Questions to ask facilitators and yourself while observing FC/S2C/RPM sessions

Our readers often send links to pro-FC videos found on social media platforms asking for our opinion and/or expressing concerns about facilitator interference (e.g., cueing) during letter selection. Today’s blog post is a follow up to one such video I discussed in a previous post.

Note: In this post, I am using FC as a general term for facilitator-dependent techniques, which includes facilitated communication (FC), Spelling to Communicate (S2C), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and the like. Proponents keep changing the name of these techniques, so it’s important to look at facilitator behavior, regardless of what they’re calling the “spelling” activity.

The facilitator grasps the individual’s hand at the elbow, maintains almost constant eye contact with the letter board, and calls out words during an FC session. The letters are, purportedly, selected by a rapid slapping motion against the board. The individual being subjected to FC does not look at the letter board, but appears to be disengaged and looking off screen (perhaps enjoying the repetitive, stimming behavior?) Who is doing all the work in this FC session? Hint: Not the individual being subjected to FC. (Still photo take from an Instagram posted user mariemyungoklee on February 26, 2024)

Because FC only “works” when a facilitator is within visual or auditory range of their client or loved one, it is not possible to determine from videos the independent language and academic skills of the individuals being subjected to FC. Some pro-FC videos are edited so the facilitator is sitting just off screen to make it look like the individual is selecting letters by him or herself when, in fact, the facilitator is providing visual or physical cues out of camera range (e.g., touching the FCed individual under the table or providing hand signals to direct which letters to touch). Sometimes, the camera angle does not allow a clear picture of the letter board to determine which letters are selected (if, indeed, any are selected). Despite these obstacles, there are often behaviors that facilitators and their clients or loved ones exhibit that raise red flags about authorship.

I should point out that critiques of FC conducted by analyzing pro-FC videos should not be considered a substitute for reliably controlled testing. Tests that control for facilitator influence and control are the most reliable way of determining the authorship of FC-generated messages and, to date, these tests show overwhelmingly that facilitators and not those being subjected to FC are authoring the messages. Given that current-day facilitators refuse to participate in any type of testing that puts the technique or facilitator behavior under scrutiny, video analysis is the next best option. I recommend slowing down the videos (even, at times, watching frame-by-frame) as facilitator cueing cannot always be detected at regular viewing speed.

There are no numbers on the letter board, so when the facilitator claims the individual is typing “100 percent,” the words “one hundred percent” would have had to be spelled out. Do the slaps to the letter board correspond with the number of letters in each and every word called out by the facilitator? (Hint: No, they do not) (Still photo take from an Instagram posted user mariemyungoklee on February 26, 2024)

Hopefully, this list of questions is useful as a guide to detecting facilitator cueing. It is by no means a comprehensive list. (If I’ve left questions off the list, please let me know).

Questions to Ask the Facilitator:

• Have you checked whether the person you’re facilitating has letter-sound recognition (e.g., can s(he) point to specific letters when you ask him/her to?)

• Do you ever wait for the person you’re facilitating to initiate interaction by picking up the letter board and/or letter stencils?

• Do you ever let the person interact with the letter board on their own (e.g., without you touching them or cueing them verbally)? If so, do they ever spell out words or sentences? How do these compare to what they spell out when you’re holding up the letter board and/or holding onto their arm?

• What sorts of prompts do you provide during FC sessions and why?

• How do you keep track of the letters and words being spelled?

• Are you willing to participate in reliably controlled testing to make sure you are not (inadvertently) cueing the person during letter selection in a way that prevents him/her from making independent selections? Reliably controlled “blind” tests or message-passing tests reduce the likelihood of false positives, but if the facilitator isn’t willing to participate in controlled tests, ask if they’d be willing to step out of the room (e.g., out of visual and auditory range) while information is presented to the person being facilitated and, later come back in the room to facilitate questions about that information. However, this may have its pitfalls, as Portia Iverson details in her account of a blinded test with RPM founder Soma Mukhopadhyay. Mukhopadhyay failed two blind tests, but convinced herself she did not. (See Truth Will Out: Review of Portia Iversen’s “Strange Son”)

• What are your protocols for fading support? Approximately how long will that take to implement? (Some individuals have been subjected to facilitation for 20-30 years. How is this independent communication?). Are you concerned about prompt dependency?

• Do you ever ask the individual for confirmation about word or letter selection (this can be done verbally or nonverbally)?

• If the letter selection is independent, why do you have to stare at the letter board and/or hold on to it? How do you define “independent”? Why do you have to be present in order for FC to “work”?

• How do you process letter selection when the touches to the board are rapid and forceful?

• Are you a member of the American Speech Language Association or American Psychological Association (or other professional groups)? What do those organizations say about the use of FC/S2C/RPM? (See Opposition Statements)

• Do you have concerns that FC has a long and documented record of false allegations of abuse (including founder Rosemary Crossley)? (See False Allegations and Facilitator Crimes) How would you determine authorship if the content of facilitator-dependent messages included such allegations?

• Do you encourage your clients to verbalize (even if their understanding and use of spoken language is minimal), use sign language or non-verbal forms of communication? Or do you only reinforce “spelling” and discourage speech? (See An inside look at S2C “We actually discourage them from using their speech while they are spelling”)

The touch/slap to the board appears to be in between letters. How often does this happen during the FC session? Or is it okay for the facilitator to “fill in the blanks?” At no time during the session did the facilitator ask for clarification. When slaps to the board are “hard and fast,” as described in the video, does the facilitator have time to process what is happening or do they take their best guess? What is considered a “correct” selection of a letter? Does it matter that the touch to the board is in the spaces between letters? (Still photo take from an Instagram posted user mariemyungoklee on February 26, 2024)

Questions to ask while observing facilitation sessions:

• Who is doing most of the work during an FC session? The facilitator or the individual subjected to it? Is the individual engaged with the activity or zoned out? Does s(he) use facial expressions, head nods, hand movements, or vocalizations at appropriate times in the conversation or is s(he) staring off into space or attending to other people or objects off camera while the facilitator attends to the letter board)? Is s(he) resisting being facilitated by vocalizing, crying, pushing or pulling the facilitator, running away, etc. (See No more! No More!)

• Is the individual being subjected to FC just hovering a finger over the board without making an independent selection (e.g. does s(he) wait for the facilitator to raise the letter board to meet his/her finger or provide other cues)?

• Do the selections seem deliberate and purposeful or is the person just slamming his/her hand into the letter board? Are there pauses between letters selected to indicate thoughtfulness about the response and/or to find a specific letter? (Note: pointing to the letter board on cue does not guarantee the individual understands what s(he) is pointing to).

• Is the individual exhibiting any verbal or non-verbal communication that reinforces active participation in spelling activity and/or giving clues that (s)he is not a willing participant? (e.g., some individuals comply, trancelike, with the activity; some stand up, pull away, attempt to bite their facilitator, cry, verbally protest and/or run away from the situation)

• Is the individual looking at the letter board and moving his/her eyes to track letters? Central vision, not peripheral vision, is needed to identify letters. Peripheral vision is designed to identify differences in light/dark and detect movement. And, since the letters on the letter board are flat, there is no way to distinguish one letter from another. Ten finger typists can type without looking at the keyboard, but first must place their hands on the “home row.” With hunt-and-peck methods such as the ones used with FC/S2C/RPM, it is impossible to select letters without directly looking at the board. (See Peripheral Vision: perfect for detecting facilitator cues)

• Does the individual’s ability to interact with the letter board change when the facilitator is not present? Can s(he) select letters with level of accuracy and sophistication as when the facilitator is present?

• Does the individual initiate interaction with the letter board or are the interactions controlled by the facilitator? Who is holding the board or letter stencils?

• Are the (facilitated) touches to the board located in one general spot (e.g., usually the upper/middle part of the board) or is the whole board being used to select letters?

• Is the facilitator touching the person and/or holding a letter board in the air? Is s(he) providing visual cues (e.g., hand signals, head nods, shifts in body position), verbal cues (e.g., prompts such as “up, up, up, up” or “right next door”), or auditory cues (e.g., humming, throat clearing, changes in vocal inflection)?

• Does the letter board move during letter selection? We’ve dubbed this “letter board drift” (e.g., the facilitator, often with limited awareness, moves the board up or down, backward or forward, left to right toward a desired letter or away from an “incorrect” letter).

• Is the facilitator’s eye gaze focused primarily on the letter board?

• Does the facilitator “check in” with the individual being subjected to FC to (verbally or nonverbally) confirm letter selection?

• Does the facilitator have enough time to process letter selection? Or is the pace so rapid that the facilitator cannot realistically detect where contact is made with the letter board? (e.g., on the letter, beside the letter, the space between letters)

• Does the facilitator call out only letters that are touched precisely on the letter board or does s(he) call out letters not touched or touch in between letters? With “slap” approaches to letter selection, it is difficult to visibly detect which letters are touched. Often the touches span a broad array of letters and/or land in the spaces between letters.

• Do the letters or words called out correspond with touches to the letter board? There should be one-to-one correspondence.

• Do the letters called out correspond to the position on the letter board (e.g., sometimes facilitators call out letters in the bottom row when the touches to the board occur in the upper/middle part of the board)?

• Does the facilitator call out numbers when the letter board only contains letters? If numbers are included in FC-generated messages, are the numbers spelled out as words? (e.g., 100% would be o-n-e-h-u-n-d-r-e-d-p-e-r-c-e-n-t)

• How is the facilitator keeping track of the letters and words being spelled? Is s(he) writing the letters down as selected or holding all that information in his/her head. Memories are not reliable.

• Does the content of the FC-generated messages change to include negative or accusatory statements if an observer expresses doubt about FC?

• Would the facilitator participate in reliably controlled testing to rule in or rule out facilitator cueing?

I personally think that FC still exists (despite being discredited more than 30 years ago) because people want to give FC—and the facilitators—the benefit of the doubt. They don’t want to believe facilitators can and do control letter selection and, with varying degrees of awareness, substitute their own words for those of the clients or loved ones. Over the years, I’ve come to view FC (and all facilitator-dependent techniques) as coping strategies for the facilitators rather than legitimate communication techniques that could build language and literacy skills and lead to independence for those being subjected to it.

On this website, we’ve included many resources for people interested in the topic that often do not appear on pro-FC websites. It is my hope that those reading this blog post will find these questions helpful in determining for themselves the extent to which a facilitator may or may not be interfering with letter selection. It is easy to let hope guide decision making, but my recommendation is not to push aside those niggling doubts. If it feels to you like the facilitator is exhibiting behaviors (by word and by action) and/or is “reaching” for explanations that do not make sense or match the body of scientific research currently available regarding the speech and language development of individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities, then stand firm in your conviction to investigate the situation further with controlled studies (or seek help from professionals who use evidence-based methods and techniques).

Recommended Reading:

Actually there are published authorship results for S2C/RPM…and they aren’t good

Myths about myths, validity, and natural message passing tests, Part I

Myths about myths, validity, and natural message passing tests, Part II
Putting FC/S2C/RPM to the test

Some clarifications about message passing for FC and its variants