Facilitated communication
a thoroughly discredited but persistent technique
Why we’re speaking out against facilitated communication
Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique being used on individuals with disabilities. It requires the support of a facilitator to “work.” However, in the 30-plus years it has been in use, proponents have failed to produce any reliable evidence to prove their claims of independent communication. In fact, controlled testing shows it is the facilitators, not individuals with disabilities, who control FC-generated messages. FC has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community. Most major health, education, and autism advocacy organizations have opposition statements and strongly urge their members not to use FC. Individuals with disabilities deserve to have access to communication technologies and methods currently available for use that promote independence and allow them to make their voices heard without interference from facilitators.
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.
— Hall, G. (1993)
Facilitated Communication is Also Known As:
Note: some of these have been co-opted from legitimate, evidence-based methods and techniques. The distinguishing characteristics of FC is facilitator control over the typing or writing activity and prompt dependency for individuals being subjected to it.
Supported Typing
Saved by Typing
Facilitated Communication Training
Informative Pointing
Spelling/Communication Therapy
Spellers Method
Partnered Typing
Rapid Prompting Method
Spelling to Communicate
Assisted Typing
Letter Boarding
Supported Decision Making
Communication for Education
Talking Fingers
Mouth to hand learning
Structured typing
Hand-Over-Hand
Speaking with Eyes
Motor Communication
Intuitive Pointing
Spelling on an iPad
Motor-Based Communication Techniques
Types for Talking
Blog Topics
- Policy
- Language and Literacy
- Occupational Therapy
- Authorship
- Socio-Cognitive Development
- Psychology
- Trends in Autism Diagnoses
- Facilitator Mindset
- Psychotherapy
- Developmental Apraxia
- FC in the Media
- Speech and Language
- Applied Behavior Analysis
- Facilitated Communication
- Financial and Opportunity Costs
- Autism Advocacy
- FC as Pseudoscience
- Controlled Studies
- Disability Studies
- Ideomotor Effect
- Rapid Prompting Method
- Joint Attention
- Apraxia
- Facilitator Behaviors
- History of FC
- EBPs Using FC
- Guest Commentary
- Assistive Technology Devices
- Facilitated Communicaton
- Ethical Issues
- Video Critique
- Conferences and Webinars
- FC in Schools
- Motivated Reasoning
- Critiques of Facilitated Communication
- U.S. Locations
- Validation Testing
- Theory of Mind
- Critique of Pro-FC Article
- Fad Treatments
- Motor Abilities
- Facilitator Control
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication
- ASD Guidelines
- Critique of Pro-FC Movie
- Facilitator Cues
- Spelling to Communicate
- Disability Rights
- Spellers Method
- Effects of Facilitation
- Scholarly Article Review
- Movie Review
- Social Motivation
- FC in the Schools
- Facilitator Crimes
- Critique of Pro-FC Articles
- Communication Boards
- Neuropsychology of Autism
- Severe Autism
- Synesthesia
- FC and the Legal System
- Confirmation Bias
- Notes from Admin
- Autism Instruction
- Presume Competence
- Book Review
- Floor Time