I probably shouldn't but here goes...

[navysteve]

This is an interesting paper put out this year regarding AA myth and misinterpretation. I do not read it as gospel, but it is the most sensible paper I have read:

http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf


Tell me what you think?

I just read it so I am still absorbing the information

Also noteworthy in the derivation of the mythical percentages, is the absence of fundamental academic disciplines of methodical research, corroborating verification and factual citation of sources. Regrettably, some of the advocates who are propagating the myth are AA members who purport to be “AA Historians” and appear to be advocating agendas that portray fiction as fact and hearsay as history. The AA Fellowship has a robust verbal tradition. Much information is passed on by word of mouth. This has both its good and difficult sides. How does one know what is fact versus myth? AA members can sincerely state something they believe is true but is inaccurate

pg 3

Even more unfortunate, concerning statistical confidence and accuracy of the citations, is that none of the authors (or self-proclaimed “AA Historians”) has apparently independently performed a critical, unbiased investigation of the original data or attempted to duplicate the calculations of AA’s reputed “failure statistics” from the basic source data listed in the membership surveys. That basic data, and an explanation of what it signifies, follows this section.

pg 4

Of the 11,355 members who filled out questionnaires at AA meetings, 60% reported that they had not had a drink of alcohol for one year or more (emphasis added). This is one indication that AA works. According to the data which follows, it can be assumed that many of the remaining 40% are newcomers who have either not had a drink or who stopped drinking shortly after attending their first meeting.

pg 6

The notion of an overall 75% successful recovery outcome rate in AA owes its durability to anecdotal repetition rather than consistent statistical demonstration. There is very little consistent, verifiable data and record keeping either validating or refuting the claim of any recovery outcome rates for AA. The only specific population sample identified by AA co-founder Bill W, as achieving a 50% + 25% (or overall 75%) success rate, were the pioneering members who had their personal stories printed in the first edition Big Book. 6 Beyond that, the origin or validation of the percentages is neither explained nor demonstrated. The information that follows presents a chronological series of references and citations of written works in which recovery outcome rates, and factors influencing the rates, are mentioned. July 1938 - The earliest archival reference found to a cited success rate of 50% occurs in a letter from Bill W to Dr
Richard C Cabot in which Bill W wrote:

We have never developed any accurate statistical information (emphasis added) but I should say that we have dealt with about 200 cases in all, about half of whom seem to have recovered. Doctors tell us that, almost without exception, we have been problem drinkers of a class commonly regarded as hopeless. 7 August 1938 - The relatively small AA population at the time allowed some measure of tracking success or failure by individual member.

[Ago]

man I thought you bought me flowers

I was gonna say "you shouldn't have"

Off to a meeting, I'll read it when I get back, bound to be interesting

[navysteve]

For growth of AA sobriety ranges, the 1983
Survey showed 25% of AA members sober over
5 years and the 2004 Survey showed 50% of AA
members sober over 5 years.

For growth of AA sobriety averages, the 1983
Survey found the average AA member sober for
4 years and the 2004 Survey found the average
AA member sober for more than 8 years.

Just stuff I read from AA's survey

[sailorjohn]

Originally Posted by navysteve

For growth of AA sobriety ranges, the 1983
Survey showed 25% of AA members sober over
5 years and the 2004 Survey showed 50% of AA
members sober over 5 years.

For growth of AA sobriety averages, the 1983
Survey found the average AA member sober for
4 years and the 2004 Survey found the average
AA member sober for more than 8 years.

Just stuff I read from AA's survey

I read that a while back, what the author(s) noted was that if the people in recovery-AA-worked the program-the steps-they had a pretty high success rate, unlike what they tell folks in rehab. I think what they really fail to tell them is that if you work a recovery program and give it an honest effort you will succeed. Like they say, the program works if you work the program.

[bballdad]

Steve I believe the recovery rates are as good as they always was when we really try.I still think it is near 100% for those who do the work.I know I have never had a sponsee faail who reeally worked at it.I have heard some people say they failed,but later on I hear them say how they left out parts of the program so that may explain it.
One problem today is anyone walks into a meeting and when they don`t make it some people proclaim failure.We do not know why they was there.
What did the report say?60% don`t come to get sober?
One thing that really gets me is the sects within AA who still claim AA has a huge failure rate are sure to tell everyone they meet about it.They are spreading fear,doom and gloom.


Among those who propagate the failure myth of a 5% or less AA recovery rate, assertions are made that AA’s alleged dire (and distorted) recovery rate can be restored based on a certain type of beginner’s meeting or Step choreography or verbal, as opposed to written, inventory or a certain way of praying and meditating or through Scripture, etc., etc.These claimed restorative acts are a product of wishful imagination and speculation as opposed to reliable and substantiated historical investigation, information and demonstration. Flawed data gathering techniques, and flawed assertions of cause and effect, remain flawed regardless of where they are cited or who constructed them.

here is the piece on the 60% - 80%

Including the 60% to 80% of the prospects who showed up and did not try AA, in any outcome calculation is not only
absurd, it is tantamount to measuring the effectiveness of a medical procedure by including those who suffer a
medical problem but do not seek medical help. One must at least try a remedy to assess its efficacy - so too with
AA’s recovery program.

[Pinkcuda]

Why is it that we view "Rehab" as some sort of miracle factory where people get cured. They don't exploit the dismal 5% success rate of rehab. Do they?
$12,000.00 for a 5% success rate as opposed to A.A. for a dollar a meeting. That's a "No Brainer"
It doesn't even merit a discussion. All I know is when I speak poorly about Rehab Centers being a scam, I get both barrells from a lot of people. Even the ones that went and failed.
Anybodies failure, regardless of recovery method, can be attributed to one thing! Lack of personal responsibility. Not any program or any method.

[Sugah]

My thought are and have been (since completing my first go-round of formal step work), similar to what bballdad mentions, that including all those who walk through the doors in the "success" or "failure" rate of AA is like a doctor gauging the effectiveness of an antibiotic by the number of prescriptions written, not those who fill the 'script and follow through the whole course.

Peace & Love,
Sugah

[jimhere]

I post a lot of stuff that I think "I probably shouldn't," but then I do anyway.

I've seen that article and I think it is good. Their is a lot of word-of-mouth oral tradition passed down that is never questioned.


There are AA legends and myths that have some truth, but not the whole truth. For example the idea that Rowland Hazard worked with Dr. Carl Jung for a year is not true. I recently saw a link to the Rhode Island historical society that brings new light to Rowland's story. Interestingly enough, I found this link on The Orange Papers site. Rowland definitely went to Switzerland to see Jung, but didn't stay anything like a year. It was probably more like three weeks. When he returned to the States, he saw a man named Courtenay Baylor. Baylor was a recovered alcoholic and also a lay therapist who had gotten sober in The Emmanuel Movement. A man named Richard Peabody worked with him in that group. Peabody was also a recovered alcoholic and lay therapist. But it was Baylor and not Jung who pointed Rowland in the direction of The Oxford Group.

Speaking of Richard Peabody, he wrote a book called "The Common Sense of Drinking." No doubt Bill Wilson read that book in his attempts to get and stay sober. In fact, Bill plagarized parts of it. Two examples I know of are the story of the man who wanted to be successful in business and made up his mind to stay sober until he retired. In Peabody's book, there is an identical story, only the man was only sober five years. Bill liked to embelish a bit you know. And in Chapter Five of the Big Book, the line about being willing to go to lengths is lifted verbatim from Peabody's book.

Not that that stuff matters a whole lot, but I find it interesting and I do share that kind of stuff with the guys I take through the Big Book. I couldn't not pass it on if it is the truth.
Jim

[CarolD]

My thoughts?

Don't count on the head count.

Make certain you are one of the winners!

[Ago]

Good stuff Steve, Thank you

I am of the school that rehab is a $10,000 Big Book personally, but that's just my experience, AA worked for me.

However, and this is a big "caveat" I attend a number of "newcomer meetings" that have large populations of young members, as in very young, ranging in age from 15 to 25 years old on average (average is a guess) with anywhere from 150 to 600 people, the 150 member meeting being maybe 120 members as "young" and the larger meetings having maybe 30 to 50%

Anyway, these are speaker meetings, and from the "stories" I hear from these young newcomers a pattern is definitely emerging.

nearly all of them had "interventions" performed on them by their parents, were shipped off to rehab, came out, put together anywhere from 1 month to one year of sobriety, relapsed, had their life spin out of control which seems to be a common thread among alcoholics, following even a short period of sobriety their drinking seems to spiral out of control much worse then if they hadn't stopped, they hit bottom, and come to AA ready, willing and able to work the program.

Obviously I am not seeing the ones that don't make it back, but the population among young sober alcoholics has absolutely exploded in the last 15 years, there was maybe 50 of us in the county 15 years ago under 30, give or take, there are literally thousands now.

So these rehabs seem to "plant the seed" in an abnormally high rate among young people, my experience, or anecdotal evidence is the success rate seems much lower for rehabs among older alcoholics, although my data could quite possibly be skewed.

It's just every very young person that gets sober seems to have a stretch of rehab in their story, most relapse, but not all, but "older" sober members of alcoholics anonymous rarely seem to have "rehab" in their story, although I see many many older alcoholics around the rooms fresh from rehab, though some make it, not nearly as many of them seem to make it or return to AA in the huge numbers that these young people do.

The way it was explained to me, was rehabs are for the alcoholic of the type referred to in the book as "he wants to want to stop" and hopes to get the desire instilled in him in a rehab, as in he wants to get sober, but doesn't want to do the work or take the responsibility for his own sobriety. This is by no means indicting the people who have gone through rehabs and remained sober, anyone who has gone through one and remained sober obviously had the necessary desire, this is just from years of observing a very large and vibrant sober community.

The speaker last night was very clear about her rehab and what tools it gave her, which were short term tools that were very important at the time, but to stay sober and be happy, joyous and free she needed to work the steps of AA, she had something like 12 years and appeared to be in her mid twenties but I suspect she was older, as in maybe 30ish, not drinking or smoking and taking care of yourself makes folks appear much younger, it's really amazing.

So, for me, I'd toss my kid in a rehab in a New York minute if my efforts to get them in AA failed, but I'm not sure if I'd waste any more money on my sister, she's been through some incredible rehabs, and I'd take the "sink or swim" there's the door of recovery approach (she's 45)

So anyway, I don't think the problems are in the rehabs per se, but I think they have such a dismal success rate for precisely the same reason we can skew AA data, the folks that go to rehabs often times don't really want to get sober and stay that way, however many of them return later to get sober, that isn't quantified, but rehab really truly seems to affect young alcoholics deeply on many levels, one of which is a large and "fun" peer group who's helpfulness can't be over emphasized, especially to the young alcoholic.

All statements made here were based on personal observation and not anecdotal "evidence" across many years and are by no means scientific but I believe them to be true based on what I have seen by objectively watching for many years.

[stone]

RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly
followed our path. Those who do not recover
are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves
to this simple program, usually men and women
who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with
themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not
at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are
naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner
of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances
are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer
from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of
them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.

This annoys me! For a start it means if a person fails then ipso facto they haven't thoroughly followed the path. It then goes on to assume all kinds of knowledge that is unprovable and is just pure opinion.

Anyhoo....90% of all statistics are untrue.

I am a member of AA because the fellowship offers a huge support system and the program offers a (spiritual) way of life to replace an alcoholic way of life.

I have trouble believing any statistics especially those of Bill W.

Quote from the 1st Ed. of AA.

[navysteve]

Steve I believe the recovery rates are as good as they always was when we really try.

That is pretty much the best paraphrase of the paper I posted.

I have trouble believing any statistics especially those of Bill W.

Me too, he was a salesman trying to sell a book wan't he? The paper even calls into question the validity of the original claim :

The only specific population sample identified by AA co-founder Bill W, as achieving a 50% + 25% (or overall 75%) success rate, were the pioneering members who had their personal stories printed in the first edition Big Book.

[BP44]

One of the most important things I was told was that if I was alcoholic I didn't ever have to drink again, ever. Relapse is not a part of recovery. It does occur, but it's not a part of recovery. On the flip side, very few people get sober, live sober and die sober. It is important to know that. I needed to know that the odds are stacked against me. And the truth of the matter is, I have seen more die drunk than die sober. Here's the beauty of it all. I have never seen someone come back in, pick up a desire chip, and proclaim that they went from the title page to 164 with a competent sponsor and did everything it asks us to do, but just couldn't seem to stay sober. I just haven't seen that happen. That is the only statistic I really need to know.

[bballdad]

Steve,thanks for bringing this up.I have been in a "civil" discussion on another board about sects within AA and one in particular uses the "bad recovery rate of AA" quite a bit.

[Pinkcuda]

Why don't we ever bring up the recovery rate of the individual? If you walk out of AA after a half assed attempt and find yourself drunk, you have a 0.00% success rate.
Allowing an individual to blame anything except themselves will allow them to maintain their 0% success rate with a clean conscience.
Nobody was ever heard to claim that AA "Gets you Sober"
Meetings don't "Get you Sober" Service work doesn't "Get you Sober" Nothing "Gets you Sober" AA has never made any claim that they do either! What they said they have found a cure for Alcoholism. It doesn't involve Mojo Bags or Chicken Bones either. It involves a spiritual program of action. Most go to AA expecting Osmosis to take place and blame AA when it doesn't. They have failed and have a 0% success rate.
AA has never failed anybody. AA doesn't have a success rate whether it be real or imagined. The individual does!

[Clutch B]

I think any attempt to statistically measure an unmeasurable mental/physical disease is silly. People lie. They can't take that into account.

Plus AA receives many people that don't belong there. Not everyone that gets busted for drunk driving is an alcoholic, but they are court-ordered to attend AA anyway.

The statistics are not worth taking seriously.

AA works for me and for a bunch of other people. That's good enough. Can that be quantified? No.

[navysteve]

The statistics are not worth taking seriously.

But many do Clutch. Many people base their recovery upon this foolishness. many people are out speaking in meetings quoting this as gospel. People in AA are making small notariety by sounding off about this crap. And many are listening, soaking it up. And not questioning it at all.

This stuff is responsible for alot of division in AA.

[lizw]

With the title of this thread how can someone NOT posted something!! Lol. There is quite a bit of other info on the net about how AA's 'success rates' (for want of a better phrase) have slowly declined over time.

I don't know if it is true or not but what I do know is that very few of the people who were in when I came in are still around. I don't assume their all off relapsing either. Most of the people who are still around are ones who have always been involved in service not only in their group but also at an area level.

It was also pointed out to me that 10 years is a big drop off point too. Maybe they say that for whatever the age/sober years one has, I dunno.

I think in some ways I need meetings more than ever now. I have heard the further you are from the last drink, the closer you are to your next one.

[353]

I stayed sober 100% yesterday. When I go to sleep tonight and wake in the morning, I will have been sober 100% yesterday once again. If I'm able to put enough sober yesterdays behind me, at some point there's a chance I will die without ever taking another drink. Each day, ONE DAY AT A TIME, I get closer to living the rest of my life in recovery.

Isn't that the measurement of AA, ONE DAY AT A TIME?

Shouldn't odds be figured in the agreed upon measurement? Of all the people, in all the world, who attended AA meetings today....what percentage of those people stayed sober today?

Peace

[Fishfin]

Originally Posted by navysteve

This is an interesting paper put out this year regarding AA myth and misinterpretation. I do not read it as gospel, but it is the most sensible paper I have read:

Tell me what you think?

This is interesting, Steve. I'm not sure who wrote this, but it is obvious they have little academic training and no understanding of statistics. The numbers the writer comes up with are erroneous. This is no academic paper, and looks like something somebody threw together on a word processor to give the appearance of credibility. Inaccuracies permeate this thing, so I will just touch on what you quoted.

Also noteworthy in the derivation of the mythical percentages, is the absence of fundamental academic disciplines of methodical research, corroborating verification and factual citation of sources.

This is not true. A number of studies have been conducted from reputable institutions such as Harvard Medical School. The treatment industry itself funded the largest study to date that included the efficacy of 12-Step, AA based treatment in the Project MATCH study. Reputable institutions like Hazelden participated in that study. Some of the findings are cited below.

pg 3

Even more unfortunate, concerning statistical confidence and accuracy of the citations, is that none of the authors (or self-proclaimed “AA Historians”) has apparently independently performed a critical, unbiased investigation of the original data or attempted to duplicate the calculations of AA’s reputed “failure statistics” from the basic source data listed in the membership surveys. That basic data, and an explanation of what it signifies, follows this section.

Again, this is not true. AA refuses to publish its entire internal survey. The only one that has been made available in full is the 1989 survey. They do, however, release a summary every two years that this writer cites of how long the average member has been sober, etc., and from that data it is possible to compare the success of other years with the 1989 survey data. There is little difference. Here is an example taken from the 2004 AA Membership Survey, which shows these impressive looking numbers (which also happen to be fairly close to the numbers of my home group):

36% have been sober for over 10 years; 14% have been sober between 5-10 years; 24% have been sober between 1-5 years; 26% have been sober less that 1 year; with an average of 8 years sober.


Now take the above numbers and determine the rate of success using the 1989 survey. From the 1989 survey, the dropout rate within the first year is 95%. The chance of success at that point is much greater, and 30% of those who make it the first year will make it to year five. Beyond that 95% are successful long term quitters.

Now, assume a new chapter is started with exactly 100 members and a new person filling in the void left when a member leaves. At the end of year one, you have 5 one year members and 95 who have been there for less than a year. Go forward another year. You will now have close 10 successful quitters of one and two years (actually, 9.3 if you assume the average, but since you can't split an actual person, I'm rounding up). Fast forward ten years, and that chapter will have a good many permanent quitters. You will have close to 70 people (70%) of the room who have quit for 6 months or more. Of those, close to half are at 5 years or longer. Now fast forward 20 years, keep the same success rates of 5%, 30% and 95%, the room looks even more impressive. And if you took a survey of only those who are active members, plot them on that bell curve, you will come up with numbers almost identical to the survey you linked to has: 35% have been sober for over 10 years; 16% have been sober between 5-10 years; 28% have been sober between 1-5 years; 22% have been sober less that 1 year; with an average, of course, of 8 years sober. Which leads to the following that Steve quoted:

pg 4

Of the 11,355 members who filled out questionnaires at AA meetings, 60% reported that they had not had a drink of alcohol for one year or more (emphasis added). This is one indication that AA works. According to the data which follows, it can be assumed that many of the remaining 40% are newcomers who have either not had a drink or who stopped drinking shortly after attending their first meeting.

These numbers look impressive. In actuality, it means the success rate from this survey is close to the hypothetical chapter from above, and that is less than 5%. Five percent also happens to be the average of those alcoholics who quit on their own. This important to understand, because in determining the effectiveness of any treatment program, the base number is not 0, it's 5%. Any number above 5% will show you the effectiveness of any particular rehab program vs no program at all.

pg 6

The notion of an overall 75% successful recovery outcome rate in AA owes its durability to anecdotal repetition rather than consistent statistical demonstration. There is very little consistent, verifiable data and record keeping either validating or refuting the claim of any recovery outcome rates for AA.

Unfortunately, anecdotal information is not science, and that 75% is simply ridiculous. There actually is reliable data showing recovery rates for both AA and 12-Step based recovery. I mentioned Project MATCH, which is just one example. It is the largest study to date. Here is a peer review from the University of Miami School of Medicine titled Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data (unfortunately, I've had less than 15 posts so I can't link this, so you will need to google the title; it will should be the first result[/I]). This study shows a 5% effectiveness rate for AA. Interestingly, there is no difference in the success of those who use inpatient treatment at a rehab centre, and those who attend AA and use 12-Steps on their own. It is the same 5% result. It also states this:

Exaggerated claims of treatment effectiveness can have undesirable consequences for patients, for therapists, and for science. Patients who fail an "effective" treatment may feel even more hopeless. This increased despair may be extremely deleterious in people with such life-threatening habits. Therapists may feel inadequate or frustrated with repeated failures. For science, exaggerated claims tend to shift focus into unproductive directions, and to obscure the pertinent facts that are necessary in order to move the science forward.

I think this is important, and I believe a paper like this one is unethical, manipulative and dangerous. It is really nothing more than the recovery equivalent of internet spam, and like that spam, there will be a percentage of people who believe what it states; some from lack of understanding, and some because they want to believe.

Anyway, this is only my second post, so I'm sorry it was so long.

[navysteve]

entire internal survey

If AA did an entire internal survey. How come I wasn't handed one???? I go to meetings. This paper does not report to validate any claims friend. They only report that no credible research has been done on AA itself. AA takes surveys of 5% of its population, that is not research into its effectiveness.

They even fess up to their own myths in the Big Book:

The notion of an overall 75% successful recovery outcome rate in AA owes its durability to anecdotal repetition rather than consistent statistical demonstration.

The only specific population sample identified by AA co-founder Bill W, as achieving a 50% + 25% (or overall 75%) success rate, were the pioneering members who had their personal stories printed in the first edition Big Book. 6 Beyond that, the origin or validation of the percentages is neither explained nor demonstrated.

they have little academic training and no understanding of statistics.

That is your opinion and I would call into question your credibility to make such a claim?

This paper is written for AA members and is intended for internal and public circulation as an item of AA historical and archival research. It is offered to help inform the AA membership and academic researchers of a widely circulated misinterpretation and mischaracterization of AA recovery outcomes.

pg 1

I'm not sure who wrote this,

Then you didn't read it. Their names are on page one. I don't know their credentials either. I do agree with you that it is not written in typical academic format ( there aren't any empirical research referencese, no true studies, only a census survey, which is not research data) Oh yeah, the title of the paper:

Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation

They are not trying to prove any facts, or make an argument for any success rate. They are talking about the myths in AA about success and failure.

Perhaps a second read?????

[Fishfin]

Originally Posted by navysteve

If AA did an entire internal survey. How come I wasn't handed one???? I go to meetings. This paper does not report to validate any claims friend. They only report that no credible research has been done on AA itself. AA takes surveys of 5% of its population, that is not research into its effectiveness.

What I meant by "entire internal survey" was that they have only released one survey in its entirety (the 1989 internal survey), not that they do a survey of the entire AA membership. For all other surveys, they released select information such as gender, average length of sobriety, etc.

Five percent is more than enough of a research sample to get an accurate figure on their success rates. In fact, five percent is fairly large sample. Not that it really matters what percentage is surveyed. What matters is the size of the sample itself, and 11,000 people is an extremely large sample. Not only that, the more surveys that are done, the greater the accuracy of the data; and AA has done internal surveys for more than 20 years with almost identical figures each year.

Credible research has been done on 12-step treatment that utilizes AA, so I do not know why they say that in this report. Again, I can't post a link because I have too few posts here, but google Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data, and it will take you a peer review of Project MATCH, which is the largest study done to date. Amazingly, this study and others correspond almost exactly to the figures in AA's surveys, and that is 5% after one year (some of the studies look at longer sobriety, but the results are still almost identical to the AA's internal survey).

Then you didn't read it. Their names are on page one. I don't know their credentials either.

I read every word of this. It does list the names Arthur, Tom and Glenn; but that does not really say who these people are, as there are millions of Arthurs, Toms and Glenns.

That is your opinion and I would call into question your credibility to make such a claim?

As I wrote before, I was only responding to the quotes you cited, but I could explain how they erroneously came up with those numbers where you would understand. I'm not a mathematician, but I can explain how 2 + 2 does not equal 10. That is not my opinion, it is a mathematical fact. This is almost as basic. It is just amazingly poor.

They are not trying to prove any facts, or make an argument for any success rate. They are talking about the myths in AA about success and failure.

Of course they are trying to prove that AA has a higher success rate than 5%. They are talking about myths, but they are trying to make the argument that a 5% success rate is a myth, hence the title of the paper. I don't know if they manipulated the data on purpose or because they do not understand basic statistics, but that is what they did in reaching their conclusions. As somebody in recovery myself, I don't want to see numbers manipulated and exaggerated to prove a method of recovery is what it is not. I would rather understand the truth and hope we can improve on things. Believing the myth of a 50% or 75% success rate perpetuates a false myth as to AA's effectiveness, and I doubt you or anybody else would want mislead. The difference between five and seventy-five percent goes beyond misleading and into Pinnochio territory, and it is pretty blatant.

I hope I did not offend you, Steve. I understand you just posted a link, and this is not a personal thing against you, the fellowship or anybody on this forum; but that is just a horrifically bad piece of work.

[navysteve]

Project MATCH took great care to assure that the therapy was of the highest quality. Therapy was manualized and the three manuals [3-5] were organized into specific treatment sessions. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) focused on handling thoughts about alcohol, dealing with urges, refusing drinks, avoiding situations that might lead to relapse, etc. Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) provided structured feedback about alcohol-related problems, and attempted to motivate commitment to change, to increase individual responsibility, and to enlist personal resources. Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF) was based on principles of Alcoholics Anonymous and it introduced the first three steps of AA and promoted active participation in AA. Therapists were required to have a Masters degree or Certified Addiction Counselor degree, a commitment to the particular therapeutic approach that they would provide (i.e., CBT, MET, or TSF), and at least two years experience. Therapist training was centralized at the coordinating center using seminars, required two supervised training cases, and also included some ongoing supervision of all sessions. Therapists taped their sessions with clients, and the tapes were scored at the coordinating center.

Which means they studied treatment centers, one of which promoted 12 steps.

You did not offend me at all, honestly.

This paper does not say AA has a 75 percent recovery rate, it in fact called that into question. And even said that it was left in the Big Book only to not change the original writing. It even goes on to call into question how AA's take what Bill Wilson wrote as gospel. I think that is pretty bold, since he is either deified or vilified ( depending on who you are talking to):

The difference between five and seventy-five percent goes beyond misleading and into Pinnochio territory, and it is pretty blatant.

Credible research has been done on 12-step treatment that utilizes AA

That is not AA though. A treatment center that promotes AA membership is not a study of AA


I do see a slant in the paper because it is written by AA members. But the folks who claim AA once had a 75% success rate are incorrect because no empirical research has ever been done on AA.

[tiburon88]

I believe the often cited AA success rate is 10%. I think AA's biggest failure is it's dogmatic views. I mean cancer treatment today is very much changed than in 1955. It is also more successful. I've had sponsers, worked steps daily, prayed ect... and continue to drink. I feel like AA has indeed failed me and I feel better knowing that perhaps it's NOT the solution for me.

tib

[jimhere]

Well tib, I hope that you find some sort of solution.

We've been watching you die for the last several years.