Critiques of Facilitated Communication

Critics of FC cite concerns about authorship as the main reason they cannot endorse its use. Proponents have failed to reliably demonstrate that the FC-generated messages are independent of facilitator control. Researchers and journalists alike have documented the history of FC, its close ties with automatic writing, and the inadequacies of the technique to address the communication needs of individuals with disabilities.


2024

Beals, Katharine P. (2024, February 1). Can message-passing anecdotes tell us anything about the validity of RPM and S2C? Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2023.2290298.

This article discusses how, despite RPM and S2C practitioners’ resistance to rigorous authorship testing, their own (proponent) anecdotal reports of message-passing suggests that “messages generated by RPM and S2C can be as fully controlled by facilitators as messages generated by traditional FC.”

Choulnard, Kyle. (February 2024). Mixed messages: How facilitated communication persists at SU. The Daily Orange.

This article, published by Syracuse University’s student newspaper, explores how FC continues to persist at Syracuse University, despite decades of studies showing that “what is ultimately typed are not the thoughts of the person pointing.”

“The ethical thing to do for the folks who are promoting this is to sit down and go, ‘We failed. We’ve been promoting something for decades that doesn’t work. We need to stop drawing in vulnerable parents with vulnerable children, because no ethical clinician would foist pseudoscience on that kind of population.’” —James Todd, professor of psychology at Eastern Michigan University.

Schlosser, Ralf W. and Prabhu, Anjali. (2024, February 5). Interrogating Neurotypical Bias in Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, and Spelling 2 Communicate Through a Humanistic Lens. Current Developmental Disorders Reports.

This article discusses the consequences of neurotypical biases and the use of facilitator-dependent techniques such as Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, and Spelling to Communicate.

”Summary: To prevent (or at least minimize) the stifling of autistic voices through procedures resembling ventriloquism, violence to the will of autistic persons, and epistemic harms, all our disciplinary and clinical efforts should converge to enable the rights of autistic individuals who have little or no functional speech to express their will and to amplify their voices using evidence-based AAC methods.”

2023

Beals, Katharine. (2023, July 27). Sit down, shut up. Index on Censorship. 52 (2). Doi:0.1177/03064220231183821

This article discusses, briefly, misconceptions about Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), as compared with Facilitated Communication (FC), “a popular treatment in many countries in the world threatens the communication rights of autistic non-speakers.”

Camarata, Stephen. (2023), April 17). Stolen Voices: Facilitated Communication Devalues Autism: Autistic people using AAC have a right to message authorship protections. Psychology Today.

This article examines the need for message authorship protections for individuals using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and facilitated techniques that rely on an assistant to “support” the individuals while typing.

Coyne, Jerry. (2023, May 17). Nature falls for one discredited aspect of autism: “facilitated communication.” Why Evolution is True.

This article expands upon Stuart Vyse’s article “The Journal Nature Falls for Autism Pseudoscience.” The author criticizes Nature for endorsing FC, seemingly without investigating or acknowledging the evidence against it and proponents of FC for not allowing their technique to be tested.

DeBoer, Freddie (2023, September 22). Review: Chasing the Intact Mind, by Amy Lutz. Freddie DeBoer (Substack)

This article reviews Amy Lutz’s book, Chasing the Intact Mind, and supports speaking out against FC.

Lutz, Amy S.F. (2023, April, 14). The Need for Evidence-Based Interventions in Autism: Why is the Autism Society of America highlighting facilitated communication? Psychology Today.

This article highlights the Autism Society of America’s (ASA) promotion of facilitated communication (FC) while celebrating “Autism Acceptance Day.”

London, William M. (ed.). Nature criticized for promoting facilitated communication. Consumer Health Digest, Issue #23-21. National Council Against Health Fraud Archive. (2023, May 21). Quackwatch.org.

This article documented for the National Council Against Health Fraud Stuart Vyse’s recent criticism of the journal Nature for promoting facilitated Communication. Vyse’s article The Journal Nature Falls for Autism Pseudoscience was published in the Skeptical Inquirer.

Vyse, Stuart (2023, May 16). The Journal Nature Falls for Autism Pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer.

This article is a critique of a May 10, 2023 article published in Nature: International Journal of Science titled “‘The Best Way to Get it Right Is to Listen to Us’—Autistic People Argue for a Stronger Voice in Research.” The Nature article included individuals beings subjected to FC/S2C/RPM as spokespeople, despite scientific evidence that demonstrates facilitator influence and control over the FC-generated messages.

2022

Beals, Katharine P. (2022, July 21). Why we should not presume competence and reframe facilitated communication: a critique of Heyworth, Chan & Lawson. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2022.2097872

This article examines claims made by Heyworth, Chan & Lawson in an article called “Presuming autistic communication competence and reframing facilitated communication” published in Frontiers in Psychology in March 2022 advocating for a positive reappraisal of FC.

Hall, Harriet. (2022, March 29). Videos Said to be “Proof” that Nonverbal Autistics Can Communicate by Spelling. Science-Based Medicine.

This article discusses the dynamics between a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices and a father who believed that videos were “proof” that S2C “works.”

Scheibel, Gretchen, Zane, Thomas L., and Zimmerman, Kathleen N. (2022). An Economic Evaluation of Emerging and Ineffective Interventions: Examining the Role of Cost When Translating Research into Practice. Exceptional Children. Vol. 88 (3), pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/00144029211073522

This article introduces a novel use of economic evaluation methods to examine the time and financial costs associated with Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and DIRFloortime.

The Return of Facilitated Communication: Current Events and Implications for Misrepresenting Autism (Jason Travers). National Autism Conference 2022.

Jason Travers discusses the history of Facilitated Communication and its current variants (Spelling to Communication and Rapid Prompting Method), along with implications for misrepresenting autism when facilitators, not the individuals being subjected to it, control the typed messages.

What is Facilitated Communication? Session 199 with Jason Travers. The Behavioral Observations Podcast. (2022).

2021

Boynton, J. (2021 March 24). Rapid Prompting Method: A New Form of Communicating? Hardly. The Skeptic.

This article points out that RPM is being touted as a “new form of communicating,” but is actually a variant of Facilitated Communication.

Daly, K. & Celiberti, D. (2021). A Treatment summary of Rapid Prompting Method. Science in Autism Treatment, 18 (1).

This article provides a summary of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) to date and recommended that the use of this intervention should not be used or recommended by practitioners until the claims made can be substantiated by peer reviewed research studies.

Simmons, W..P., Boynton, J., and Landman, T. (2021, February). Facilitated Communication, Neurodiversity, and Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly. Volume 43 (1), 138-167. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2021.0005

The purpose of this article is to explore the use of Facilitated Communication as a human rights issue, given that it has been rightly labeled as a pseudoscience and has no controlled studies showing its validity as a form of communication for people with severe autism and other disabilities.

Vyse, S. (2021, March 30). Beware the Child Rescuers. Skeptical Inquirer.

This article discusses the problem of false allegations of child abuse and provides a brief history of claims of child victimization (e.g., the Blood Libel myth, the European Witch Craze, Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare, Facilitated Communication, and Pizzagate/QAnon).

2020

Holehan, K., and Zane, T. (2020). Is there Science Behind that? Facilitated Communication. Science in Autism Treatment. 17(5)

This article provides readers with an overview of Facilitated Communication (including some of the new names for the technique), discusses the historical link between Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and FC, and reviews the research into the technique.

Travers, Jason C. (2020). Rapid Prompting Method is Not Consistent with Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Students with Autism. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. 31-34. www.DyslexialDA.org

This article discusses Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and claims of “inexplicable literacy skills” encountered with its use, as well as the inconsistencies this method has with evidence-based reading instruction for students with autism.

2019

Casanova, Manuel. (2019, June 26). A Triple Victory: Three Wikipedia Articles Promoting Facilitated Communication Are Deleted. Cortical Chauvinism.

This blog post discusses credulity in the media and the dangers of using FC, along with changes to Wikipedia pages that featured individuals being subjected to FC.

Jarry, Jonathan. (2019, November 8). Who is Doing the Pointing When Communication is Facilitated. McGill Office for Science and Society.

This article discusses the history of FC and the self-deception of facilitators. Jarry offers the following take-home message:

  • Facilitated Communication is supposed to help people who can’t speak, write or type on their own.

  • Scientific research has shown again and again that it is the facilitator and not the person whose communication is being facilitated that is doing the actual typing and pointing.

  • Facilitated communication puts words into the mouths of people and has even led to multiple accusations of sexual abuse that turned out to be false.

2018

Burke, Michael. (2018, March 19). Educator trained in discredited communication method at SU pleads guilty to criminal sexual contact. The Daily Orange.

This article discusses the case of Anna Stubblefield, a former Rutgers University ethics professor who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a client with whom she used FC. Stubblefield was trained in FC at Syracuse University in 2008.

“For decades, the Syracuse administration has not only tolerated dangerous facilitated communication pseudoscience, it has even openly championed FC over clear and established science.” —James Todd, professor at Eastern Michigan University.

French, C., and Marshall, M. (2018, February 5). Why communication from a locked in child is a miracle we must question. The Guardian.

This article explores the claims of unexpected literacy skills in a young man with disabilities using an “eye gazing” system closely related to facilitated communication. The authors urge caution in accepting unproven claims of literacy from proponents promoting the technique.

Muller, Jordan. (2018, June 17). Academics criticize conference co-hosted by SU. The Daily Orange.

This article criticizes Syracuse University for partnering with the University of Northern Iowa to host a conference featuring the scientifically discredited technique of Facilitated Communication.

Lane, Sandra D. and Rubinstein, Robert A.. (2018, April 1). Syracuse University faculty respond to letter to the editor endorsing facilitated communication. The Daily Orange.

This letter to the editor represents the concerns of two Syracuse University professors regarding the university’s continued support of FC.

”SU’s support of FC represents a serious conflict of interest. It’s shameful that our university continues to benefit financially from a clinical intervention that completely lacks clinical trial evidence for its efficacy.”

Hemsley, B., Shane, H., Todd, J.T., Schlosser, R., and Lang, R. (2018, May 22). It’s time to stop exposing people to the dangers of facilitated communication. The Conversation.

This article provides a short history of facilitated communication, the harms it can do, and the right of individuals with disabilities to communicate independently.

Montague, Jules. (2018, January). Apple’s Autism Ad of Magical Thinking. The Verge. January 2018.

This article discusses how a commercial promoting Apple’s iPad promotes Rapid Prompting Method, a pseudoscientific practice that lacks empirical evidence for any claims of educational efficacy or independent communication but is still being used on individuals with severe communication difficulties. The author wrote: “Featuring RPM detracts from the stunning accessibility technology being developed by Apple and others and their democratization of communication access.”

Sturgess, K. (2018, June 29). On animals, language, Koko, and wish-fulfilment. Skeptical Inquirer.

This is an interview with Daniel Midgley about the idea that animals have the potential to talk and some of the differences between communication and language and how wishful thinking sometimes fools people into thinking their animals can “talk.” Facilitated communication is mentioned when the discussion turns to assistant cuing and interpretation of communication exchanges.

Vyse, S. (2018, April 28). Syracuse, Apple, and autism pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer.

This article discusses The Daily Orange’s expose of facilitated communication and Syracuse University’s role in perpetuating the discredited technique. It also discusses Rapid Prompting Method, an FC variant, and its promotion in Apple computer commercials.

2017

Randi, J. (2017, July/August). The farce known as ‘FC’. Skeptical Inquirer, 41 (4).

James Randi discusses his experience with facilitated communication when called to the University of Madison-Wisconsin by proponent Anne M. Donnellan to determine whether students could “read minds” when facilitating.

2016

Burke, Michael. (2016, April 11). Double Talk: Syracuse University institute continues to use discredited technique with dangerous effects. The Daily Orange.

This article discusses Syracuse University’s culpability in its continued promotion of a discredited technique called Facilitated Communication, as well as the problem of false allegations of abuse that have plagued FC since its inception.

Burke, Michael (2016, April 11). How facilitators control words typed in facilitated communication without realizing. The Daily Orange.

This article discusses the perception of facilitators who feel they are not controlling letter selection while using FC (due, in part to non-conscious muscle movements called the ideomotor effect).

Burke, Michael. (2016, April 11). Why experts say evidence cited by facilitated communication advocates is flawed. The Daily Orange.

This article briefly discusses research studies cited by pro-FC advocates who claim FC is a valid method to use and why researchers using empirical testing techniques (e.g., protocols that control for facilitator cueing) consider the pro-FC research completely flawed.

Daily Orange Editorial Board. (2016, April 12). Syracuse University’s reinforcement of facilitated communication inexcusable, concerning. The Daily Orange.

This editorial by Syracuse University’s student newspaper, The Daily Orange, publicly denounces SU for continue to support the use of FC.

”It is inexcusable and equal-parts embarrassing for Syracuse University as a research institution to stand behind facilitated communication (FC) despite it being a potentially life-destroying practice that has been empirically debunked.”

Todd, J. T. (2016). Old horses in new stables: Rapid prompting, facilitated communication, science, ethics, and the history of magic, in R. Foxx & J.A. Mulick (Eds). Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice, 2nd edition, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 372-409.

2015

Chen, J. and Nankervis, K. (2015, February 3). Stolen voices: Facilitated communication is an abuse of human rights. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8 (3), 151-156. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2014.1001549

“Drawing upon our experience as practitioners in the field of intellectual and developmental disability, we offer the view that it is important to argue against FC from a human rights perspective using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Put simply, FC is an abuse of human rights.”

Travers, J., et al. (2015, January 7). Facilitated communication denies people with disabilities their voice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39 (3), 195-202. DOI: 10.1177/1540796914556778

“FC has experienced resurgence in popularity among families, professionals, and advocacy groups. Strategic marketing, confirmation bias, pseudoscience, anti-science, and fallacy explain this troubling renewal. We briefly discuss each of these and contrast the method with authentic augmentative and alternative communication to illustrate differences in values and practices. Our intention is to persuade readers to resist or abandon FC in favor of validated methods and to encourage advocacy organizations to advance agendas that emphasize genuine self-expression by people with disabilities.”

Wombles, K. (2015, February 18). Some fads never die—they only hide behind other names: Facilitated Communication is not and never will be Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 8 (4), 181-186. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2015.1012780

The purpose of this article is to bring awareness to the fact that FC and RPM continues to be marketed to parents of children with complex communication needs, despite having been debunked. The author calls for education for parents in proven methods and how to spot fad treatments that offer no evidence of efficacy.

2014

Lang, R., Tostanoski, A.H., Travers, J., and Todd, J. (2014). The only study investigating the rapid prompting method has serious methodological flaws but data suggest the most likely outcome is prompt dependency. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8 (1), 40-48. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2014.955260

The article (above) is an appraisal and commentary on the following article:

Chen, G.M., Yoder, K.J., Ganzel, B.L., Goodwin, M.S., and Belmonte, M.K. (2012, February), Harnessing repetitive behaviours to engage attention and learning in a novel therapy for autism: An exploratory analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (12), 1-16. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00012

The purpose of this study was to examine RPM and its ability to reduce repetitive behaviors and increase multiple choice response options without decreasing successful response in individuals who lack functional communicative speech. Nine children with autism participated. The authors report results that supported these claims and, further, argued that direct gaze is not necessary for successful responding with the Rapid Prompting Method.

The Lang review did not support these findings, indicating flaws in the study, including lack of a control group, no procedural fidelity measurement reported (consistent application of RPM should not be assumed), inconsistent use of operational definitions in regards to joint attention. They report that “joint attention, eye contact, and/or engagement are (a) important for successful communication, (b) can be successfully taught to individuals with ASD, and (c) may occasion improvements in other social skills.” (p. 44), and small sample size. A likely explanation for changes in behavior and production of content is prompt dependency where participants rely on cuing from facilitators. No systematic plan for fading prompts was reported in the Chen study.

Tostanoski, A., et.al. (2014, August). Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17 (4), 219-223. DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2012.749952

This article briefly reviews the history and damage caused by facilitated communication (FC) and highlights the parallels between FC and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM).

2012

Mazerolle, P. and Legosz, M. (2012). Facilitated communication & augmented and alternative communication: A review. Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. 1-272.

This article is a comprehensive review of facilitated communication (FC) and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) conducted by an independent research team for the Disability and Community Care Services (DCCS) in Queensland, Australia. While the research team found that AAC systems are used to enhance and develop both a person’s expression and their understanding of language, they found that FC lacked research evidence and posed potential risks for individuals with disabilities and should “ring alarm bells” for the department.

Rule, Andrew. (May 14, 2012). The tale of Rosemary's baby: The story behind the case that divided Melbourne. Herald Sun. Parts One through Three

This is a three part expose on Rosemary Crossley and her role in promoting and popularizing facilitated communication.

Zane, Thomas. (2012, February 15). A Review of the Soma Rapid Prompt Method. Organization for Autism Research (blog).

The purpose of this article was to “review RPM in terms of its conceptual underpinnings, methodology, and—most importantly—the extent to which there exists an empirical research database showing that this particular method is effective in improving specific aspects of communication.”

The author concluded the following:

  • No articles were available that described attempts to systematically test the effectiveness of RPM under controlled conditions.

  • No references or citations were provided to support claims that RPM was supported by brain research.

  • The founder of RPM “was not formally trained in neuroscience, neurology, or other areas that would provide expert preparation in translating brain research to autism treatment.”

  • Methodologically, RPM bore a close resemblance to Facilitated Communication, which had been “thoroughly discredited as effective and considered a fad and ineffective treatment.”

  • RPM appeared to fall into the category of pseudoscientific treatments.

  • Until such time as RPM was determined to be valid under controlled, scientific conditions, interventionists should not use RPM.

2010

Wombles, Kim. (2010, May 22). Why Rapid Prompting Method Still Doesn’t Pass the Evidence-Based Test. Science 2.0

The author reviews the current status of Rapid Prompting Method and its costs.

2008

Schlosser, R.W. and Wendt, O. (2008). Facilitated communication is contraindicated as a treatment choice; A meta-analysis is still to be done. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2 (2), 81-83. DOI: 10.1080/17489530802295121

This review was conducted to explore questions surrounding the use of facilitated communication, including characteristics of controlled studies, facilitator control, validity of FC-produced accusations of sexual abuse, as well as the efficacy and performance under blinded conditions. Authors reviewed 37 studies involving 343 subjects, and determined overwhelming evidence for a facilitator effect, or facilitator control. The authors concluded that FC is an invalid treatment with great potential to have harmful psychological and social side effects.

2006

O’Donoghue, P. (2006, April 4). A dose of cynicism. The Irish Times, pp. 2.

This article discusses a variety of therapies, including facilitated communication, and why professionals are not immune to belief in practices that lack scientific evidence.

2005

Jacobson, J.W., Foxx, R.M., and Mulick, J.A. (2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN: 978-1138802230

This book addresses the question of what approaches to early intervention, education, therapy, and remediation really help those with developmental disabilities and what approaches represent a waste of time, effort, and resources. It identifies major controversies, reviews questionable practices, and offers ways to appraise the quality of services.

Madigan, Brian. (2005, November 17). New dean’s theories questionable. The Daily Orange.

This letter to the editor expresses concerns for Syracuse University’s promotion of Douglas Biklen to the dean of the School of Education, citing his theories of facilitated communication. Madigan asks “Can a man who so stubbornly refuses to address the objections of his critics be trusted to helm the School of Education?”

Riggott, Julie (Spring/Summer 2005). Pseudoscience in Autism Treatment: Are the News and Entertainment Media Helping or Hurting? The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Vol. 4 (1).

This article is discusses a movie called “Autism is a World” that featured a woman subjected to FC and the media’s response to it “in seeming ignorance” of a 1993 expose called “Prisoners of Silence” and positions statements by the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Association for Behavior analysis that raised questions about authorship and FC’s lack of scientific validity. (See Opposition Statements).

Schreibman, Laura. (2005). Miracle Cures or Bogus Treatments. In The Science and Fiction of Autism. Harvard University Press. pp. 202-227.

“Facilitated Communication (FC) is a prime example of a highly touted, widely adopted, but ultimately bogus treatment for people with autism. It provides an important lesson about the devastating effects that can result when emotions, testimonials, and unbridled belief serve to impede or delay the all-important objective, critical evaluation of a treatment.” p. 203

"To date, there are no scientifically derived data to support the treatment’s [Rapid Prompting Method’s] effectiveness. However, unlike FC, this treatment may in fact have some effectiveness, although I suspect that any positive effects there might be due to what is essentially a form of intensive behavioral training. But claims that the treatment is ‘miraculous’ or ‘new’ are indeed unwarranted.” p. 214

2001

Gardiner, M. (2001, January/February). Facilitated communication: A cruel farce. Skeptical Inquirer, 17-19.

“My topic is a much more pervasive, more cruel myth—the belief that hiding inside the head of every child with autism, no matter how severe, is a normal child whose intelligent thoughts can emerge through a curious technique called facilitated communication (FC).”

Rising, G. (2001, January 8). ‘Miraculous’ autism treatment stirs concern. Buffalo News (Final Edition), New York, pp. 2B.

This article discusses some of the difficulties parents and caregivers sometimes face raising children with autism and the “miraculous treatment” called facilitated communication.

1999

Kezuka, E. (1999). Review of (ed.) D. Biklen & D. N. Cardinal, Contested Words Contested Science: Unraveling the Facilitated Communication Controversy. Autism, vol. 3, 205- 207.

This article is a review of “Contested Words, Contested Science: Unraveling the Facilitated Communication Controversy.” The author states:

”Unfortunately, the ‘ideal validation studies’ used to defend FC in this book are marred by serious drawbacks in procedures and statistical analysis (i.e., the method of scoring, the rating scale, and so on.) and “vividly illustration facilitator influence.”

The author asks:

Why would there be such a significant gap between the user’s FC level in daily life (e.g. highly academic level, sophisticated conversation) and his performance in the validation tests?

How would it be possible for facilitators to control their unaware cueing in facilitation?

1998

Committee on Children with Disabilities. (1998, August). Auditory integration training and facilitated communication for autism. Pediatrics, 102 (2), 431-433.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Children with Disabilities concluded: “In the case of FC, there are good scientific data showing it to be ineffective. 11-14 Moreover, as noted before, the potential for harm does exist, particularly if unsubstantiated allegations of abuse occur using FC. Many families incur substantial expense pursuing these treatments, and spend time and resources that could be used more productively on behavioral and educational interventions. When controversial or unproven treatments are being considered by a family, the pediatrician should provide guidance and assistance in obtaining and reviewing information. The pediatrician should ensure that the child's health and safety, and the family's financial and emotional resources are not compromised.”

Gorman, B.J. (1998). Facilitated communication in America: Eight years and counting, 6 (3), 64. Skeptic.

This article chronicles Douglas Biklen’s “discovery” of facilitated communication and, despite the scientific community’s rejection of the technique, his push to popularize its use at Syracuse University and throughout the United States.

1997

Bondy, Andrew S. (1997). Book Review: Facilitated Communication Training, Communication Unbound: How Facilitated Communication is Challenging Traditional Views of Autism and Ability/Disability, and Facilitated Communication: The Clinical and Social Phenomenon. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 27 (2), 213-217.

This article reviews three leading books on the topic of Facilitated Communication: Facilitated Communication Training by Rosemary Crossley, Communication Unbound: How Facilitated Communication is Challenging Traditional Views of Autism and Ability/Disability by Douglas Biklen, and Facilitated Communication: The Clinical and Social Phenomenon by Howard Shane.

Twachtman-Cullen, Diane. (1997). A passion to believe: Autism and the facilitated communication phenomenon (Essays in Developmental Science). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0813390987

This book’s main purpose is to report the author’s research on facilitated communication and explores the sociopolitical phenomenon of a class of believers with a “sacred” mission not only to advance the cause of FC, but also to disparage the opposition.

Von Tetzchner, S. (1997, January 1). Historical issues in intervention research: Hidden knowledge and facilitating techniques in Denmark. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 32 (1), 1-18. DOI: 10.3109/13682829709021453

“It is argued that the ‘discovery’ of facilitating techniques as a means to disclose unexpected literacy depends on the use of hand guidance and a context of professional beliefs where responses of unclear origin may be attributed to the person whose hand is being guided.”

1996

Hostler, Sharon L. (1996, April). Facilitated Communication. Pediatrics. 97 (4). Published by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

This article provides a brief history of FC and outlines the hopes for the technique as well as the “dark sides.”

Experts now believe that facilitators are communicating in lieu of their young patients. Accusations of child abuse by family members have caused much upheaval in the lives of many people. FC is an illusion, causing false optimism, family disintegration, and a waste of medical funds. Physicians should take care to evaluate innovative, and allegedly ‘harmless’ strategies and advocate for patient safety.

Von Tetzchner, S. (1996, June 1). Facilitated, automatic and false communication: current issues in the use of facilitating techniques. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11 (2), 151-166. DOI: 10.1080/0885625960110201

“The existing evidence indicates that facilitating techniques usually lead to automatic writing, displaying thoughts and attitudes of the facilitators, and that the proponents of the techniques tend to make Type 2 errors, that is attribute skills to the person he/she does not possess. With regard to the communication impaired person, facilitating techniques tend to be directive rather than supportive, and the evidence does not encourage the use of such techniques.”

1995

Boodman, S.G. (1995, January 17). Can autistic children be reached through ‘facilitated communication’? Scientists say no. The Washington Post (Final Edition), pp. z01.

This article, six years into the FC phenomenon, explores the impact the movement had on individuals with autism and their providers.

“Is facilitated communication a long-awaited miracle -- the proverbial key that finally unlocks the door of autism? Or is it, as one influential critic has called it, "the cold fusion of special education" -- the latest in a series of useless fads that have no scientific validity and potentially pernicious results? Or is the truth less spectacular: that FC may work for a minority of people with certain specific motor problems, such as cerebral palsy, but that its general applicability with autistics remains unproved? Whatever one's view, the technique has ignited an extraordinarily bitter debate among mental health workers, advocates for the disabled, educators and the parents of autistic children. "People who believe in it believe in it religiously," said critic Glenn Elliott, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco. "And those who don't are furious."

Green, G. (1995, Fall). An ecobehavioral interpretation of the facilitated communication phenomenon. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 21 (2), 1-8.

The author discusses the popularization of facilitated communication and variables as to how and why the movement got started and why it persists.

Hudson, A. (1995). Disability and facilitated communication: A critique. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 197-232.

The authors address three ethical concerns posed by FC: “ 1) the notion of attributing a communication as originating from another person when this may not be the case; (2) the issue of providing the best possible service to people with disabilities; and (3) the propensity for users of FC to become involved in legal disputes. There is no evidence that FC constitutes an advance in clinical child psychology.”

Jacobson, J.W., Mulick, J.A., Schwartz, A.A. (1995, September). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50 (9), 750-765.

This article follows the history of facilitated communication and addresses the issue of controlled research in laboratory and natural settings which determined that FC messages are controlled by the assistants, not the individuals with disabilities.

Vazquez, C.A. (1995, December). Failure to confirm the word-retrieval problem hypothesis in facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25 (6), 597-610. DOI: 10.1007/BF02178190

”Three nonspeaking autistic children who had used facilitation for at least 2 years were evaluated with four experimentally controlled tasks, over a period of 5 months. In descriptive and object handling tasks, and in a traditional picture identification task, subjects failed to type correct answers when facilitators were blind; one subject, however, occasionally engaged in signing and vocalizations that were context-appropriate. Results reflected a generalized language deficit, rather than isolated word-finding or perceptual difficulties, and were consistent with many previous studies revealing facilitator cuing. Questions are raised about inconsistencies in pseudo-correct scores, a measure of facilitator influence, reported here and in previous research.”

1994

Ackerson, S. (1994). Facilitated communication: A communication breakthrough or breakdown? Beyond Behavior, 5 (2), 13-16.

In this article from 1994, the author states “As FC makes its provoking debut, more and more doubts and questions arise, as do the oversimplified ‘answers’ and explanations of its apparent success.”

Coughlin, E.K. (1994, March 9). A new path to speech? Or an illusion?: Communication method for the disabled sharply divides researchers. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

This article explores the dividing line between proponents and critics of FC, which comes down to research methods (e.g., empirical studies vs. ethnographic observations) and the impact of ideology in scholarly investigations. How much do researchers’ beliefs influence their results?

Gladue, B.A. (1994, September 7, 1994). Psychologists condemn “facilitated communication”. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The American Psychological Association releases a statement opposing the use of facilitated communication.

Green, G., Jacobson, J.W., and Shane, H.C. (1994, December 7). Controversial technique sparks questions. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

This article is a letter to the editor in response to Donald Cardinal’s article “Researchers and the Press: A Cautionary Tale,” (Opinion, October 12). While Cardinal advocated for the use and promotion of the technique, the authors pointed out that at least 20 controlled evaluations of FC had been published or accepted for publication that demonstrated facilitator control in the production of FC messages. More than 200 people with various disabilities were involved in those evaluations. None of the individuals demonstrated unexpected literacy skills using FC.

Green, Gina; Shane, Howard C. (Fall, 1994). Science, Reason, and Facilitated Communication. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, vol. 19(3), 151-72.

This article discusses the most effective evidence and methods used to derive the least ambiguous answer to the central question about FC: Does it enable people with disabilities to demonstrate unexpected skills? The article outlines potential harms, facilitator motivations and training, and the need for objective, controlled authorship testing. While proponents urge their facilitators to “presume competence” and avoid testing, the authors in this article argue that FC messages cannot be attributed solely to the individuals being subjected to its use unless measures are put into place to objectively rule in or rule out facilitator influence.

Jacobson, J.W., and Mulick, J.A. (1994). Facilitated Communication: Better Education Through Applied Ideology. Journal of Behavioral Education. 4 (1), 93-105.

The authors review research on FC, identify cognitive factors that may stimulate acceptance of this as a training method, and suggest procedures to be employed in individual validation situations when critical communications occur.

Mostert, Mark. (1994, Winter). The More Things Change: New Ideas, Old Directions? Beyond Behavior. 5 (2), 17-18.

This article is a response to Sandra Ackerson’s experiences with FC where questions were raised about peer pressure for conforming to the ideas of FC without question.

Shane, Howard C. (1994). Facilitated communication: The clinical and social phenomenon. San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Co. ISBN 1-56593-341-9

This book explores the clinical and sociological reality of facilitated communication from an empirical, data-based perspective. Chapters included: “Facilitated Communication: Factual, Fictional, or Factitious.” (Howard C. Shane); “The Australian Origins of Facilitated Communication” (Jon Palfreman); “The ‘Facilitated Communication’ Craze as an Instance of Pathological Science: The Cold Fusion of Human Services” (Wolf Wolfensberger); “Implications of Facilitated Communication for Education and Communication Enhancement Practices for Persons with Autism” (Barry M. Prizant and others); “The Quality of the Evidence” (Gina Green); “How Shall Facilitated Communication Be Judged? Facilitated Communication and the Legal System” (Kenneth N. Margolin); “Establishing the Source of Communication” (Howard C. Shane); and “The Facilitated Nightmare: The Dark Side of the Phenomenon” (Howard C. Shane).

Shane, H.C. and Kearns, K. (1994, September 1). 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

Three procedures were designed to assess authorship of messages produced via FC by a nonspeaking man with intellectual disability. Results demonstrated that the source of communication was ,without exception, the facilitator.

Thompson, Travis. (1994). Communication Unbound: How Facilitated Communication is Challenging Traditional Views of Autism and Ability/Disability. American Journal on Mental Retardation. 98 (5), 670-673.

This article is a review of Douglas Biklen’s 1993 book Communication Unbound: How Facilitated Communication is Challenging Traditional Views of Autism and Ability/Disability.

“The book is a collection of anecdotes and testimonials. There are no research designs, independent or dependent variables, correlations, or reliability measures. No evidence is provided regarding the criteria used to diagnose autism, so the readers do not really know whose communication is being facilitated. Nothing here resembles research.”

1993

Mulick, J.A., Jacobson, J.W., and Kobe, F.H. (1993, Spring). Anguished Silence and Helping Hands: Autism and Facilitated Communication. Skeptical Inquirer. 17 (3).

This articles discusses Facilitated Communication and the allure it may have for parents of children with profound autism based on the “emotional appeal of dramatic or easy cures, questionable science, and possible perceptual bias.”

Palfreman, J. (Producer). (1993, October 19). Frontline: Prisoners of silence. Boston, MA: WGBH Public Television.

This documentary is a comprehensive investigation of Facilitated Communication, a technique that was, at the time, heralded as a breakthrough technique of individuals with complex communication needs, particularly those with autism. While thousands of people embraced the technique, scientists rejected it as simply not real. The facilitators, not the individuals with disabilities, control the messages.

Review of the Frontline documentary:

Repp, Alan, C. (1994, March). Frontline, Facilitated Communication, and Stephen Jay Gould. Journal of Behavioral Education. 4 (1), 1-5.

1992

Cummins, R.A., and Prior, M.P. (1992, Summer). Autism and assisted communication: A response to Biklen. Harvard Educational Review, 62 (2), 228-242. DOI: 10.17763/haer.62.2.p86j20536017732

The authors offer ideas regarding assessment of FC’s claims.

Unspecified Dates

About Time series on Facilitated Communication hosted by Susan Gerbic and Janyce Boynton. This series covers a wide-ranging discussion of FC and its variants, with guest appearances by experts in the field.

Facilitated communication: what parents should know. (n.d.) The Free Library.

A collection of essays written by individuals, primarily parents, who have been harmed by facilitated communication.

Let’s talk about autism - Matt Brodhead: “Science or snake oil”. Speak MODalities

Dr. Matt Brodhead speaks about controversy and risks associated with the pseudoscientific treatment "Facilitated Communication".

Dr. Hank Schlinger—Applied Behavior Analysis—CSUN ABA Speaker Series. California State University, Northbridge.

Dr. Hank Schlinger discusses facilitated communication, facilitator influence and control, and the Clever Hans Effect.

Stone, Lyn. My non-verbal child: it doesn’t get any better than this. Lifelong Literacy.

This article is written by a mother of a child with Cri du chat syndrome who tried, then abandoned Facilitated Communication. The child, however, was resistant to the approach, pulling her hand away, pushing the device to the floor, asserting for herself that she wanted no part of it. This tender account challenges the idea that if only someone did a little more, language and literacy skills would suddenly appear. It also honors her daughter, who died in April, 2018, for who she really was.

“So the message for people in the field who want to help the Chloes of this world ‘find their voice’ is this: they have already spoken. Please try not to spray-paint them with your wishful thinking. Instead, have a conversation with those who know them best and pay attention to their history. I’m not trying to get anyone to abandon hope, but I do recommend embracing reality.” —Lyn Stone

The ethical duty to know: The tragic case of facilitated communication for autism (Scott Lilienfeld). HMS Center for Bioethics.

Scott Lilienfeld discusses the history of a technique called Facilitated Communication, purportedly used to communicate with individuals with severe autism, developmental delay, or brain injuries. The technique has since been comprehensively debunked--come and learn how providers can go wrong by failing to adhere to standards of evidence.