Talk:Behavior modification facility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiple issues[edit]

There are multiple issues with this article. Starting with the neutrality issue raised by author Steven Fruitsmaak above. Steven observes that:

"This is made abundantly clear by the article's opening line "A behavior modification facility (or youth residential program)". Whoever wrote this is trying to equate behavior modification facilities and youth residential programs"

There is no such thing as a behavior modification facility per se. It is like calling an auto repair shop, mechanic's garage, or auto dealership an "auto repair facility'. Any business that repairs cars is by definition an auto repair facility. Likewise any office that deals in dentistry, be it general practice dentistry, Orthodontia, or Oral Surgery, is a dental medicine facility. Any establishment that engages in behavior modification is a behavior modification facility. It is a generic term and is definitely not limited to "youth residential programs". Behavior modification techniques are used to treat a variety of problems in both adults and children.

Secondly, the article has few to no reliable sources that pertain to these so called facilities. The supporting citations are to sources on the practice of behavior modification. These references belong in the behavior modification article, not here. To justify this articles notability it needs to have sources that explain or at least refer specifically to the articles subject (these so called facilities).

Thirdly, this article makes extensive use of wikipedia as a source, a practice that violates wiki policy. For example this paragraph should not be included in the article. It is synthesis.

"Often the practice of behavior modification in facilities comes into question (see recent interest in Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Aspen Education Group and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools). Often these types of restrictive issues are discussed as part of ethical and legal standards (see Professional practice of behavior analysis)."

The whole controversy section is a rehash of the same argument repeated here and here. This article seems to exist in order to support the controversy. The reason this article's controversy section exists is to criticize youth programs. Wikipedia is not a forum; the articles must be encyclopedic. An article strictly encyclopedic would merely include citable sources of opposing points of view that are pertinent to the subject (facilities for all age groups) , not focus on a narrow definition of the subject (youth programs).

Finally, the article comes very close to meeting the standards of the deletion policy.

I will attempt to correct these and some of the POV issues after a reasonable amount of time has passed allowing the original authors to address them.

I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wedding of the two titles is a historical accident created by the merging of two pages. It seems like the more this page tries to clean up the worse it becomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.3.7 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Surgeon General report 1999 on mental health refers to these facilities as youth residental programs and argues thy are based on behavior modification- certainly the Teaching family Homes are- they even acknowledge this in their reference list as does the Judge Rottenberg Center. Judge Rottenberg sees children and adults though. They had an article in the last issue of the journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim: Treatment and Prevention at www.baojournal.com -something titled like 7 case studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.3.7 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior modification research listed is research that was all done in residental facilities. Indeed, the journal Behavioral Intervenion was previously titled Behavioral residental treatment or somethign to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.3.7 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the largest problem is the orginal writers of the page wanted to look at "behavior modification facilties" that were boarding schools and were getting bad press in the 1990s because they were abusive. This was flawed logical because many good youth residental programs do exist and are funded for kids with no place to go. These types of programs are licensed by states (were the more controversal programs were often outside the U.S.) and thus were always required to have certain staffing patterns and restrictions on the use of things like restraint and seclusion. Devereux for example in Pa and Boytown in Kansas run a number of reputable residental programs- some of which are built on the idea of behavior modification.

It seems to me that this page has a serious problem even behavior modification facilities that are theorectically the same with good supportive evidence look drastically different. For example, the Teaching Family Homes are a residental program for children and adults. These programs are based on behavior analysis and use behavior modification principles. They have great research supporting them as effective. The focus on the use of positive reinforcement in the form of a token system and "self governence" for participants where they make the rules. The worse punishment used is loss of points on the token system. Contrast with Judge Rottenberg Center that also works from a behavior analysis perspective and uses behavior modification principles. Judge Rottenberg is mostly a positive program but does not engage in the self governence practices and uses aversive stimulation in the form of water spray and electric shock. Both programs have research supporting them. Both are the same underlying theory. Both look radically different. Not just that some youth residental programs have different theorectical models. Indeed, the re-ed residental program (mentioned as effective in the above mentioned Surgeon General Report), which is often used in youth residental facilities and has a different underlying model uses a token system and daily goals, which makes it more like Teaching Family homes then Teaching Family looks like the Rottenberg Center. I think that this is the problem driving the page. Some what this page about individual treatment centers. Some want this page about the science of the techniques. Some want this page to focus on the ethical issues. In the end, we will find that each of these programs is quite unique. Some are really strong and some are really bad. I doubt any general statments about youth residental facilities can be made. It would be like trying to say "outpatient psychotherapy clinics- do they work." Three factors that probably add or subtract: (1) evidence based use of behavior modification procedures; (2) caringness and training level of staff, and (3) staffing patterns.

The best we may be able to do is to get a list from the government of highly rated and lowly rated residental programs and post to that list. What do others think?---Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.124.65 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With over 650 in the U.S., of course some are good and some are horrible. This is the equivelent of writing about restruants. It seems that some poeple want to insist that it is better to eat at home and others want to insist that it is better to eat in restruant. It depends on how good the home cooking is and how good the restraunt cooking is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.154.235 (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I will work on this article after more time has past. The following link is to a discussion of the activism engaged in by contributors to this article as well as many others on similar topics. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#OTRS_related_assistance_needed I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this article a year or so ago. It seems to be worse now then back then. I think some-one should look over the 1999 U.S. Surgeon General report on what works in Mental Health and summarize some of that material (it is probably on line. I agree that with 650 service problems will vary greatly Jcautilli (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of work on this and hope that I have created more facts for the major points. Please feel free to look over what I have written. I think that the testimonal data should be removed but that is for all of the group to decide.Jcautilli (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.4.43 (talk) [reply]

Consensus[edit]

Clearly, the consensus can be summed up by the statement: "I doubt any general statments about youth residental facilities can be made."

This article is basically an essay on the merits of institutions which engage in the use of behavior therapies. Behavior modification is one approach to behavior therapy based on the empirical nature of applied behavior analysis. The issue being raised in the article is whether operant conditioning in the sense of consequences is beneficial or harmful to the subject. The article demonstrates a misunderstanding of the principles of reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. The controversy is not about abusing the subjects as the two controversy sections would lead one to believe. Discussions of admission criteria and patient rights are not part of behavior modification, those are separate issues which could apply to any institution. The discussion is mute in as much as operant conditioning is a well defined treatment; this article only serves the purpose of facilitating POV content. The history of this article demonstrates that it originated as a criticism of these treatments. Over time it has developed into a collection of random facts mixed with POV. This article should merged into a criticism section in the behavior therapy article. I will create a redirect and do that in the near future. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 04:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

This article has a section for "History and controversy" and another for "controversy". Shouldn't all of the controversy material be moved to one section? 65.60.220.248 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Behavior modification facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Behavior modification facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Behavior modification facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Behavior modification facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The section "Some model programs" needs a lot of work. 2601:88:8001:C240:AA1B:9D2B:F2DA:1F73 (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we remove the section entirely. To be frank this article needs a major article. I already removed a part with no cited sources on my own. Colonizor48 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Behavior_modification_facility&oldid=1199766912"