If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Embry Study according to Kane If you want to discuss somethingI feel is relevant
Still no answer, Kane? Doan On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Doan wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: So, Kane, are you going to answer my question? When I find out what it is, exactly. "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." Are you sure the Embry study said that? |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes and all. So you only have the "report" Quote:
When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean you are one and the same? Kane [/quote]
__________________
Becca Momma to two boys Big Guy 3/02 and Wuvy-Buv 8/05 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Doan wrote: Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are available, You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:- Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you? 0;- the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's world. ;-) Doan On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote: 0:- Wrote: I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have said exists in the study. Kane, Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have implied may happen with your above statement. What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report" Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of you. -- beccafromlalaland |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
On 9 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are available, You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:- Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you? 0;- You aren't willing to give her a copy of yours neither. I've offered to send her a copy but she would rather get her own. I thought you said it is ONLY available from Dr. Embry. Were you LYING or just another "MISTAKE"? Doan the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's world. ;-) Doan On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote: 0:- Wrote: I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have said exists in the study. Kane, Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have implied may happen with your above statement. What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report" Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of you. -- beccafromlalaland |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
0:- Wrote: Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious. Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data in the study support this claim from Kane: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." Doan |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Very well spoken Becca. If someone is determined to prove a point, it is
possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of view. Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below link is actually just one of several: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a lot of nonsense. Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia and 50% National Enquirer. Don't believe everything you read. "beccafromlalaland" wrote in message .com... 0:- Wrote: Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious. kane Wrote: He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in the report I have. Arrogant? kane Wrote: The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing, notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional publication on this. Is he? From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small to be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results. The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes and all. So you only have the "report" kane Wrote: Do you have the one he is pointing you to? What would the name of it be? And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange, Doan and I, on the Embry report? I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would request that I name it, when we all already know it's title. When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean you are one and the same? Kane -- beccafromlalaland |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland wrote: 0:- Wrote: Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting skills they might apply to this study. In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious. What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line from the report: "METHOD Subjects Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the program but where not observed." (The non-"observed" where NOT excluded from the study.They are as thoroughly described as part of the sample as the 13 are. In fact the 20 and 13 are described in Table 1 under "Subjects" as: Observed and Non-Observed Participating Children by Sex, Age, and Special Characteristics. And their parents, described in Table 2 as "Occupational Status of Participating Parents" numbered from S1 through S33....that is why I have consistently used the number 33....but the author of the abstract did NOT read the entire report and understand that the two groups WERE in fact participants in the study. The 13 are used for the active portion of the study, that is their street entry and multivariate information is used. What I find significant is that Doan never KNEW there were 33 children in all. ) kane Wrote: He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in the report I have. Arrogant? Yes, he is that. You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program package." The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show, demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods statement SAYS it was meant to examined. He's just an arrogant bull****ter. Always has been, always will be. kane Wrote: The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing, notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional publication on this. Is he? From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any scholarly journals. Not only did I never claim it was, I expressly pointed out to Doan a very long time ago that it was not and that that was why one had to get it from Embry. At that time I was unaware that AAA still would provide it (they ended printing some years back -- which I already knew) on a "copy on demand" for 10 cents a page. Things change. When they do, Doan will claim you lied. Funny little monkeyboy. Probably because the sample size is too small to be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results. It was NOT a survey study to determine "average" results against a representative larger population. It was an experimental study to determine the outcomes of applying a packaged parenting program. Nothing else. Stop Doananating. A research sample is a research sample. This study was not presented as anything but what it was. 13 observed children and families. It means what it means, and sample size is NOT critical because it is NOT being presented as a "representative sample" study. No larger population is being considered. AND, what Doan doesn't know, until now, of course, is that this study has been replicated and is in good standing with peers. Closed multivarate studies (which is what is meant by "experiments") are NOT about projecting the results on a larger population, but simply experimenting. 13 is a MORE than adequate number to TEST A THEORY. They would like there to be more study, and application against larger populations, and they even did some math projections, if their results could be duplicated in the larger population, that calculated the projected better outcome for injury and death of children in street traffic accidents. In fact, you can test a theory with ONE as a sample, and present it, and let others in the field go from there. They can chose to ignore your work, or run their own replication and see what they get. Doan is doing everything possible to confuse and divert because he knows damn well what Embry showed. And similar work has been done in applied psychology for years, some of which Embry drew upon to cite in his own work -- as research experiment study reports are must do to for professional credibility. I have a habit of citing rather a lot myself, or hadn't you noticed. The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes and all. So you only have the "report" That is what is submitted. If you wish "the study" which would be all notes, charts, field records of observers, etc. then you would have to go to, if it were a thesis or dissertation, the dissertation and thesis stores and buy a copy. Xerox owns them. This is neither. It was a study done for AAA and is available, according to them, for .10 cents per page, 140 pages total. Some years back I could not get it from that source as they simply listed it as "out of print." Things change. Doan will continue to criticize this "study" for something it was not intended to be. His usual bull**** "debate," and you are falling for it. This was not a survey. It was an experiment. They are very different in makeup and criteria. What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL, over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the workshop). That's a lot of lives to be saved, and injuries not happening if the results will extrapolate. In the report Embry gives some of the criteria needed in delivery to increase the likelihood of it working in the larger community. One consistent thing I found was a direct correlation between reduction in the rate of street entries to the reduction in parental reprimands. Less repremands equated with LESS street entries. And most remarkable, from the DISCUSSION portion of the report, the following: "A parent workshop and special storybooks for their children were effective in reducing children's entries into the street to a rate approximately 10% of that observed during baseline." ... and: "The package (of materials and training) also increased parents' use of praise and reward for safe play and children's correct identification of photographs depicting safe play. The program reduced the rate at which parents reprimanded their chidren for unsafe play. ... In summary, the package succeeded in altering all the various taget behaviors of participating children and their parents." kane Wrote: Do you have the one he is pointing you to? What would the name of it be? And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange, Doan and I, on the Embry report? I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would request that I name it, when we all already know it's title. No, that would not be odd at all if you found yourself with a prior study with a different name. There was a prior study. It was reported by "Report #1. It was not the same as this study. One might think of this one as the second phase. I don't know Embry's thinking, but if he had not planned to go on after the first study, what he found apparently influenced him to go on and learn more. But as I said, I don't know that. It's simpy speculation and logical. It's how I would, and have proceeded. I tend, when I found something that either confounds my beliefs, or suggests much more to the story than I currently know, to explore more. When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one learns about another. Yep. But I have to ask, "another" what? Your statements made no sense in the context of what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. I am sorry if I was unclear. That's just part of sorting through things by use of the written word. I've not claimed you shouldn't or questioned you for doing so, only remarked that you said you were no longer interested, but apparently still are. I admire that. As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound similar. I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I said that something you said sounded like "Alina/Aline." I was not pointing out that you sound the same, but that a comment very specifically did. That has little to do with age and intelligence. How do you know you and "Alina/Aline" are the same intelligence? You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean you are one and the same? What is it you find similar? He's a fetishist trying to get you to engage for the sake of his sexual arrousal. I prefer engaging you for my intellectual stimulation. 0:- I was not suggesting you and Aline/Alina are the same person, but rather that you have the same influences. One a primary influence, the other secondary. 0:- Kane -- beccafromlalaland As for why I asked about the title, and why I've known that Doan did not have this particular study, I quote from the same section of this one: "The present study reveals the possibility of making durable, positive changes in children's pedestrian-accident related behavior near their home---better effects than obtained previously in a modeling-only condition (Embry & Malfetti, 1980)." So you see, THIS study followed closely on the heels of a prior study, referred to above, and in fact elsewhere in this study report. This study report was first published by AAA in 1981. And as for the two populations, "observed" and "unobserved," and their participation: "Why was their a differential rate of correct responses to generalization probes among observed and nonobserved children, favoring nonobserved children?" (this goes to clarify BASELINE observed and nonobserved, not unobsered in the active portion of the experiment) The answer in the study had to do with age. The baseline "unobserved" children were older. Cognition was different. In other words, the "unobserved" were not ignored. Just not observed in some portions. Do get a copy of the study if you can. I can tell you that UC Sacramento lists a copy in their library, but unless you have privs you cannot get it. Doan could, but he is no more interested in getting this study and honestly dealing with it than having a broken leg. It shoots huge holes in one of the darling arguments of the pro spanking nonsense minded folks posted here for years. None of them would ever try to find this study. AAA has had the report for a very long time....1981. It's been superceded by more research since, but NONE of that negated Embry and Malfetti's findings. Nothing. In fact, one day the truth will come out. That parents that reprimand, and those that in fact use Corporal Punishment show up in the family profile of child victims of vehicle accidents more. In other words, they are teaching their child to run into the street. It's just not popular to say so as yet. Embry in discussing this issue says in regard to the one family that had a child that did NOT improve, "Since the family profile resembled that of children who had been involved in accidents (Backett & Johnsont, 1959), lack of success with the family is a matter of some concern." My own take, exactly, having worked with families since the mid-70's. Spankers and punishers have a higher incidence of "problem" children. Of course they say it's a "chicken or the egg" question of having to be harsher with the more 'difficult child.' Having turned such families around many times I've disproven that to my own satisfaction repeatedly. Once again. This was not a survey of the incidence of some phenomena in a sample population. This was an experiment conducted along the standard guidelines for such human experiments, apparently conducted with considerable attention to ethics (as Embry's remarks show) and with an outcome that it is said was prompted by a turnaround in Embry's own beliefs prior to his FIRST experimental study....that spanking worked. Embry apparently thought it did. He learned, as serious scientists so often do, that the conventional wisdom was anything but wise. In this study, by the way, observers were trained to track "Punishment" which right from the page, is define as "grabbing, squeezing hard, and spanking." Doan has built a wondeful castle of lies, out of bits and pieces of information, a bit of deduction, and his own imagination. He misses the details, which I can read at my leisure from the actual report -- of the most RECENT of the Embry studies on street entries. And the abstract that comes with this study report #2? Mine, the one accompanying the report opens with the line: "Children enjoy playing outdoors, but playing around traffic leads to pedestrian accidents." ... The Doan abstract opens with: "A traffic safety program consisting of a workshop for parents and the use of special storybooks with their children was effective in reducing 13 preschool children's entries into the street to a rate approximately 10% of that previously observed. " ... Now of the two, I actually prefer the one Doan copied and pasted. It is much more descriptive overall, and makes very clear he has come into that dead end he's tried so carefully to avoid....evidence that spanking and CP does NOT work. He thinks he's a happy boy because he sees all kinds of ways to continue to obfuscate, but he's wrong. He's simply taken himself out of the picture. An EXPERIMENTAL sample of 13 is NOT an insignificant number, nor does it call into question his reported outcomes. And there were 20 others that were assessed...and showed also that there was an increased understanding and response from children concerning safe play around street traffic. Altogether, a nightmare for the liars, and or fools that have populated this ng in favor of and support of (Doan) spanking as a reasonable choice for parents. Just as other ways humans have done things for "thousands of years" and "it worked" this barbaric and outmoded method of child control will come to an end. And often America is in the forefront of such changes. The law is coming. Thanks for your input. Kane |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote: 0:- Wrote: Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious. Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data in the study support this claim from Kane: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." You forfeited any right to a response from me some time ago on the Embry study, Doan. So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it. You are now reduced again to simply what you have always been: a dancing screeching hysterical monkeyboy flapping your arms and dancing around the sidelines. Sidelining is all you have ever done. Enjoy. 0:- Doan -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Jeremy James wrote:
Very well spoken Becca. Jeremy, you are here solely to excite yourself sexually. You are a spanking fetishist. That presumes that good parenting takes a much removed position compared to getting and wanking a woodie. Go away. If someone is determined to prove a point, it is possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of view. Circular reasoning. There are lots of ways to use the Web. Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below link is actually just one of several: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm It's a put-on, dummyboy. And you are trying to use it to engage someone in your pet fetish. Conning them into talking about spanking with no idea you are wanking to their posts. Give it up. From the page above: "The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut." The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a lot of nonsense. Or satire, irony, and just plain silly fun. Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia and 50% National Enquirer. Oh, I'd give the National Enquirer a lot high percentage. I suspect there are a lot more of you than us. Don't believe everything you read. That, of course, is patronizing becca like she's an ignorant child. She is not. You are just trolling for those that will discuss "spanking" with you. Give it up, "spanking personals boy." Kane "beccafromlalaland" wrote in message .com... 0:- Wrote: Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious. kane Wrote: He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in the report I have. Arrogant? kane Wrote: The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing, notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional publication on this. Is he? From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small to be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results. The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes and all. So you only have the "report" kane Wrote: Do you have the one he is pointing you to? What would the name of it be? And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange, Doan and I, on the Embry report? I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would request that I name it, when we all already know it's title. When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean you are one and the same? Kane -- beccafromlalaland -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
So are you going to answer my question, Kane? Where in this study did it say anything about spanking? Doan On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: beccafromlalaland wrote: 0:- Wrote: Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting skills they might apply to this study. In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious. What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line from the report: "METHOD Subjects Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the program but where not observed." (The non-"observed" where NOT excluded from the study.They are as thoroughly described as part of the sample as the 13 are. In fact the 20 and 13 are described in Table 1 under "Subjects" as: Observed and Non-Observed Participating Children by Sex, Age, and Special Characteristics. And their parents, described in Table 2 as "Occupational Status of Participating Parents" numbered from S1 through S33....that is why I have consistently used the number 33....but the author of the abstract did NOT read the entire report and understand that the two groups WERE in fact participants in the study. The 13 are used for the active portion of the study, that is their street entry and multivariate information is used. What I find significant is that Doan never KNEW there were 33 children in all. ) kane Wrote: He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in the report I have. Arrogant? Yes, he is that. You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program package." The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show, demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods statement SAYS it was meant to examined. He's just an arrogant bull****ter. Always has been, always will be. kane Wrote: The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing, notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional publication on this. Is he? From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any scholarly journals. Not only did I never claim it was, I expressly pointed out to Doan a very long time ago that it was not and that that was why one had to get it from Embry. At that time I was unaware that AAA still would provide it (they ended printing some years back -- which I already knew) on a "copy on demand" for 10 cents a page. Things change. When they do, Doan will claim you lied. Funny little monkeyboy. Probably because the sample size is too small to be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results. It was NOT a survey study to determine "average" results against a representative larger population. It was an experimental study to determine the outcomes of applying a packaged parenting program. Nothing else. Stop Doananating. A research sample is a research sample. This study was not presented as anything but what it was. 13 observed children and families. It means what it means, and sample size is NOT critical because it is NOT being presented as a "representative sample" study. No larger population is being considered. AND, what Doan doesn't know, until now, of course, is that this study has been replicated and is in good standing with peers. Closed multivarate studies (which is what is meant by "experiments") are NOT about projecting the results on a larger population, but simply experimenting. 13 is a MORE than adequate number to TEST A THEORY. They would like there to be more study, and application against larger populations, and they even did some math projections, if their results could be duplicated in the larger population, that calculated the projected better outcome for injury and death of children in street traffic accidents. In fact, you can test a theory with ONE as a sample, and present it, and let others in the field go from there. They can chose to ignore your work, or run their own replication and see what they get. Doan is doing everything possible to confuse and divert because he knows damn well what Embry showed. And similar work has been done in applied psychology for years, some of which Embry drew upon to cite in his own work -- as research experiment study reports are must do to for professional credibility. I have a habit of citing rather a lot myself, or hadn't you noticed. The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes and all. So you only have the "report" That is what is submitted. If you wish "the study" which would be all notes, charts, field records of observers, etc. then you would have to go to, if it were a thesis or dissertation, the dissertation and thesis stores and buy a copy. Xerox owns them. This is neither. It was a study done for AAA and is available, according to them, for .10 cents per page, 140 pages total. Some years back I could not get it from that source as they simply listed it as "out of print." Things change. Doan will continue to criticize this "study" for something it was not intended to be. His usual bull**** "debate," and you are falling for it. This was not a survey. It was an experiment. They are very different in makeup and criteria. What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL, over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the workshop). That's a lot of lives to be saved, and injuries not happening if the results will extrapolate. In the report Embry gives some of the criteria needed in delivery to increase the likelihood of it working in the larger community. One consistent thing I found was a direct correlation between reduction in the rate of street entries to the reduction in parental reprimands. Less repremands equated with LESS street entries. And most remarkable, from the DISCUSSION portion of the report, the following: "A parent workshop and special storybooks for their children were effective in reducing children's entries into the street to a rate approximately 10% of that observed during baseline." ... and: "The package (of materials and training) also increased parents' use of praise and reward for safe play and children's correct identification of photographs depicting safe play. The program reduced the rate at which parents reprimanded their chidren for unsafe play. ... In summary, the package succeeded in altering all the various taget behaviors of participating children and their parents." kane Wrote: Do you have the one he is pointing you to? What would the name of it be? And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange, Doan and I, on the Embry report? I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would request that I name it, when we all already know it's title. No, that would not be odd at all if you found yourself with a prior study with a different name. There was a prior study. It was reported by "Report #1. It was not the same as this study. One might think of this one as the second phase. I don't know Embry's thinking, but if he had not planned to go on after the first study, what he found apparently influenced him to go on and learn more. But as I said, I don't know that. It's simpy speculation and logical. It's how I would, and have proceeded. I tend, when I found something that either confounds my beliefs, or suggests much more to the story than I currently know, to explore more. When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one learns about another. Yep. But I have to ask, "another" what? Your statements made no sense in the context of what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. I am sorry if I was unclear. That's just part of sorting through things by use of the written word. I've not claimed you shouldn't or questioned you for doing so, only remarked that you said you were no longer interested, but apparently still are. I admire that. As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound similar. I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I said that something you said sounded like "Alina/Aline." I was not pointing out that you sound the same, but that a comment very specifically did. That has little to do with age and intelligence. How do you know you and "Alina/Aline" are the same intelligence? You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean you are one and the same? What is it you find similar? He's a fetishist trying to get you to engage for the sake of his sexual arrousal. I prefer engaging you for my intellectual stimulation. 0:- I was not suggesting you and Aline/Alina are the same person, but rather that you have the same influences. One a primary influence, the other secondary. 0:- Kane -- beccafromlalaland As for why I asked about the title, and why I've known that Doan did not have this particular study, I quote from the same section of this one: "The present study reveals the possibility of making durable, positive changes in children's pedestrian-accident related behavior near their home---better effects than obtained previously in a modeling-only condition (Embry & Malfetti, 1980)." So you see, THIS study followed closely on the heels of a prior study, referred to above, and in fact elsewhere in this study report. This study report was first published by AAA in 1981. And as for the two populations, "observed" and "unobserved," and their participation: "Why was their a differential rate of correct responses to generalization probes among observed and nonobserved children, favoring nonobserved children?" (this goes to clarify BASELINE observed and nonobserved, not unobsered in the active portion of the experiment) The answer in the study had to do with age. The baseline "unobserved" children were older. Cognition was different. In other words, the "unobserved" were not ignored. Just not observed in some portions. Do get a copy of the study if you can. I can tell you that UC Sacramento lists a copy in their library, but unless you have privs you cannot get it. Doan could, but he is no more interested in getting this study and honestly dealing with it than having a broken leg. It shoots huge holes in one of the darling arguments of the pro spanking nonsense minded folks posted here for years. None of them would ever try to find this study. AAA has had the report for a very long time....1981. It's been superceded by more research since, but NONE of that negated Embry and Malfetti's findings. Nothing. In fact, one day the truth will come out. That parents that reprimand, and those that in fact use Corporal Punishment show up in the family profile of child victims of vehicle accidents more. In other words, they are teaching their child to run into the street. It's just not popular to say so as yet. Embry in discussing this issue says in regard to the one family that had a child that did NOT improve, "Since the family profile resembled that of children who had been involved in accidents (Backett & Johnsont, 1959), lack of success with the family is a matter of some concern." My own take, exactly, having worked with families since the mid-70's. Spankers and punishers have a higher incidence of "problem" children. Of course they say it's a "chicken or the egg" question of having to be harsher with the more 'difficult child.' Having turned such families around many times I've disproven that to my own satisfaction repeatedly. Once again. This was not a survey of the incidence of some phenomena in a sample population. This was an experiment conducted along the standard guidelines for such human experiments, apparently conducted with considerable attention to ethics (as Embry's remarks show) and with an outcome that it is said was prompted by a turnaround in Embry's own beliefs prior to his FIRST experimental study....that spanking worked. Embry apparently thought it did. He learned, as serious scientists so often do, that the conventional wisdom was anything but wise. In this study, by the way, observers were trained to track "Punishment" which right from the page, is define as "grabbing, squeezing hard, and spanking." Doan has built a wondeful castle of lies, out of bits and pieces of information, a bit of deduction, and his own imagination. He misses the details, which I can read at my leisure from the actual report -- of the most RECENT of the Embry studies on street entries. And the abstract that comes with this study report #2? Mine, the one accompanying the report opens with the line: "Children enjoy playing outdoors, but playing around traffic leads to pedestrian accidents." ... The Doan abstract opens with: "A traffic safety program consisting of a workshop for parents and the use of special storybooks with their children was effective in reducing 13 preschool children's entries into the street to a rate approximately 10% of that previously observed. " ... Now of the two, I actually prefer the one Doan copied and pasted. It is much more descriptive overall, and makes very clear he has come into that dead end he's tried so carefully to avoid....evidence that spanking and CP does NOT work. He thinks he's a happy boy because he sees all kinds of ways to continue to obfuscate, but he's wrong. He's simply taken himself out of the picture. An EXPERIMENTAL sample of 13 is NOT an insignificant number, nor does it call into question his reported outcomes. And there were 20 others that were assessed...and showed also that there was an increased understanding and response from children concerning safe play around street traffic. Altogether, a nightmare for the liars, and or fools that have populated this ng in favor of and support of (Doan) spanking as a reasonable choice for parents. Just as other ways humans have done things for "thousands of years" and "it worked" this barbaric and outmoded method of child control will come to an end. And often America is in the forefront of such changes. The law is coming. Thanks for your input. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | October 29th 04 05:23 AM |
The regret mothers now feel ("Why are these parents not shocked over the pain?"): | Pointed Elbow | Pregnancy | 1 | October 9th 04 02:06 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | September 29th 04 05:17 AM |
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list | Greg Hanson | General | 11 | March 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |