Shocking! ::)
Not all kids do, Anne, some kids need help outside the home and others need help outside the scope of local services.
And those are the ones who need TRUE help.....not quackery from pseudo-"scientists" or pseudo-"therapists".
Exactly, I think we agree here. If they are not getting the TRUE help that they need locally then it is good parenting to look outside the local area to get help for your child. The parents should not just throw up their hands and say "Oh well Anne Bonney says we should not look outside our local area for help, lets just hope for the best and keep the child at home.".
Do you see what I mean?
...
-
Exactly, I think we agree here. If they are not getting the TRUE help that they need locally then it is good parenting to look outside the local area to get help for your child. The parents should not just throw up their hands and say "Oh well Anne Bonney says we should not look outside our local area for help, lets just hope for the best and keep the child at home.".
You are really getting tiresome. Get some new material.
Do you see what I mean?
No
-
Back on topic:
Along with the 60-80% success rate:
The majority of adolescents were treated for multiple problems (85.5%). The most frequent treatment foci were disruptive
behavior disorders (44%), substance use disorders (36%), and mood disorder (31%) (percentages
did not total 100% because participants could have more than one problem).
So 85.5% of the kids were there for multiple reasons and 8% of the kids the program felt would not be successful and they were discharged early.
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Exactly, I think we agree here. If they are not getting the TRUE help that they need locally then it is good parenting to look outside the local area to get help for your child. The parents should not just throw up their hands and say "Oh well Anne Bonney says we should not look outside our local area for help, lets just hope for the best and keep the child at home.".
You are really getting tiresome. Get some new material.
Do you see what I mean?
No
Me neither. It's a wearisome game. Hopefully it will all be over very soon.
-
Me neither. It's a wearisome game. Hopefully it will all be over very soon.
If you both focus and try to stay on topic it will not be as confusing, it is not that difficult. You guys do this to yourselves.
...
-
Here is another snippet:
Of the 203 female adolescents who completed the ASR at admission and discharge, 90% reported
some degree or amount of symptom reduction. Of that, 48% reported improvement that exceeds
the cut-off for reliable change (>29 raw score points) and 42% reported improvement below the
cut-off for reliable change (<29 raw score points).
Page 9 again:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
You can always tell who the industry plants/trolls/shills are by watching their responses. They always respond immediately with repetetive spamming of their handlers' website. This thread is a good example.
-
The majority of adolescents were treated for multiple problems (85.5%). The most frequent treatment foci were disruptive
behavior disorders (44%), substance use disorders (36%), and mood disorder (31%) (percentages
did not total 100% because participants could have more than one problem).
So 85.5% of the kids were there for multiple reasons and 8% of the kids the program felt would not be successful and they were discharged early.
...
-
Nonstop shilling ensues...
-
Of the 107 parents of male adolescents who completed the CBCL at admission and discharge,
97% of the parents of adolescent males reported some degree or amount of symptom reduction.
Of that, 85% reported improvement that exceed the cut-off for reliable change (> 21 raw score
points) and 12% reported improvement below the cut-off for reliable change (<21 raw score
points).
This was also on Page 9 of the Independent Study
...
-
And the shilling continues...
-
The majority (89%) reported symptoms at discharge that
qualify them as “recovered”, because scores exceeded the cut-off score (raw score 45). Eighty-
nine percent of male adolescents exceeded cut-off scores on both measures of clinical
significance suggesting that the reported change in symptoms was both of sufficient quantity and
quality that it is considered clinically meaningful.
Page 9 of the Independent Study of Therapeutic Boarding Schools
...
-
Continuous spamming of the same tired material...
-
The “typical” client in the programs is a white, upper-middle to upper-class,
16 year old male or female with prior treatment failures, who is functioning below average
academically and has multiple psycho-social problems. The most common problems treated are
disruptive behavior, substance use, and mood disorders. Most adolescents do not have a legal
record.
...
-
Isn't this called "Flooding"? Repeating the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?
-
Isn't this called "Flooding"? Repeating the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?
I think DJ will calm down after awhile. He does these repeat posts when he loses an argument. Pretty soon he will break out his sock puppets and aliases like Troll Control etc.
...
-
The admin has instructed users to use the report feature (the little exclamation point) to report Whooter's repetetive spam posting. That being said, they also don't act on it.
I think what you're seeing here, Anne, is someone who knows their time is just about up and he's just vomiting all over the forums because he's now facing being banned for life. In a day or two, most likely, this will all come to an end and Whooter will be back to having to use a proxy server and to create more sockpuppets to do the shilling.
-
Links were corrupt, reposted.
...
-
Isn't this called "Flooding"? Repeating the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?
LOL, a little different when your friends do it?
What friends?? I've hardly been on here lately and have the ones I've actually met in person I could, literally, count on one hand.
-
Isn't this called "Flooding"? Repeating the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?
I think I have to agree with you here on this one Anne. Its not often that we agree, but the following would be considered flooding. Lets take a look:
You can always tell who the industry plants/trolls/shills are by watching their responses. They always respond immediately with repetetive spamming of their handlers' website/marketing materials. This thread is a good example.
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393481#p393481
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393495#p393495
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393502#p393502
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393513#p393513
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393473#p393473
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393501#p393501
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=393555#p393555
...
-
Anne, what you are seeing here is just more of Whooter's baby-games. He's on the cusp of a lifetime ban from Fornits and he just wants to ruin everyone else's experience on the way out the door. It's a tantrum, nothing more. In a few days it will be mercifully over.
-
Anne, what you are seeing here is just more of Whooter's baby-games. He's on the cusp of a lifetime ban from Fornits and he just wants to ruin everyone else's experience on the way out the door. It's a tantrum, nothing more. In a few days it will be mercifully over.
Hmmm,,, I think we can see who is throwing a tantrum, DJ.... Take a look at all of your new shrill Threads you started. lol
...
-
Anne, what you are seeing here is just more of Whooter's baby-games. He's on the cusp of a lifetime ban from Fornits and he just wants to ruin everyone else's experience on the way out the door. It's a tantrum, nothing more. In a few days it will be mercifully over.
Hmmm,,, I think we can see who is throwing a tantrum, DJ.... Take a look at all of your new shrill Threads you started. lol
...
I only created one thread with a poll. "Shrill threads"? Freudian slip, eh? It won't matter soon anyway, will it?
-
Back on topic:
Along with the 60-80% success rate:
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.
Link to the above quote (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...