Facilitated communication

Facilitated communication (FC), or supported typing, is a scientifically discredited technique[1] that attempts to aid communication by people with autism or other communication disabilities who are non-verbal. The facilitator guides the disabled person's arm or hand and attempts to help them type on a keyboard or other device.[2]

This article is about the pseudoscientific technique. For devices and processes that facilitate communication for people with communication difficulties, see Augmentative and alternative communication.
Facilitated communication
Alternative medicine
ClaimsDisabled people may be able to communicate by pointing at letters or with a keyboard if physically held and assisted by an expert facilitator.
Related fieldsAlternative medicine
Year proposedLate 20th century
Original proponentsSofie Madsen Rosemary Crossley
Subsequent proponentsDouglas Biklen
This article is part of a series on
Alternative medicine
General information
Fringe medicine and science
Conspiracy theories (list)
Classifications
  • Alternative medical systems
  • Mind–body intervention
  • Biologically-based therapy
  • Manipulative methods
  • Energy therapy
Traditional medicine
Diagnoses

There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and among disability advocacy organizations that FC is a pseudoscience.[3] Research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC, rather than the disabled person. The facilitator may believe they are not the source of the messages due to the ideomotor effect, which is the same effect that guides a Ouija board.[4][5] Studies have consistently found that FC is unable to provide the correct response to even simple questions when the facilitator does not know the answers to the questions (e.g., showing the patient but not the facilitator an object).[6] In addition, in numerous cases disabled persons have been assumed by facilitators to be typing a coherent message while the patient's eyes were closed or while they were looking away from or showing no particular interest in the letter board.[7]

Facilitated communication has been called "the single most scientifically discredited intervention in all of developmental disabilities".[8] Some promoters of the technique have claimed that FC cannot be clearly disproven because a testing environment might cause the subject to lose confidence.[9] However, there is a scientific consensus that facilitated communication is not a valid communication technique, and its use is strongly discouraged by most speech and language disability professional organizations.[3] There have been a large number of false abuse allegations made through facilitated communication.

Overview

Facilitated communication is promoted as a means to assist people with severe communication disabilities in pointing to letters on an alphabet board, keyboard or other device so that they can communicate independently. It has also been called "supported typing",[10] "progressive kinesthetic feedback",[11] and "written output communication enhancement".[11] It is related to the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM),[12] also known as "informative pointing",[11] which also has no evidence of efficacy.[13][14][15]

The person with disabilities, who is often unable to rely on speech to communicate, is called the communication partner, while the person holding their arm is called the facilitator. The facilitator holds or touches the communication partner's elbow, wrist, hand, sleeve or other parts of the body[16] while the communication partner points to letters of the alphabet on a keyboard or other device.[17][11]

One device popular with early FC users was the Canon Communicator, which printed a tape of letters when activated.[18][19][20] However, two American companies were later charged by the Federal Trade Commission for making "false and unsubstantiated claims" that the device could enable disabled people to communicate using FC. The companies settled and stopped mentioning FC in their advertising campaigns.[21]

Proponents of FC claim that the reason people with autism cannot communicate effectively involves motor issues such as apraxia, and that they "lack confidence in their abilities"[16][22] but physical support helps them overcome this limitation. However, this claim is unsubstantiated. Research indicates that non-verbal autistics are unable to communicate due to intellectual disability.[11]

The facilitator is depicted as helping the patient with pointing to letters, controlling involuntary arm movements, avoiding mistakes, initiating movement,[23] verbal prompts, and moral support.[17][24][25][26][27] It is also claimed that the facilitator must believe in the patient's ability to communicate.[28][29][30] Former facilitator Janyce Boynton, who came to reject the technique after taking part in double-blind trials, later reported that her training[31][32] took for granted that the process worked, and that the complexity of facilitation made it hard to realise that messages were coming from her expectations and not from her patients:

"When you're facilitating, you're so distracted by other things. You're carrying on conversations, you're asking and answering questions, you're trying to look at the person to see if they're looking at the keyboard...Your brain is so engaged that you lose sight of what's happening with your hand...that's what makes it feel like it's working because the more you practice it, the more the movements feel really fluid.”[31][33][32]

Scott Lilienfeld, the Dobbs Professor of Psychology at Emory University, writing in The Neuroethics Blog, admonishes practitioners of mental health practice not to ignore their "epistemic duties – responsibilities to seek out and possess accurate knowledge about the world," and wrote:

Ultimately, the proponents of facilitated communication very much wanted to help individuals with autism. But the facilitated communication tragedy teaches us that good intentions are not sufficient. Good intentions paired with grossly inaccurate knowledge and an absence of a self-critical mindset can be disastrous. This tragedy also teaches us that by not attending to their epistemic duties, professionals can do grave harm without intending to do so.[34]

History
Keyboard of the type used in facilitated communication

The FC movement can be traced back to the 1960s in Denmark, where it failed to take hold because of a lack of scientific evidence.[26] It became popular in Australia during the 1970s, largely due to the efforts of special educator Rosemary Crossley.[19][34][35][36][37] It was popularized in the United States beginning in the late 1980s by Arthur Schawlow and Douglas Biklen.[38][22][16][19][23] FC has also received attention in Asia and Europe.[11][35][39]

Early users of facilitated communication praised it for its apparent simplicity.[22][28][29][40][41] It was promoted as a "teaching strategy"[42] that did not require objective evaluation or close monitoring.[29] However, as early as 1991, more than 40 peer-reviewed studies had not only failed to demonstrate FC's efficacy, but indicated that any successes reported were due to facilitator influence.[43] This influence is usually attributed to non-conscious movements,[44][45] and it is thought that facilitators are genuinely unaware that they are controlling the communications.[21][46]

In 1994, the American Psychological Association (APA),[47][48] passed a resolution cautioning against the use of facilitated communication, citing the lack of scientific evidence.[21] They also stated that information obtained via FC should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions.[46][49][50] In recognition of the continued scientific evidence against the technique, this was followed by similar statements from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP),[48] American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA),[23][51][52] and the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC)[53] In 1998, a British government report concluded that "the phenomenon fails to materialise once facilitator effects have been controlled. It would be hard to justify further research on this".[7][54] By 2001, it was reported in a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed literature that "Facilitated Communication (FC) had largely been empirically discredited as an effective intervention for previously uncommunicative persons with disabilities, especially those with autism and related disorders. Key empirical findings consistently showed that the facilitator and not the client initiated communication."[55]

Many people believed FC had passed its peak,[56] characterizing it as a fad[56] and pseudoscientific.[13][57] However, promotion of the technique continued, with supporters dismissing empirical investigations as irrelevant, flawed, or unnecessary, and calling FC an "effective and legitimate intervention".[55][43][58][59] As of 2014, the facilitated communication movement remained popular and it continued to be used in many countries.[36][11] Mostert writes:

All the newer pro-FC studies operate from the premise that FC works and is a legitimate practice to be used in investigating any number of other phenomena related to people with autism and other related severe communication problems. Such assumptions increasingly morph FC into a valid intervention among readers who are unaware of the empirical dismissal of the intervention and who might not be skilled in distinguishing solid from suspect research. In this regard, it is likely that FC will continue to reinforce the assumptions of efficacy among parents and practitioners. These perceptions will continue to be reinforced by professional organizations such as the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University, a fairly wide acceptance of FC internationally, and the vacuum created by few if any future solid empirical studies that are likely to dissuade the faithful.[55]

Facilitated communication is closely related to the rapid prompting method (RPM), in which the facilitator holds the letter board instead of touching the patient.[60] Proponents of RPM deny similarities with FC and state that the prompts are "nonspecific."[61] However, RPM contains subtle cuing that makes it highly susceptible to influence from the facilitator.[60]

Other similarities between RPM and FC include: reluctance or refusal to test their claims in controlled settings (purportedly because the process breaks the trust between facilitator and client), presumed competence, reliance on anecdotal accounts as proof of efficacy, maintenance of practices, techniques and claims that are inconsistent with the known research, claims of extraordinary literacy or intellectual breakthroughs, unconscious verbal or physical cuing by facilitators to obtain the expected responses, and inadequate or non-existent protocols to account for the effects of the facilitator.[62][63]

In 2019, a dispute about the use of Spelling to Communicate (S2C), a brand of RPM, developed between the Lower Merion School District and the parent of a child attending school there. The parents claimed the child was deprived of a free education because the district declined to pay for a private educational program based on S2C. In December of that year, the found that there was no evidence that S2C enabled the child to communicate and thus the school district prevailed.[64]

Organizations opposing facilitated communication

The Board of Directors concludes that rather than helping people express their thoughts, desires, and choices, FC and RPM have the potential to effectively take away people’s voices. This is due to the risk of facilitator influence/authorship as well as the potential to displace efforts to access scientifically valid communication modes, such as those associated with the field of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).

— AAIDD[66]

It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that use of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity. Furthermore, information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the communication of the person with a disability.

— ASHA[67]

While the lack of evidence from previously conducted studies does not necessarily indicate that RPM is not effective at developing communication skills and reducing stereotypic behaviors in learners with autism, use of this intervention should not be used or recommended by practitioners until the claims made can be substantiated by peer reviewed research studies.

— ASAT[68]

Historically, the IOD has engaged in research and training activities related to FC. These activities were never a substantial part of our work and have waned considerably in recent years. The IOD is no longer providing resources or pursuing activities related to FC.

— IOD[69]

...given ISAAC's mission to promote the best possible communication abilities and opportunities for persons with limited or no functional speech, ISAAC does not support FC as a valid form of AAC, a valid means for people to access AAC, or a valid means to communicate important life decisions. The weight of evidence does not support FC and therefore it cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice.

— ISAAC[10]

Do not provide 'facilitated communication' for adults with autism.

— NICE[71]

There is a lack of substantive research evidence demonstrating that FC and RPM are valid forms of augmentative or alternative communication ... Research studies show that facilitators consciously and/or unconsciously influence the message being communicated ... thereby exposing people with communication disorders to risk of harm by preventing genuine self-expression ... For these reasons, SAC members and associates should not use FC and RPM in clinical practice.

— SAC[72]

Claims and evidence
The Anne McDonald Centre, a facilitated communication centre in Melbourne, Australia directed by Rosemary Crossley.

There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC is not a valid technique for communicating with those with autism spectrum disorder.[3] Instead, research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC (involving ideomotor effect guidance of the arm of the patient by the facilitator).[4][5] Studies have consistently found that FC is unable to provide the correct response to even simple questions when the facilitator does not know the answers to the questions (e.g., showing the patient but not the facilitator an object).[6]

While video tapes exist that appear to show disabled people communicating through FC, or who have used it as a means to learn independent typing, these videos are widely regarded as inaccurate and misleading. According to one researcher, "You can edit videotape and show whatever you want. They'll show you a close-up of the finger moving across the keyboard...but you're not getting what else is going on."[49]

Authorship of messages

Researchers attribute the facilitators' beliefs about authorship to the ideomotor effect (also called the Clever Hans or Ouija effect).[74][44][19][22] While proponents say that FC should never involve guiding the patient, researchers attending an FC class in 1993 observed that physical force was used to prevent the patients from moving their hand away from the keyboard.[75] Facilitators may also influence movements without realizing it.[58] Researcher Gina Green stated: "Very subtle influence can affect people's behavior. It doesn't even have to be touch. It can be the slightest sound, the slightest visual cue."[76] Guidelines for facilitators instruct practitioners to expect the emergence of hidden skills and sensitive personal information, to use anecdotal data to validate authorship, to avoid objective scrutiny.[22]

Some observers have reported that while the facilitators were watching the letter board, their communication partners were often distracted, staring off into space, rolling around on the floor,[27] falling asleep,[29] or otherwise not paying attention.[17][42] In other cases, the communication partners spoke words that conflicted with the words being typed.[9] Individuals described as highly competent would also give wrong answers to simple questions or information that they should have readily known (e.g. the name of the family dog, the names of family members, the spelling of their own name) but which facilitators did not.[16][77]

Proponents of the technique believed that patients who had not been taught reading, writing or mathematics were capable of writing down complex thoughts and solving multiplication problems.[26][28][42][78] Patients have also been claimed to write books and poetry,[79][80] advocate for better treatment of people with disabilities,[81] express a desire to get married,[11][30] have sexual relations,[11][82][83] decide important medical issues, and, in some cases, report abuses allegedly occurring in their homes.[35][84][85] According to psychologist Adrienne Perry, "The adult or child with autism is made a 'screen' for a facilitator's hostilities, hopes, beliefs or suspicions".[84]

Autism

While proponents of FC claim that autism is primarily a motor control problem that can be overcome with physical support,[16][29][37] this view is not accepted by the scientific community. Autism is often accompanied by intellectual disabilities affecting language and communication which cannot be overcome by supportively holding someone's hand.[11][86] Facilitators reject objective data and use public opinion and qualitative studies[87][88] to promote FC's efficacy despite contradicting a long history of autism research.[56][89][90] In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all.[48] Proponents also say that a few individuals using FC have developed the ability to type independently or with minimal support,[91] but these claims are anecdotal and have not been substantiated.[11][13][92] Many facilitators deny they are influencing their communication partners' movements, even when faced with evidence to the contrary.[36][48]

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical report, Identification, Evaluation, and Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder, published in January, 2020, the "Current scientific evidence does not support the use of facilitated communication in which a nonverbal individual is guided to communicate. This differs from [ augmentative and alternative communication ], in which the individual is taught to communicate independently."[93]

Belief in facilitated communication is promoted by its status as a claimed "miracle cure" presented when parents are undergoing stress and grief from learning that their child has a disability. The only evidence of success is the transcript of apparent communication.[75] In some cases of autism, parents reject the diagnosis and say that their child's disability is physical rather than developmental, and with FC or RPM their beliefs are confirmed.[94] Researchers James Mulick, John Jacobson and Frank Kobe state that FC is used to "...stroke their hopes with empty promises, regardless of their sincerity, while reaping personal or political rewards and working hard to prevent systematic verification of their claims". They add that "people with handicaps can be valued members of their families and communities without resorting to appeals to miracle cures" and that genuine help is available, but "advances in treatment and understanding come at the price of rigorous training, dedication to accuracy and scientific standards, and objective verification of all treatment claims".[75]

Bernard Rimland, a research psychologist who founded the Autism Research Institute of San Diego and the Autism Society of America, asked "How is it possible that an autistic kid can pick up the last tiny crumbs of potato chips off a plate but not have sufficient motor coordination to type the letter E?"[21] Howard Shane, director of the Center for Communication Enhancement at Children's Hospital in Boston and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, finds it "curious that those being facilitated can only create [these] insightful comments" when helped by an assistant.[95] Why, when technology allowed people with severe disabilities the opportunity to access independent communication with even the slightest movement (e.g., an eye wink, movement of an eyebrow, a puff of air into a straw), would a facilitator need to hold their hand?[9][11]

Testifying in the Anna Stubblefield court case, psychology professor James Todd called facilitated communication "the single most scientifically discredited intervention in all of developmental disabilities" and that every methodologically sound study of FC has shown it to be invalid.[8] Writing about that case in the journal "Disability and Society", Mark Sherry voiced similar concerns about FC's lack of scientific validity, calling it a "sham", "hoax" and a "fraud." Sherry's was the first article published in a Disability Studies journal which thoroughly critiqued Stubblefield's actions, a noteworthy contribution because Stubblefield had also been in Disability Studies and had previously published about FC in the journal Disability Studies Quarterly.[96] Sherry suggested that some of the defenders of Stubblefield (and FC more broadly) are either her personal friends or work in institutions which receive substantial income from providing FC.[97] A newspaper editorial from Syracuse University, where the techniques relevant to the case had been taught, called it "inexcusable" and "embarrassing" that the University continues to support FC after over 25 years of research has discredited it.[98]

Opposition to research

Members of the FC movement rely on anecdotal and observational data (e.g., the existence of unique spellings or unexpected skills or revelations made during the communication session)[18][23] in order to back up their claims.[16][51] However, because cueing is often subtle and it is not always possible to observe the influence of the facilitator, informal observations and facilitator reports have proven unreliable in determining authorship.[48]

Parents and researchers who questioned FC's effectiveness and supported evaluating FC by objective methods have been accused of being "oppressors of the disabled," told they were narrow-minded, outmoded, evil, jealous they weren't the ones to discover FC,[29] and, in some cases, accused of hate speech for advocating a more studied approach.[13][25][99] Proponents claim that testing is demeaning to the disabled person,[16] that the testing environment creates performance anxiety,[100] or that those being facilitated may purposely produce nonsense, refuse to respond, or give wrong answers to counteract the negative attitudes of those who are skeptical of the technique.[101]

Mostert wrote in 2001, "FC proponents must be encouraged to subject their claims to further scientific verification, the claims of anecdotal evidence notwithstanding. If any small part of FC is ever to be found effective or even plausible, it is abundantly clear that only by careful use of controlled experimental methods will this be established."[102] The only way to determine whether communications are truly independent is to perform controlled testing, where the facilitator does not already know the answers to questions and, therefore, cannot inadvertently or purposefully cue their communication partner to obtain the desired answer.[13][103][100] Even if the facilitator feels like they are not moving the other person's hand, they can still be providing cues that lead to specific letters on the keyboard.[19][82][104]

In 1992, when FC was fairly new to the United States, Douglas Biklen was quoted in The Washington Post as saying he "welcomed scientific studies", but the article went on to say:

he doesn't want to do them. He's an educator, not a psychiatrist, and like other educators who have written about facilitated communication, he is comfortable with the fact that there is often a lag time between the application of a new method and its scientific validation.[85]

Although proponents say that FC is difficult or impossible to objectively test, psychologist James T. Todd wrote:

the determination of authorship in FC involves a straightforward application of basic experimental methods described comprehensively by Mill (1843) more than a century and half ago, but understood for millennia. We are not speaking of obscure or controversial techniques. We are speaking of authorship validation by selectively presenting different information to two people then observing what is produced.[82]

Blind testing

Despite the FC community's reluctance to participate in testing, researchers outside the community set up blinded experiments to identify who was doing the communicating. Some of the tests were conducted as a direct response to cases involving sexual abuse allegations made through facilitated communication against parents, teachers, and caregivers of people with disabilities.[26][79][105][106][107] However, a number of controlled evaluations were also conducted by clinicians, researchers, and program administrators who were considering the use of FC, but wanted an objective, empirical basis for deciding what role, if any, FC would have in their programs.[22]

The O.D. Heck Center in Schenectady, New York was one of the first in the United States to go public with their findings,[22] which were that their clients produced meaningful responses through facilitated communication only when their facilitators had access to the correct responses.[51] The report also ruled out issues of confidence or skepticism on the part of the evaluators. All twelve participants (people with disabilities) were chosen for the evaluation because their facilitators believed in their ability to communicate through FC. The study demonstrated that the communication partners were "systematically and unknowingly" being influenced by their facilitators. The researchers wrote:

In fact, the nature of the findings permits us to assert that their output in facilitated communication was not only influenced, but was controlled and determined by the facilitators. To all appearances, these participants had been producing thoughtful communication, and several had consistently engaged in interactive conversations using facilitated communication. Many people serving these individuals believed that this output reflected the valid expressions of the participants.[21][108]

The result of the O.D. Heck study seemed so startling, especially in light of the positive response FC was getting in the popular press, that Frontline featured the story in its 1993 "Prisoners of Silence".[9][36][48][65][89] In 1993, Genae A. Hall, research director for the Behavior Analysis Center for Autism, wrote:

The fact that facilitators often control and direct the typing has been called "facilitator influence," which seems to be a misnomer. "Facilitator influence" suggests that the disabled person is emitting verbal behavior, and the facilitator is exerting partial control (or "influence") over that behavior. Although partial control certainly may occur when fading prompts within structured teaching programs, such control has not been demonstrated in most cases of FC. Rather than influencing the typed messages, the facilitator appears to be the sole author of those messages. Thus, the focus of analysis is shifted from the disabled person's behavior to the facilitator's behavior.[109]

Multiple other double-blind studies were being conducted at the same time,[29] and whenever conditions were adequately controlled to prevent the facilitator from knowing the answers to questions, the results revealed facilitator influence, if not direct authorship.[22][26][110]

In 1994, Thistledown Regional Centre in Ontario, Canada conducted an internal study of 20 people with autism and stopped using FC when the results showed facilitator influence was "contaminating the messages being produced."[84] By 1995, these results had been replicated by researchers worldwide in at least 24 studies in credible, peer-reviewed research journals using multiple different methods that ensure the facilitator doesn't know or can't guess the expected message, or doesn't look at the letters.[29]

In 1997, reflecting on the trajectory FC has taken in several countries, including Denmark, the U.S. and Australia, von Tetzchner wrote:

In the struggle to keep up to date with an increasing number of published papers, both researchers and practitioners tend to forget history. In order to avoid making the same mistakes over again, the issues and processes underlying the rise and fall of facilitating techniques--as well as other intervention methods--in various countries should have a natural place in research reviews. When an intervention claimed to have exceptional effects disappears, the likely reason is lack of positive results.[26]

By 2005, more than 50 controlled studies and blind tests had been conducted, in addition to numerous controlled tests conducted in legal cases. The studies consistently showed "without a doubt" that the messages obtained through facilitated communication were controlled by the facilitators and not their communication partners.[48]

The vast majority of evidence now indicates that facilitated communication is not scientifically valid. However, this information has not stopped many individuals from using this technique under various circumstances and furthermore, advocating for its effectiveness.[111] The overwhelming majority of studies conducted on the efficacy of this technique has revealed that any "positive" results indicating that facilitated communication has worked can be attributed to the facilitators themselves. Be it the facilitator attributing their own beliefs and views onto the individual, or creating a pseudo-personality for the disabled individual based on their previous encounters with them, it is clear that the facilitator is really the one doing all the communicating. The American Psychological Association (APA) issued a statement in 1994 that there was "no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."[112] Finally, even further defining facilitated communication as a pseudoscience, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a statement indicating that facilitated communication studies have repeatedly demonstrated that it is not a scientifically valid technique and that it is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy.[112]

Previous proponents

Pat Mirenda, professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education at the University of British Columbia and co-author David R. Beukelman, Barkley Professor of Communication Disorders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, had included FC in early versions of their textbook Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. These versions are quoted in pro-FC literature. However, they decided not to include FC in revised versions, and in 2015 Mirenda stated, "I came to recognize (painfully, to be honest) that my advocacy stance biased me to interpret what I saw on videotapes as independent typing even though other explanations were more plausible (e.g., subtle prompting, resulting in an ideomotor effect), and that, even if independent typing did occur subsequent to FC exposure, only correlational—but definitely not causal—evidence exists with regard to its relationship to FC. In short, I do not endorse FC as a communication or instructional technique, and I do not support its use."[113]

Stephen N. Calculator of the University of New Hampshire, an early proponent of FC, later distanced himself from the movement because he could not replicate claims of independent communication in his own research studies.[114] He described the importance of determining the extent of facilitator influence: "The consequences of falsely attributing messages to communicators, rather than facilitators, continue to have significant financial, social and moral ramifications. Facilitators must take extraordinary precautions to assure that they are not unduly influencing messages and thereby impinging on communicators' freedom of speech. The rights of individuals to express their thoughts and ideas should not be circumvented by facilitators who communicate for them, unwilling or not."[86]

Janyce Boynton, who at one time was a strong FC proponent, is now one of FC's leading critics. In the early 1990s, she was the facilitator for a non-speaking high school girl with autism who seemed to describe having been sexually abused by her parents, resulting in the girl and her brother being removed from their home. However, systematic testing by Howard Shane revealed that the girl could not have been the author of the messages. The case was described in the 1993 PBS Frontline documentary “Prisoners of Silence”. Unlike many in the FC-proponent community, Boynton accepted the evidence from Shane's testing and other well-controlled scientific studies. She stopped using FC, convinced her school administration to implement a system-wide prohibition on its use, and apologized to the falsely accused parents of the girl she had worked with. In a presentation at the CSICON meetings in 2019, Boynton argued that most FC facilitators are well-meaning but are caught up in a belief system that leads them to discount the overwhelming evidence that FC does not work.[115] She maintains a clearinghouse of professional articles and media coverage about FC, and helped in convincing the University of Northern Iowa to stop sponsoring an annual workshop that included instruction in FC.[116] As stated by another member of that group (Stuart Vyse), “this is just the beginning. There are a number of other universities and governmental organizations that tacitly or explicitly endorse FC and/or its related techniques, and Ms. Boynton and her allies have their eyes on a number of these future targets”.[117]

In 2006, Belgian neurologist Steven Laureys claimed that Rom Houben, a comatose man, was able to type out thoughts on a keypad with the help of facilitated communications. However, when independent tests demonstrated that FC could not produce the correct answers to questions if the facilitator had not been in the room, he agreed that Houben had not been communicating.[118]

Presentation in the media

Stories of purported successes are still reported in magazines such as Reader's Digest,[58] in movies[36][48][49][95][119][120][121] and plays,[122] and on television shows such as ABC's 20/20 Prime Time Live with Diane Sawyer.[22][25][29][36][51][123] Thousands of people—teachers, parents, speech pathologists, psychologists—struggling to find a way to communicate with individuals who, otherwise, demonstrated little ability to use words to communicate—adopted FC with "blinding speed" with little public scrutiny or debate.[22][29] Eric Schopler, then director of an autism education program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and editor of the Journal of Autism, described promoting facilitated communication with no empirical evidence as "reckless".[124]

Describing this rapid rise in popularity, particularly in the United States, doctors John W. Jacobson, James A. Mulick, and Allen A. Schwartz wrote:

The general acceptance of FC by the public and segments of the professional community has called into question the rigor with which educational and therapeutic interventions are evaluated in publicly funded programs and the ability of many professionals to critically assess the procedures they use. As such, FC serves as a case study in how the public and, alarmingly, some professionals, fail to recognize the role of science in distinguishing truth from falsity and its applicability to assessing the value of treatment modalities.[23]

James Randi, a magician familiar with the ideomotor effect commonly attributed to dowsing and later linked to FC,[44][125] was called in to investigate facilitated communication at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1992, and later called it "a crock that does more harm than good by raising false hopes among families of autistic children".[27][58] The James Randi Educational Foundation has offered a million-dollar prize "to a valid demonstration of facilitated communication." In 2009, Randi responded in an interview for the Rom Houben case, where it was shown that messages from a Belgian man who was believed to be in a coma for 23 years were generated by the facilitator, "Our prize is still there."[126]

Institutional Support

Syracuse University

In 1992 Syracuse University founded the Facilitated Communication Institute to promote the use of FC. Douglas Biklen was appointed as the institute's first director. In 2010, the name was changed to the Institute on Communication and Inclusion (ICI). It is part of the Center on Disability and Inclusion of the School of Education. According to the ICI website, the Institute "... is an active research, training, and support center, and the nation’s leading resource for information about communication and inclusion for individuals who type to communicate." The Institute carries out training and research in FC and publishes scholarly articles, books, and films.[127][128]

University of Northern Iowa

From 2014 through 2018, the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) held the Midwest Summer Institute that focused on "inclusive schools, employment and daily living, as well as communication and supported or facilitated typing for people with autism spectrum disabilit[ies] and other complex communication needs."[129] In 2018, following the release of a statement from scientists and academics arguing FC had long been discredited and calling it an "invalidated and demonstrably harmful practice". UNI announced it would stop supporting the conference.[130][70]

Abuse allegations and facilitator misconduct

There have been instances in which facilitated communication produces allegations of sexual or physical abuse.[85] Often, the alleged abuse is sexual and contains "extensive, explicit, pornographic details."[22][131] It is not known whether FC generates more abuse allegations than other suggestive techniques.[109][132]

Researchers suspect that facilitators involved in this type of case may, mistakenly, believe there is a link between early abuse and autism, or suspect familial abuse for other reasons.[109][132] As Green wrote in a 1995 article:

suggestions about sexual abuse permeate the culture. Just watch Oprah or Phil [Donahue] almost any time or scan the pop psychology section at your local bookstore. Couple that with mandatory abuse reporting laws, mix in a little bit of crusading zeal to "save" people with disabilities from mistreatment, and you have a potent set of antecedents for facilitators to produce allegations.[29]

In 1993, Frontline's "Prisoners of Silence" featured the story of Gerry Gherardi of North Carolina who was accused, through FC-generated messages, of sexually abusing his son. Despite protestations of innocence, Gherardi was forced to stay away from his home for six months.[9] The charges were dropped when court-ordered double-blind tests showed that Gherardi's son could not write.[133] In the same year, Rimland reported in a New York Times article that he knew of about 25 cases where families were accused through facilitated communication of sexually abusing their children.[100]

By 1995, there were 60 known cases,[132][134] with many others settled without reaching public visibility. Since then, the number of cases continues to increase. In addition to accusations of sexual abuse, facilitators have reportedly fallen in love with their communication partners and, relying on FC for consent, initiated sexual, physical contact with people in their care,[11][83] raising serious ethical and legal problems.[82]

Anna Stubblefield case

In 2015, Anna Stubblefield, a Rutgers University–Newark philosophy professor, was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault against a man with severe mental disabilities. A proponent of facilitated communication, Stubblefield's web site described her as "certified as a Facilitated Communication Trainer by the FC Institute at the School of Education, Syracuse University. She provides motor planning support for communication and literacy for adults and children."[135] Stubblefield stated that the two of them had a mutually consenting relationship established through facilitated communication. At the time the investigation began in 2011, Stubblefield was the chair of Rutgers-Newark's philosophy department, whose professional work centered on ethics, race, and disability rights,[136] but she was subsequently put on administrative leave without pay and removed as chair of the philosophy department.[137][138]

The victim was identified as D.J., a 33-year-old African-American man with severe mental disabilities who cannot speak, has cerebral palsy, and is unable to stand independently or accurately direct movements of his body. Based on his disability, his mother and brother were appointed his legal guardians.[136] Stubblefield stated that she had successfully communicated with him, determining he was of normal intelligence. She subsequently brought him to conferences where she "held him out as a success story". In 2011, she revealed to his mother and brother that she had had sexual relations with D.J. and said that they were in love, attributing consent to messages received while facilitating. However, testing of D.J. by family members failed to establish the ability to communicate, and Stubblefield was thanked but denied further access to D.J. She continued to attempt to maintain contact with D.J. and began challenging control of D.J.'s legal guardians over him.[136] In August 2011, the family contacted the police.[137][139]

Stubblefield pleaded not guilty to the charges and said that FC revealed D.J. was mentally capable, while prosecutors said that FC was scientifically discredited and that D.J. did not have the ability to consent to sexual relations.[137][138] Experts evaluating D.J. testified he did not have the intellectual ability to consent to sexual activity.[8] Facilitated communication testimony from D.J. was not allowed as the technique was ruled unreliable under New Jersey law.[136] After a three-week trial, the jury found Stubblefield guilty of two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault.[136] After conviction, the judge revoked bail, saying that she was a flight risk,[136] and she was sentenced to 12 years in prison.[140] This included requiring her to register as a sex offender.[140][141] In July 2017, an appeals court overturned her conviction and ordered a retrial,[142] and in 2018 she pleaded guilty to "third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact" and was sentenced to time served.[142] In October 2016, the family was awarded $4 million in a civil lawsuit against Stubblefield.[143]

The Martina Susanne Schweiger case

In 2014, Martina Susanne Schweiger of Queensland, Australia, received an 18-month suspended jail sentence for two counts of indecent dealing with a 21-year-old client with severe autism with whom she worked at a disability services home. The client required 24-hour support and was not able to speak, write or use manual sign-language.

Schweiger believed the client expressed love for her through FC, the purported feeling that she claimed to reciprocate. She also believed the client, again through FC, indicated a desire to have sex. On one occasion, Schweiger removed her clothes in front of her client. On another, she "play wrestled" with him, touching his penis with her hands and mouth. She confessed her actions to her employer. After hearing reports from Alan Hudson, psychology professor at RMIT University, that FC "did not work for the young man", Judge Gary Long of Maroochydore District Court found Schweiger guilty of the charges, indicating that FC was neither reliable nor accurate as a method of communication.[83][144]

See also

Films

People

References
  1. Vyse, Stuart (7 August 2018). "Autism Wars: Science Strikes Back". Skeptical Inquirer Online. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  2. Auerbach, David (12 November 2015). "Facilitated Communication Is a Cult That Won't Die". Slate. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  3. Hemsley, Bronwyn; Bryant, Lucy; Schlosser, Ralf; Shane, Howard; Lang, Russell; Paul, Diane; Benajee, Meher; Ireland, Marie (2018). "Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014-2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with the disability". Autism and Developmental Language Impairments. 3: 239694151882157. doi:10.1177/2396941518821570.
  4. Lilienfeld; et al. (26 February 2015). "Why debunked autism treatment fads persist". Science Daily. Emory University. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  5. Ganz, Jennifer B.; Katsiyannis, Antonis; Morin, Kristi L. (February 2017). "Facilitated Communication: The Resurgence of a Disproven Treatment for Individuals With Autism". Intervention in School and Clinic. 54: 52–56. doi:10.1177/1053451217692564.
  6. Montee, B B; Miltenberger, R G; Wittrock, D; Watkins, N; Rheinberger, A; Stackhaus, J (1995). "An experimental analysis of facilitated communication". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 28 (2): 189–200. doi:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-189. PMC 1279809. PMID 7601804.
  7. Goldacre, Ben (5 December 2009). "Making contact with a helping hand". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  8. Wichert, Bill (2015-10-02). "Professor found guilty of sexually assaulting disabled man". NJ.com. Retrieved 4 October 2015.
  9. Palfreman, Jon (October 19, 1993). "Frontline: Prisoners of Silence". PBS. WGBH Educational Foundation. Archived from the original on June 22, 2018.
  10. International Society for Augmentative Alternative Communication (2014). "ISAAC Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication". Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 30 (4): 357–358. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.971492. PMID 25379709.
  11. Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Marshall, Julia; Todd, James T.; Shane, Howard C. (2 February 2015). "The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated Communication for autism as a case example". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 8 (2): 62–101. doi:10.1080/17489539.2014.976332. S2CID 145366255.
  12. Burling, Stacey (May 17, 2004). "A pacesetting technique style for the autistic. She used the technique on her son. Some doubt the value of her methods". Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, PA. p. C.1. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  13. Wombles, Kimberly (18 February 2015). "Some fads never die - they only hide behind other names: Facilitated Communication is not and never will be Augmentative Communication". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 8 (4): 181–186. doi:10.1080/17489539.2015.1012780. S2CID 143959563. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  14. Travers, Jason (19 May 2015). "The Pseudoscientific Phenom—Facilitated Communication—Makes a Comeback". The Asha Leader Blog. American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  15. Wombles, Kim. "Why Rapid Prompting Method Still Doesn't Pass the Evidence-Based Test". Science 2.0. ION Publications LLC. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  16. Biklen, Douglas (1990). "Communication Unbound: Autism and Praxis". Harvard Educational Review. 60 (3): 291–314. doi:10.17763/haer.60.3.013h5022862vu732.
  17. Schwiegert, Mary Beth (28 December 2000). "Will to succeed Lititz man battles autism - and goes to college". Lancaster New Era. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. p. D-1.
  18. Biklen, Douglas; Morton, Mary Winston; Gold, Deborah; Berrigan, Carol; Swaminathan, Sudha (1992). "Facilitated Communication: implications for individuals with autism". Topics in Language Disorders. 12 (4): 1–28. doi:10.1097/00011363-199208000-00003. S2CID 143895378.
  19. Dillon, Kathleen M. (1993). "Facilitated Communication, Autism and Ouija". Skeptical Inquirer. 17 (3): 281–287.
  20. Dineen, Janice (December 21, 1991). "How autistic Chloe stunned the medical world". Toronto Star (SA2 Edition). Toronto, Ontario. p. A1.
  21. Boodman, Sandra G. (January 17, 1995). "Can autistic children be reached through 'Facilitated Communication'? Scientists say no". The Washington Post (Final Edition). Washington, D.C. p. z01. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  22. Green, Gina (1994). "Mental Miracle or Sleight of Hand?". Skeptic. 2 (3): 68–76.
  23. Jacobson, John W.; Mulick, James A.; Schwartz, Allen A. (September 1995). "A History of Facilitated Communication: Science, Pseudoscience, and Antiscience: Science Working Group on Facilitated Communication". American Psychologist. 50 (9): 750–765. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.50.9.750.
  24. Mangiacasale, Angela (January 23, 1992). "New voice: system lets disabled communicate". The Ottawa Citizen (Final Edition). p. D3.
  25. Mostert, Mark P. (18 June 2012). "Facilitated Communication: The empirical imperative to prevent further professional malpractice". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 6 (1): 18–27. doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.693840. S2CID 143959332.
  26. von Tetzchner, Stephen (1997). "Historical issues in intervention research: hidden knowledge and facilitating techniques in Denmark". European Journal of Disorders of Communication. 32 (1): 1–18. doi:10.3109/13682829709021453. PMID 9135710.
  27. Greenbaum, Kurt (September 27, 1992). "Autistic Method Disputed Researcher Says Child Not Helped". Sun-Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. p. 8B.
  28. Kim, Rose (17 June 1992). "The magic touch keyboard technique helps severely disabled students learn to communicate". Los Angeles Times (Home Edition). Los Angeles, California. p. 3. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  29. Green, Gina (Fall 1995). "An ecobehavioral interpretation of the facilitated communication phenomenon". Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. 21 (2): 1–8.
  30. Libman, Gary (17 November 1992). "A controversial technique may be the key to providing sufferers with a way to communicate unlocking autism". Los Angeles Times (Home Edition). p. 1. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  31. Boynton, Janyce (March 2012). "Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 6 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.674680. S2CID 144642290.
  32. Burke, Michael (2016-04-11). "How facilitators control words typed in facilitated communication without realizing". Daily Orange. Retrieved 17 March 2018.
  33. Burke, Michael (2016-04-11). "Double Talk". Daily Orange. Retrieved 17 March 2018.
  34. Lilienfeld, S.O. "The Ethical Duty to Know: Facilitated Communication for Autism as a Tragic Case Example". The Neuroethics Blog. Emory Center For Ethics. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  35. Alferink, Larry A. (Fall–Winter 2007). "Educational Practices, Superstitious Behavior and Mythed Opportunities". Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 5 (2): 21–30.
  36. Palfreman, Jon (11 May 2012). "The dark legacy of FC". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 6 (1): 14–17. doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.688343. S2CID 144395085.
  37. Well, Judith (March 9, 1994). "Facilitation: How much of a helping hand?". Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem. p. 07.
  38. Wright, Pearce (11 May 1999). "Obituary: How the laser changed our world: Arthur Schawlow". The Guardian. London, England. p. 18. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  39. Gifford, Aaron (October 9, 2000). "SU professor still pushes to validate his method". The Post-Standard (Final Edition). Syracuse, New York. p. B2.
  40. Celiberti, David (Spring 2010). "Facilitate This: Part 1 of a Two-Part Interview with Dr. James Todd". Science in Autism Treatment. 7 (2).
  41. Ballon, Diana (April 25, 1992). "A ray of sunshine for the Rain Man. A new technique for communicating with autistic children is being greeted with skepticism by some experts - but the anecdotal evidence is compelling". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ontario. p. D.8.
  42. Stengle, Bernice (5 September 1993). "Michael casts a spell". St. Petersburg Times (City Edition). St. Petersburg, Florida.
  43. Mostert, Mark (2014). "An Activist Approach to Debunking FC". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 39 (3): 203–210. doi:10.1177/1540796914556779.
  44. Spitz, Herman (3 February 1997). Nonconscious Movements: From Mystical Messages to Facilitated Communication. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-805-82564-0. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  45. von Tetzchner, Stephen (June 25, 2012). "Understanding facilitated communication: Lessons from a former facilitator - Comments on Boynton, 2012". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 6 (1): 28–35. doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.699729. S2CID 217511582.
  46. Brasier, L.L.; Wisely, John (December 18, 2007). "Abuse case hinges on a keyboard". McClatchy-Tribune Business News. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  47. Rising, Gerry (8 January 2001). "'Miraculous' autism treatment stirs concern". Buffalo News (Final Edition). Buffalo, New York. p. 2B.
  48. Riggott, Julie (Spring–Summer 2005). "Pseudoscience in Autism Treatment: Are the News and Entertainment Media Helping or Hurting?". Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 4 (1): 58–60.
  49. Mann, Lisa Barrett (February 22, 2005). "Oscar Nominee: Documentary or Fiction?; Film Resurrects Discredited Autism Tactic". The Washington Post (Final Edition). p. Health; F01. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  50. "Facilitated communication not reliable as evidence". The Times. London, England. July 29, 2000.
  51. Emery Jr., C. Eugene (November 30, 1994). "FC Message Technique for the Handicapped Unproven, experts say *A national group of speech and language experts votes to warn its 80,000 members that tests show facilitated communication lacks scientific validity". Providence Journal. Providence, Rhode Island. p. D-09.
  52. Duchan, Judith F.; Calculator, Stephen; Sonnenmeier, Rae; Diehl, Sylvia; Cumley, Gary D. (2001). "A Framework for Managing Controversial Practices". Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 32 (3): 133–141. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2001/011). PMID 27764404.
  53. Schlosser, R.; Balandin, S.; Hemsley, B.; Iacono, T.; Probst, P.; von Tetzchner, S. (2014). "Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review". Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 30 (4): 359–368. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.971490. PMID 25384895. S2CID 207470234.
  54. Jordan, Jones & Murray. "Educational Interventions for Children With Autism: A Literature Review of Recent And Current Research" (PDF). Institute of Education. DfEE. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  55. Mostert, Mark P. (2010). "Facilitated Communication and Its Legitimacy - Twenty-first century developments". Exceptionality. 18 (1): 31–41. doi:10.1080/09362830903462524. S2CID 143946477.
  56. Oswald, Donald P. (September 1996). "Book Review: Facilitated Communication: The Clinical and Social Phenomenon. Edited by Howard C. Shane. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. 1994. pp. 323". Journal of Behavioral Education. 6 (3): 355–357. doi:10.1007/BF02110136. JSTOR 41824137. S2CID 195215616.
  57. Normand, Matthew P. (Winter 2008). "Science, Skepticism, and Applied Behavior Analysis". Behavior Analysis in Practice. 1 (2): 42–49. doi:10.1007/BF03391727. PMC 2846586. PMID 22477687.
  58. Gardner, Martin (January–February 2001). "Facilitated Communication: A Cruel Farce". Skeptical Inquirer: 17–19.
  59. Porter, Kayla (14 August 2007). "Awakening the silence". McClatchy-Tribune Business News. Washington, D.C.
  60. Chandler, Michael Alison (March 1, 2017). "The key to unlock their autistic son's voice". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. p. A.1. Retrieved 14 April 2017.
  61. Beach, Patrick (January 20, 2008). "Understanding Tito". Austin Statesman. Austin, Texas. p. J.1.
  62. Tostanoski, Amy; Lang, Russell; Raulston, Tracy; Carnett, Amarie; Davis, Tonya (August 2014). "Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication". Developmental Neurorehabilitation. 17 (4): 219–223. doi:10.3109/17518423.2012.749952. PMID 24102487.
  63. Todd, James (2013). "Rapid Prompting". Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. pp. 2497–2503. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_1896. ISBN 978-1-4419-1697-6. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  64. Vyse, Stuart (March–April 2020). "A Small Victory of Science in Suburban Philadelphia". Skeptical Inquirer. 44: 5.
  65. "Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health News Release". Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 4 (1): 58–60. Spring–Summer 2005.
  66. "Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method". AAIDD. Retrieved 9 January 2021.
  67. Association (ASHA), American Speech-Language-Hearing (2018). "Rapid Prompting Method". American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved 9 January 2021.
  68. "Rapid Prompting Method (Position Statement)". asatonline.org. Association for Science in Autism Treatment. Archived from the original on 10 January 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2021.
  69. Vyse, Stuart (2015-05-11). "Facilitated Communication: The Fad that Will Not Die". Skeptical Inquirer. CSICOP. Retrieved 20 May 2017.
  70. Miller, Vanessa (November 13, 2018). "University of Northern Iowa drops controversial conference". The Gazette. Archived from the original on November 14, 2018. Retrieved November 13, 2018.
  71. "Do Not Do Recommendation". NICE. Retrieved 25 June 2018.
  72. "Use of Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method" (PDF). Speech-Language & Audiology Canada. Retrieved 9 January 2021.
  73. Gunther, Maria (July 20, 2014). "Schools using the controversial method for autistic children". DN.se.
  74. Hyman, Ray (Fall–Winter 1999). "The Mischief Making of Ideomotor Action". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 3 (2).
  75. Mulick, James; Jacobson, John; Kobe, Frank (1993). "Anguished Silence and Helping Hands: Autism and Facilitated Communication". Skeptical Inquirer. 17 (3): 270–280.
  76. Dillow, Gordon (24 January 1993). "Teacher says method that helps disabled ruined him. Courts: Autism sufferers, using a 'facilitator' to communicate, accused teacher of sexual assault. Charges dropped but he plans to sue for $2.5 million". Los Angeles Times (Home Edition). Los Angeles, CA. p. 1.
  77. Paul Heinrichs (February 16, 1992). "Suffering at the hands of the protectors". The Sunday Morning Herald. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
  78. Biklen, Douglas; Schubert, Annegret (November–December 1991). "New Words: The Communication of Students with Autism". Remedial and Special Education. 12 (6): 46–57. doi:10.1177/074193259101200607. S2CID 145504550. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  79. Dickerson, Brian (17 March 2008). "Brian Dickerson Column: A legal horror show tears Oakland Co. family apart". McClatchy-Tribune Business News. Washington, D.C.
  80. Reischman, Rick (31 December 2007). "Region Brief". Daily Record. Wooster, Ohio.
  81. McKechnie, Gary; Howell, Nancy (March 14, 1993). "The world according to David: A controversial new approach may be allowing David Graham Perry and thousands of others to communicate for the first time in their lives or it may be offering false hope". Orlando Sentinel (2* Edition). Orlando, Florida. p. 10.
  82. Todd, James T. (13 July 2012). "The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton's "Facilitated Communication - what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator."". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 6 (1): 36–57. doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.704738. S2CID 143043194. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  83. Sundstrom, Kathy (October 17, 2014). "Carer: "I fell in love": Grandma guilty of indecent dealing". Sunshine Coast Daily. Queensland, Australia. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  84. Papp, Leslie (21 January 1996). "Autism 'miracle' a nightmare for family". The Toronto Star (Sunday Second Edition). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.
  85. Spake, Amanda (31 May 1992). "Skeptics and Believers; The Facilitated Communication Debate". The Washington Post. p. W22. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  86. Calculator, Stephen (October 1999). "Look Who's Pointing Now: Cautions Related to the Clinical Use of Facilitated Communication". Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 30 (4): 408–414. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.3004.408. PMID 27764351.
  87. Travers, Jason; Tincani, Matt; Lang, Russell (September 2014). "Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 39 (3): 195–202. doi:10.1177/1540796914556778.
  88. Cardinal, Donald; Falvey, Mary (September 2014). "Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 39 (3): 189–194. doi:10.1177/1540796914555581.
  89. Cuff, John Haslett (19 October 1993). "Television "Prisoners of Silence: A Shocking look at autism research". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ontario. p. C.4.
  90. Singer, George; Horner, Robert; Dunlap, Glen; Wang, Mian (September 2014). "Standards of Proof: TASH, Facilitated Communication, and the Science-Based Practices Movement". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 39 (3): 178–188. doi:10.1177/1540796914558831. S2CID 145757011.
  91. Broderick, Alicia A.; Kasa-Handrickson, Christi (Spring 2001). ""Say just one word at first": The emergence of reliable speech in a student labeled with autism". Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 26 (1): 13–24. doi:10.2511/rpsd.26.1.13. S2CID 144645577. Retrieved 19 March 2015.
  92. "Augmentative and Alternative Communication Clinical Guidelines". Speech Pathology Australia. The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited. September 2012. Archived from the original on 2015-03-10. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  93. Hyman, Susan L.; Levy, Susan E.; Myers, Scott M.; Council on Children with Disabilities, Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (2020-01-01). "Identification, Evaluation, and Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder". Pediatrics. 145 (1): e20193447. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-3447. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 31843864.
  94. Vyse, Stuart (2018). "The Enduring Legend of the Changeling". Skeptical Inquirer. 42 (4): 23–26.
  95. Healey, Michelle (6 April 2011). "New film gives voice to a nearly silent minority". Gannett News. p. ARC. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  96. Stubblefield, Anna (25 October 2011). "Sound and Fury: When Opposition to Facilitated Communication Functions as Hate Speech". Disability Studies Quarterly. 31 (4). doi:10.18061/dsq.v31i4.1729.
  97. Sherry, Mark (2016). "Facilitated communication, Anna Stubblefield and disability studies". Disability & Society. 31 (7): 974–982. doi:10.1080/09687599.2016.1218152.
  98. Editorial Board (2016-04-12). "Syracuse University's reinforcement of facilitated communication inexcusable, concerning". The Daily Orange. Syracuse University. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
  99. Stubblefield, Anna (2011). "Sound and Fury: When Opposition to Facilitated Communication Functions as Hate Speech". Disability Studies Quarterly. 31 (4). doi:10.18061/dsq.v31i4.1729. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  100. Goldman, Daniel (July 13, 1993). "New Treatments for Autism Arouse Hope and Skepticism". The New York Times (Late Edition). p. C.1. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  101. Crossley, Rosemary; Remington-Gurney, Jane (August 1992). "Getting the words out: Facilitated communication training". Topics in Language Disorders. 12 (4): 29–45. doi:10.1097/00011363-199208000-00004. S2CID 144141846. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  102. Mostert, Mark (June 2001). "Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 31 (3): 287–313. doi:10.1023/a:1010795219886. PMID 11518483. S2CID 6842817.
  103. Boynton, Janyce (April 17, 2012). "Facilitated Communication - What harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 6 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.674680. S2CID 144642290.
  104. Kezuka, Emiko (October 1997). "The Role of Touch in Facilitated Communication". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 27 (5): 571–593. doi:10.1023/a:1025882127478. PMID 9403373. S2CID 22082973.
  105. Shane, Howard C.; Kearns, Kevin (September 1994). "An Examination of the Role of the Facilitator in "Facilitated Communication"". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 3 (3): 48–54. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0303.48.
  106. Twachtman-Cullen, Diane (August 1997). A Passion to Believe. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-813-39098-7.
  107. Seebach, Linda (23 September 2008). "Charlatans to the rescue". Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition). New York, New York. p. A.27. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  108. Wheeler, Douglas L.; Jacobson, John W.; Paglieri, Raymond A.; Schwartz, Allen A. (February 1993). "An experimental Assessment of Facilitated Communication". American Association on Mental Retardation. 31 (1): 49–60. PMID 8441353.
  109. Hall, Genae A. (1993). "Facilitator control as automatic behavior: a verbal analysis". The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 11 (1): 89–97. doi:10.1007/bf03392890. PMC 2748555. PMID 22477083.
  110. Heinrich, Paul (February 16, 1992). "State 'tortured' family - Landmark case finds experts' naivety 'tragic'". Sunday Age (Late Edition). Melbourne, Australia. p. 1.
  111. Kreidler, Marc (April 28, 2016). "Syracuse, Apple, and Autism Pseudoscience | Skeptical Inquirer".
  112. "Facilitated Communication: Sifting the Psychological Wheat from the Chaff". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 17 March 2018.
  113. Mirenda, Pat (13 January 2015). "Comments and a personal reflection on the persistence of facilitated communication". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 8 (2): 102–110. doi:10.1080/17489539.2014.997427. S2CID 144689055.
  114. Calculator, S; Hatch, E (1995). "Validation of facilitated communication: A case study and beyond". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 4 (1): 49–58. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0401.49. ISSN 1058-0360.
  115. Frazier, Kendrick (April 2020). "The foibles of FC". Skeptical Inquirer. 44 (2): 12–13.
  116. Vyse, Stuart. "Autism Wars: Science Strikes Back". CSI online. Center for Scientific Inquiry. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
  117. Vyse, Stuart. "An Artist with a Science-Based Mission". CSI Online. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
  118. Marshall, Michael; French, Christopher (2018-02-05). "Why communication from a 'locked-in' child is a miracle we must question". The Guardian. www.theguardian.com. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
  119. Murray, Steve (May 21, 2005). "The world of autism as seen from the inside". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Home Edition). p. Living; 3C.
  120. McCabe, Bruce (16 October 1994). "Autism and feelings". Boston Globe (City Edition). Boston, Massachusetts. p. 3.
  121. Shales, Tom (14 October 1994). "Third-place CBS hauls out yet another lame movie on Sunday". Buffalo News (City Edition). Buffalo, New York. p. C10.
  122. Ruth, Jim (January 2001). "Will to survive Autistic man's struggle mirrors a new drama". Sunday News. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. p. H-1.
  123. Gorman, Brian J. (1998). "Facilitated communication in America: Eight years and counting". Skeptic. 6 (3): 8.
  124. Brown, Molly T. (28 July 1992). "The typed voice helping the nonverbal communicate". Buffalo News. Buffalo, New York. p. C:1.
  125. Burgess, Cheryl A.; Kirsch, Irving; Shane, Howard C.; Niederauer, Kristen L.; Graham, Steven M.; Bacon, Alyson (January 1998). "Facilitated Communication as an Ideomotor Response". Psychological Science. 9 (1): 71–74. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00013. S2CID 145631775.
  126. Keim, Brandon (24 November 2009). "Reborn Coma Man's Words May Be Bogus". Wired. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  127. Gorman, Brian J. (1998). "Facilitated Communication In America: Eight Years and Counting". Skeptic. 6 (3): 64–71.
  128. Burke, Michael (2016-04-11). "Double Talk". The Daily Orange. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  129. "UNI to host inclusion, communication event". The Courier (Waterloo, Iowa). May 5, 2014. Retrieved 29 October 2019.
  130. Miller, Vanessa. "'Facilitated communication' conference draws fire at University of Northern Iowa". The Gazette. The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, IA. Retrieved 16 June 2018.
  131. Shane, Howard C., ed. (June 1994). Facilitated Communication: The Clinical and Social Phenomenon. Singular Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-565-93341-5.
  132. Lilienfeld, Scott O. (March 2007). "Psychological Treatments that Cause Harm". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2 (1): 53–70. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.531.9405. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x. PMID 26151919. S2CID 26512757.
  133. Koehler, Robert (19 October 1993). "TV Review 'Prisoners' Puts Autism Technique to the Test". Los Angeles Times (Home Edition). Los Angeles, California. p. 9.
  134. Margolin, K.N. (1994). "How Shall Facilitated Communication be Judged? Facilitated Communication and the Legal System". In Shane, Howard C. (ed.). Facilitated Communication: The Clinical and Social Phenomenon. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing. pp. 227–257. ISBN 978-1-565-93341-5.
  135. Stubblefield, Anna (June 27, 2010). "Archived University Website of Anna Stubblefield". Anna Stubblefield. Archived from the original on June 27, 2010. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
  136. Daniel Engber (October 20, 2015). "The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October 21, 2015. ...the judge ruled that facilitated communication failed New Jersey’s test for scientific evidence.
  137. Wichert, Bill (January 8, 2015). "New Jersey: Judge OKs document detailing Rutgers professor's sexual relations with mentally disabled man". NJ Advance Media. New Jersey Online LLC. Retrieved 21 March 2015.
  138. Zambito, Thomas (April 25, 2014). "Judge questions 'consent' defense in case of Rutgers-Newark professor accused of sexual assault". NJ Advance Media for NJ.com. New Jersey Online LLC. Retrieved March 21, 2015. Dead link as of October 22, 2015
  139. Szteinbaum, Sabrina. "Former RutgersNewark philosophy department chairwoman to appear in court for alleged sexual abuse of mentally handicapped man". The Daily Targum. New Brunswick, New Jersey. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 21, 2015. Dead link as of October 22, 2015
  140. "Professor who abused disabled man sentenced to prison". Associated Press via Star Tribune. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
  141. David Porter, Associated Press (15 January 2016). "Professor who abused disabled man gets 12 years in prison". Times Union. Associated Press. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
  142. Napoliello, Alex (11 May 2018). "No more prison for ex-Rutgers professor who sexually assaulted disabled student". NJ.com. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
  143. Moriarty, Thomas (2018-03-19). "Ex-Rutgers prof admits it was a crime to have sex with disabled man". NJ.com. Retrieved 20 March 2018.
  144. Sundstrom, Kathy (17 October 2014). "Mother angered by suspended sentences". Sunshine Coast Daily. Queensland, Australia. p. 4. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.