Facilitated Communication
Studies

Sponsored link.

Topics in this section:

 | Focusing on the Keyboard: There is one condition in which it is obvious to even an untrained observer that the
person with autism is not doing the communicating. This is when they are staring at the
ceiling or directly away from the keyboard. We tried a simple test
to prove that a person (even one with normal communication skills) cannot type meaningful
messages with one finger unless they are looking at the keyboard. The test is simple to
perform and only takes a few minutes. |
R.T. Carroll sums this up neatly:
"FC clients routinely use a flat board or keyboard, over which their pointing
finger is held by the facilitator. Even the most expert typist could not routinely hit
correct letters without some reference as a starting point. (Try looking away from your
keyboard and typing a sentence using just one finger held in the air above the keyboard.)
Facilitators routinely look at the keyboard; clients do not. The messages' basic coherence
indicate they must be produced by someone who is looking at the keyboard. The conclusion
seems inevitable." 1
 | Age-Inappropriate Language Skills: Some messages typed during a FC session would exhibit advanced writing skills, even if
they were typed by a child of the same age with normal communication ability. For example,
the following paragraph was typed by a 6 year old girl with an adult facilitator: |
"i am really the only child in my class who uses a typewriter. i
feel very proud of my typing. i will be a writer when i am 25 years old
i x [sic] want people to respect children with autism. we are bright and
want to be just like opther [sic] kids."
If the child is sufficiently young and the text sufficiently mature in content
and structure, then one can infer that the message came from the facilitator and not from
the user.

Sponsored link:

One goal in FC is for the facilitator to gradually withdraw support from the user. This
is called "fading." At first, the facilitator will usually support the user's
finger and palm. Then support is withdrawn to the wrist, then to the forearm, elbow,
shoulder and perhaps just holding on to a thread from the user's sweater, or placing a
hand on the shoulder. The end point is to have the user typing independently. As support
is withdrawn, the likelihood that the facilitator is influencing the user gradually
diminishes. We have not been able to find any studies which predict what percentage of
persons diagnosed with autism will eventually be able to type on their own without
facilitation. D. Bicklen refers to "several students typing completely
independently; of these, all had been facilitating for more than three years."
2
A very small percentage of persons with autism have finished High School; a few and
have attended and graduated from college or university.

Studies of FC have tended to fall into two categories:
Studies by DEAL, FCI and other promoters of FC:
These have involved "qualitative or ethnographic methodologies" of
the types used by anthropologists and educators. They avoid confrontational study
techniques that might undermine the user's self-confidence. Most such studies appear to
demonstrate the validity of FC.
The proponents of FC typically argue that quantitative, objective testing "would
undermine the confidence of the communicator, place undue pressure on him/her, and
introduce negativism that would destroy the communicative exchange."
3
Doug Biklen is one of the main critics of objective validation. He notes that many
autistic "individuals have extreme word finding problems - they come out with a
wrong or related word rather than the correct word when asked a question." Also,
they will often produce the correct answer only after a second or third try.
4 He
prefers qualitative studies. For example:
 | Recording when one user exhibits with a number of facilitators:
 | the same patterns of "creative and phonetic spellings." |
 | repeated choice of vocabulary, favorite phrases, favorite topics. |
 | the same personality coming through their writing. |
|
 | Recording instances when the user typed about situations that were unknown to the facilitator. |
 | Keeping a portfolio for each user, which is updated with events that confirm that FC is
working. Chris Kliewer of the Facilitated Communication Institute comments: "From
conversations with teachers, we concluded that individual authorship could be identified
through portfolios of students' typing and through examination of their speech and of
their physical style of pointing." He gives a guide to the contents of such
portfolios. 5 |
Studies by skeptics and impartial investigators:
These have tended to be objective and quantitative in nature. They use independent
observers to evaluate the text produced. They generally use "facilitator/FC user
dyads who had been working together for a considerable period."
6 The tests
involve familiar, ordinary tasks, such as "discussing everyday events, naming or
describing familiar pictures and objects." Often they are done "in the
context of typical FC sessions" at the user's school or institution.
Results have regularly shown that the technique has little or no usefulness. "FC
is neither reliably replicable nor valid when produced." 7 Facilitator
influence over the user is consistently proven. Rarely, the user was proven to initiate
valid answers independently of the facilitator's knowledge; these appear to be by users
who have previously demonstrated the ability to read or speak some words.
The first published objective test of FC was performed at the O.D. Heck
Developmental Center. Their staff had been polarized into what they termed
"believers" and "non-believers." 8,9 After hundreds of trials
spanning three months, involving "12 students and 9 facilitators, there was not
one single correct response. There was overwhelming evidence of facilitator influence,
albeit unconscious." This result was devastating to many of the staff who had
embraced FC. Some of them conducted small studies privately in an attempt to disprove the
large trial. All failed.
"Gina Green, Director of Research for the New England Center for Autism and
Associate Scientist for the E.K. Shriver Center for Mental Retardation, Inc., has reviewed
over 150 cases where empirical testing was performed and cites 15 independent conduct
evaluations involving 136 individuals with autism and/or mental retardation who were
alleged to have been taught to communicate via facilitated communication. In none of the
cases were investigators able to confirm facilitated communication by the 136 individuals."
10

References:
- R.T. Carroll, "Facilitated Communication (FC)," at: http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/facilcom.html
- D. Bicklen, "Communications Unbound," Teacher's College Press, New
York, NY (1993)
- "Facilitated Communication," by the Commission on Quality
of Care for the Mentally Disabled, at: http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/fchot.htm
- Douglas Biklen, "Questions and Answers on Facilitated Communication,"
The Advocate 1992-SUMMER.
- Chris Kliewer, "The Communication Portfolio," Facilitated
Communication Digest 1993-NOV, Vol. 2 No. 1
- Gina Green, "Facilitated Communication: Mental Miracle or Sleight of Hand?"
Skeptic Vol. 2, Nbr. 3, 1994, Pages 68 to 76.
- J.W. Jacobson, et al., "A History of Facilitated Communication: Science,
Pseudoscience, and
Antiscience," American Psychologist, (1995), Vol. 50, No. 9, Pages 750-765. The
paper is available at: http://www.apa.org/journals/jacobson.html
- "Facilitated Communication," by the Commission on Quality
of Care for the Mentally Disabled, at: http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/fchot.htm
- D.L. Wheeler, et al., "An Experimental Assessment of Facilitated
Communication," Mental Retardation 31 (1993), Pages 49-60
- Natalie Russo, "Facilitated Communication," by the Commission
on Quality of Care..., at: http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/fcnatal.htm

Copyright © 1998 to 2100 incl., by Ontario Consultants on
Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2001-DEC-6
Author: B.A. Robinson


| |
|