The anti-gay group NARTH has been touting a five-year study soon-to-be-released for, well, the last five years.
Well, Ex-Gay Watch is already on the case here:
There are unconfirmed reports that the study has a sample of as few as 100 to 150 participants. While we don't know what work was done during selection or preparation, we now know that the data was collected via annual phone calls. A picture is forming of some weak methodology, but presumably more accurate assessments can be made if and/or when others in the scientific community are allowed to review the method of selection of study subjects, the content and method of questions, and the presence or lack of nonverbal measurements and control data.
So basically they're calling people up and asking them if they're straight. The funny thing is that ex-gay therapy basically asks people to say over and over again that they are straight, and if they say it enough times it'll come true. So would they be all that motivated to tell the truth here?
And 100 to 150 people were studied? If they don't publish how they were picked, I'm going to guess that they're those people who are still in the denial phase of ex-gay therapy and that no one from certain critical organizations was picked.
Peterson Toscano reported over a year ago:
When I appeared with Chambers on the Faith Under Fire TV show, he insisted that millions and millions of people have found freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ. I questioned him, "Millions and millions?!? Do you have data to back this up." He proceded to tell me about a five-year study they started with 100 people. I asked, "What happened to millions of millions?" Sadly that exchange didn't make it to the final cut.
Well, if the study Chambers cites started with 100 people, and I'm going to guess some people dropped out, either because they died, moved far away, stopped caring or lost contact, or gave up ex-gayism. There could be a whole lot fewer people in the study than 100.
Oh, yeah, and there's no indication that this study is peer-reviewed, of course, because that would expose the faulty data-collecting for what it is.
So, basically, we're going to hear about this study all over the Religious Right's noise boxes, and we're going to have to put up with it being thrown around for years and years, and it's just going to be annoying. But we can at least remember that it was debunked before it even came out, for whatever satisfaction that brings.