Pro-FC Articles in the News
Human interest stories about non-speaking individuals suddenly discovering a way to communicate “independently” (with the support of an assistant) appear quite frequently. These feel-good, miracle stories generally omit the fact that FC and its variants have been discredited or minimize critical information that leave the unsuspecting public believing that FC and its variants actually work. This does a disservice to individuals who rely on legitimate Augmentative and Alternative Communication. While it is great that attention is being give to the achievements of people with all types of disabilities, if the words are the facilitators’ and not the individuals themselves, then the stories do nothing but promote pseudoscience.
May, 2022:
Several major news outlets recounted the story of the Rollins College valedictorian Elizabeth Bonker, who purportedly communicates using the variant of FC known Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), and who is credited as the co-author of the FC memoir I am In Here.
The Bonker story was picked up by ABC, USA Today, and NPR and has remained on their news sites despite concerns communicated to them about the lack of evidence for RPM.
CBS news reported on the story of a non-speaking man who graduated from UCLA with honors in English and who uses FC and the variant of FC known as Rapid Prompting Method. Reportedly, the student’s next plans are “to attend Columbia University in the fall to pursue his writing career.”
WHYY TV, Philadelphia’s public television provider, broadcast and posted on YouTube an account of how a non-speaking autistic boy was purportedly unlocked by a recent variant of facilitated communication known as Spelling to Communicate (S2C).
Comments posted on YouTube that contained substantive evidence against S2C were systematically deleted from the YouTube site.
Miller, Stuart. (2021, April 9). It took a woman with autism 25 years to find her voice. Now she’s telling her story. Washington Post.
This is a book review of the book “I Have Been Buried Under Years of Dust,” attributed to Emily Grodin, an non-speaking woman with autism, but written with a facilitator using Facilitated Communication.
1. The journalist mentions the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and the American Psychological Association as dismissing FC as pseudoscience “because of the potential ‘Ouija Board effect’” when, in actuality, controlled studies have shown actual facilitator control due, in part, to the phenomenon. The journalist fails to mention that these organizations, and a host of others, recommend not using the technique because of a lack of scientific evidence, concerns about facilitator control, and the potential for false allegations of abuse. Many consider the use of FC in all its forms an abuse of human rights.
2. Disclosures of perceived unknown information by facilitators is a poor indicator of independent communication. Most facilitators are unaware to extent to which they are influencing the typed messages, by providing physical or auditory cues and/or moving the letter board. Motivated reasoning (e.g, a strong emotional desire to make FC “work”), also contributes to the illusion that FC messages are not influenced by the facilitator (they are). Facilitators fail to recognize the extent to which information is shared, sometimes days or weeks before the messages are typed via facilitation. Observations, analysis of written output, and asking the individual to type out whether FC is real are not, are all inadequate measures of determining the degree to which the facilitators are influencing the written output. Only in activities where the facilitator is blinded to the test protocols can independence be determined. To date, there is no evidence that FC is an independent form of communication.
3. Consumer ready technology exists that allow individuals to interact with communication devices independently and without the interference of a facilitator. The equipment can be adapted for a wide range of motor difficulties, including apraxia. Individuals subjected to FC who can also paint with a paint brush, use utensils to feed themselves, pick out items on a grocery store shelf, take photographs with a polaroid, and other fine and gross motor problems would be good candidates for existing, evidence-based augmentative and alternative communication.
Morgenstern, Joe (2021, January 7th). ‘The Reason I Jump’ Review: Brightening the Autism Spectrum. Wall Street Journal.
Morgenstern accurately cites Naoki Higashida’s book by the same name as the inspiration for this movie, but then asserts that the book is “a first-hand, first-mind account of the young Japanese author’s passionate, turbulent and phenomenally rich inner life.” He neglects to mention that many critical readers and autism experts have raised questions about whether the words in the book are Higashida’s own words. (For more about the authorship questions surrounding this book, see the FC in the Media/Books section).
Morgenstern accurately notes that some of the non-speakers featured in the movie use letterboards to spell out what he deems to be “eloquent sentences”, but fails to recognize that this methodology is a form of facilitated communication (Spelling to Communicate). He makes no mention of the long-standing controversy surrounding facilitated communication, or of the fact that Spelling to Communicate has never undergone rigorous empirical testing—in particular re: authorship.
Morgenstern uncritically accepts the pseudoscientific claims by FC-promoters that autism is a sensory-motor disorder, and that the letterboards serve to “enhance motor control” and (as Morgenstern puts it) “organize cyclonic swirls of thoughts.”
Assuming that the typed messages seen and heard in the movie are authentic testimonials by non-speaking autistic people, Morgenstern calls the movie “deeply informative” and credits it with sweeping away his assumption that “being on the spectrum implied some degree of emotional impairment.”
Solochek, Jeffrey S. (2020, December 3). Grace is 14, autistic and ‘smarter than anyone knew.’ Tampa Bay News.
This story focuses on an individual with autism attending regular education classes supported by an assistant using spelling to communicate
Spelling to Communicate is a variant of Rapid Prompting Method which has no evidence to support claims of independent communication. A 2019 Systematic Review of Rapid Prompting Method showed no studies which met the evidence-based criteria and that the general use of RPM is not recommended.
The article does include a statement from Marie Ireland, a spokesperson for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, which discourages the use of RPM and FC for lack of scientific validity. The American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) have since published position statements opposing the use of RPM.
Despite claims that the facilitators are not providing cues during the typing activity, researchers have demonstrated that the ideomotor effect, or non-conscious muscle movements prove otherwise. FC and RPM messages are facilitator influenced and controlled.
The speed of typing does not prove authorship, guarantee accuracy of the typed messages, or diminish facilitator influence.
DeGrassa, Peg. (2020, October 29). Delaware County man with autism discovers way to communicate, publishes book. DelcoTimes.
This story features a non-speaking individual who, purportedly, authored a book telling about his life with autism. He was assisted by a facilitator using Spelling to Communicate.
The article takes an uncritical view of Spelling to Communicate, a variant of Rapid Prompting Method, in which a letter board is held by an assistant, often in the air, while the individual points to the letters. Facilitator cuing and prompt dependency are hallmarks of this method. A 2019 Systematic Review of Rapid Prompting Method showed no studies which met the evidence-based criteria and that the general use of RPM is not recommended.
Rapid Prompting Method or Spelling to Communicate share characteristics with Facilitated Communication and messages obtained using these techniques can not be reliably attributed to individuals with disabilities. Controlled studies demonstrate that facilitators, not individuals being subjected to FC, are the authors of these messages.
The American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) are just two organizations who have published position statements opposing the use of RPM.
The reporter, editor, and publisher of the DelcoTimes were disinterested evidence regarding FC and RPM. In an email, the editor wrote: “The Daily Times is not a scientific journal. We have no interest in getting involved in this controversy.”
Sitz, Lindsey. (2020, April 2). What we can learn about this covid-19 time from a nonspeaking autistic teen. The Washington Post.
This article focuses on an nonspeaking individual with autism who, purportedly, gives advice on living in the pandemic. The interview was conducted with his “communication partner” using a letterboard.
The individual in the news article is being subjected to Rapid Prompting Method, which, to date has no evidence demonstrating the messages are those of the individual and not the communication partner or facilitator.
The accompanying video clearly shows facilitator cuing. The letter board is held in the air and can visibly be seen moving backwards and forwards, up and down, as she positions for desired letter selection. She also uses her voice to cue the start and stop of sentences (e.g., her voice stays even or goes up when she is expecting more letters to be “typed” and goes down to signal the word or sentence is done). Additionally, the individual being subjected to RPM covers or closes his eyes at times, while still typing.
Videos like these are closely cropped and edited to make it appear that the RPM or FC messages are more successful than they may be in real life. The individual in the video is seen biting his arm with no redirect from the facilitator (she tells him “he’s going to rock it again”). The voice over and typed message want readers to believe the individual is “in a constant battle with his body,” but, in actuality, we do not know why he is biting his arm.
The American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) have since published position statements opposing the use of RPM.
The article originally appeared with no critical analysis of RPM, but editors added the following editor’s note:
After publication of this piece, a group of researchers and practitioners in the autism field wrote to The Post questioning the uncritical portrayal of the Rapid Prompting Method, the communication method used in this story and video. This story now notes the controversy surrounding the method, including that it is disavowed by many researchers and experts in the field based on broad scientific studies.
Fazio, Marie. (2020, January 6). 17-year-old Highland Park boy with nonverbal autism blogs to reach others like him: ‘People need to stop underestimating us.’ Chicago Tribune.
This story focuses on an individual with autism who uses Rapid Prompting Method as his primary form of communication. He, purportedly learned language and literacy skills by reading street signs, listening to his father help his sister with homework, and looking out the window while riding in a car.
Critiques:
Rapid Prompting Method is a facilitator-influenced technique relying on prompts and cues from an assistant. To date, there is no evidence the messages are independently those of the person being facilitated.
Language and literacy skills need to be taught. Individuals, for example, do not learn the symbolism of written language simply by being exposed to them in their environment.
The one critical line in the article dismisses the need for evidence-based measures: “There has been little research to back up anecdotal success stories for this type of therapy, but that doesn’t matter to [the mother] after seeing the difference it’s made in her son’s life.” A 2019 Systematic Review of Rapid Prompting Method showed no studies which met the evidence-based criteria and that the general use of RPM is not recommended.
The article, erroneously, claims that just because no one touches the individual while he points to a letter board, he cannot be cued. The assistants are holding the board in the air for him, which significantly increases the chance of facilitator cuing through the ideomotor phenomenon.
The reporter fails to do due diligence in reporting the current evidence regarding RPM or concerns over facilitator influence and prompt dependency. The American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) are just two organizations who have published position statements opposing the use of RPM.
Kim, Yehyun. (2020, January 2). Kids with autism learn to speak with hands, by spelling to communicate. USA Today.
The article opens by stating “Many think of autism as a behavioral disorder, but it's a movement sensory disorder. These autistic students use hands and spelling to communicate.”
This article promotes Spelling To Communicate, a version of facilitated communication in which the letter board is held up in the air. a variant of Rapid Prompting Method, in which a letter board is held by an assistant, often in the air, while the individual points to the letters. Facilitator cuing and prompt dependency are hallmarks of this method. A 2019 Systematic Review of Rapid Prompting Method showed no studies which met the evidence-based criteria and that the general use of RPM is not recommended.
The article uncritical asserts, as a truth about autism, the unscientific claim by FC proponents that autism is a movement disorder. Most autism scientists view autism as primarily socio-cognitive in nature—a view that is also consistent with the diagnostic criteria for autism used around the world (the DSM and the ICD).
Meister, Miranda. (2019, December 31). After years with no way to communicate, Newburgh teen finds her voice. Tristate.
This story features a 17-year-old non-speaking individual with autism who suddenly began to type when she started using facilitated communication.
This article promotes facilitated communication, or “motor communication,” as a “new form of communicating. FC has been in use since the mid-1980s (maybe earlier than that) and has been soundly discredited because of facilitator influence and harms caused by false allegations of abuse. Many organizations have statements opposing its use.
This article promotes the idea that language comprehension and learning acquisition are skills that can be learned by absorbing information from the environment. These skills, particularly reading and written language, need to be taught.
This article makes no mention of the scientific evidence discrediting FC and promotes pseudoscientific practices.
Kedar, Ido. (2018, September 24). I Was Born Unable to Speak, and a Disputed Treatment Saved Me. Wall Street Journal. A.19.
Authorship of this article is attributed to an individual with autism subjected to Rapid Prompting Method. The article claims that the use of RPM “liberated” the individual. It also denounces the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association for its opposition of the technique.
Response to the article from the President of ASHA, Elise Davis-McFarland, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Davis-McFarland, E. (2018, September 27). RPM for Autism Not Supported by Science: ASHA has pledged to review its statement on RPM should any new rigorous studies showing efficacy be published.
This article points out that ASHA is not the only organization opposing FC and RPM and continues:
ASHA’s position statement encourages the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices that foster independence, absent the involvement of prompters or facilitators. Mr. Kader cites being robbed of autonomy, which is precisely the cause for concern with RPM. Proven methods that allow an individual to have a truly independent voice are being used successfully every day, all across the country, by speech-language pathologists in keeping with ASHA’s vision statement: ‘Making effective communication, a human right, accessible and achievable for all.’
Reis, H. (2017, March 13). Those who doubt rapid prompting method should come meet me. Washington Post.
This article is a response to a March 1 article called “The key to unlock their autistic son’s voice.” Authorship is attributed to an individual subjected to Rapid Prompting Method.
Critiques:
The article asserts that, without RPM and FC, individuals are subjected to “low-level” and “boring” activities and that typing via RPM and FC gives individuals a “voice.” On the contrary, FC has long been discredited. Controlled studies reliably and repeatedly demonstrate that the facilitators, not the individuals with disabilities are controlling the messages and unexpected literacy skills is a hallmark of facilitator influence. RPM is so similar to FC in facilitator control and prompt dependency that many organizations with opposition statements to FC have included RPM.
The article gives alludes to two-hand typing without a facilitator. Neither FC nor RPM teach two-hand typing skills. Rather, the individual is taught to type hunt-and-peck style with a facilitator holding onto the person (with traditional FC) or holding onto the letter board (with RPM). Both typing conditions build a reliance on the facilitator for cuing and are highly subject to (often non-conscious) cuing via the ideomotor response. Fading support to the elbow, shoulder or shirt sleeve from the wrist does not reduce facilitator cuing. Neither does holding a board in the air while the individual points to it independently.
The assertion in the article is that the individual’s opinions (typed via RPM) are “too strong” for facilitator guidance. While facilitators are taught to believe that unique or unusual content in typed messages equals independent communication, this simply is not true. Saying FC or RPM work because the person subjected to FC or RPM says it works is circular reasoning and a poor substitution for controlled testing where the facilitator is blinded from the content being discussed.
Chandler, M.A. (2017, March 1). Parents want to give their autistic children a voice in schools, but scientists call their technique ‘false hope.’ Washington Post.
This article focuses on a pilot program in Montgomery County Public Schools that uses Rapid Prompting Method, claiming this is their students’ preferred communication method. The article also points out that FC and RPM have no reliable evidence to back up claims of independent communication.
The article describes RPM as a “novel communication technique,” that leads to breakthroughs for individuals with autism and that stopping the technique is seen as discrimination by groups such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN). However, RPM is closely related to Facilitated Communication, a discredited technique, and has no reliable evidence to support claims of independent communication, as documented in systematic reviews.
The article mentions Helen Keller as an example of an individual who, purportedly, no one believe could communicate. However, unlike FC and RPM users, Helen Keller was exposed to the evidence-based communication method of sign language and was later shown in videos speaking and signing independently and without interference from her assistant. To date, no high-quality, controlled studies have demonstrated independent communication and, instead, record facilitator influence and control over the typed messages. FC and RPM are reliant on facilitator influence and cuing to “work.” Evidence-based methods and technology allow individuals with severe communication and physical disabilities to interact with the communication devices without interference from a facilitator.
Many organizations have position statements opposing FC and RPM due to the high degree (better than chance) of facilitator influence, prompt dependency, and the potential for abuses, including false allegations of abuse and facilitator crimes. FC and RPM guidelines do not protect individuals from false allegations of abuse.
Promoters of FC/RPM claim the movement “grew too fast” and facilitators were poorly trained. However, evidence of facilitator cuing, poor technique, and even false allegations of abuse can be linked to the leaders in the movement. Rosemary Crossley and eight of her facilitators had the first false allegations of abuse case in Australia. Leading advocate and Syracuse-trained facilitator, Anna Stubblefield, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault because she used FC as the only form of consent on an individual with profound communication difficulties. Douglas Biklen’s 1991 training film, put out by Syracuse University, shows his trained facilitators holding onto their clients’ hands and typing while the individuals look away from the board, cover their face, and physically get up and turn their bodies away from the letter board. In the movie “Wretches and Jabberers,” Syracuse-trained facilitators are shown typing while their clients look away, verbally say conflicting sentences to what’s typed. In one scene, the Syracuse “master trainer” uses two hands to force his client to type out sentences. How is this not controlling the messages? In the movie “Autism is a World,” leading RPM practitioners consistent move the letter boards in the air, providing visual cuing, and call out letters while their clients pay absolutely no attention to the board. (See critiques of these movies here). The failure of FC and RPM isn’t because the facilitators are poorly trained. Many of them are well-meaning. The failure is that these techniques cannot function as independent forms of communication.
The title of the article perpetuates the myth of parents vs. scientists in regard recommending appropriate communication programs for their children. If proponents of FC and RPM could reliably demonstrate that individuals with disabilities could use their techniques without the need for facilitator prompt-dependent control, then critics would consider the techniques as viable options. To date, no evidence exists for this claim. Until then, critics have a professional and ethical obligation to recommend and provide services that are proven and evidence-based.
Itkowitz, Colby. (2016, May 19). This nonspeaking teenager wrote an incredibly profound letter explaining autism. The Washington Post.
This story focuses on an individual with autism who, at the age of 16, suddenly began to type on his own, purportedly without coaching.
Critiques:
The article purports that the individual learned complex language and literacy skills by listening. Language and literacy have to be taught. They can’t simply be “picked up from listening.”
The article discloses the use of Rapid Prompting Method, a technique which shares the characteristics of facilitator influence and prompt dependency with Facilitated Communication.
One sentence is given to the fact that the technique is controversial, with the rest given to statements from believers or those who are unwilling to dispute its efficacy.
Although unavailable to the reporter in 2016, the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) have since published position statements opposing the use of RPM.
A 2019 Systematic Review of Rapid Prompting Method showed no studies which met the evidence-based criteria and that the general use of RPM is not recommended.
Although facilitators may not realize to the extent they are influencing the communications, RPM shares the characteristics of facilitator influence and prompt dependency with Facilitated Communication. Just because the assistants say they didn’t cue the individual, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Facilitators should undergo carefully controlled double-blind testing to determine authorship of the messages.