Do proponents really mean “Ask Me Anything” about spelling (aka FC)?
One of our readers sent us an Instagram reel (posted on February 26, 2024 by user mariemyungoklee) that shows a young man (Jason) being facilitated by his father. As noted by our reader, and I agree, this is an unconvincing example of independent communication for a whole host of reasons. I’ll explain more in a minute, but the four biggest red flags are:
the facilitator grips Jason’s elbow the whole time
the facilitator controls access to a letter board which he (the facilitator) holds in the air
the board is not stationary, but moves in the air (most likely the result of unconscious movement by the facilitator to aid in letter selection), and
the person being subjected to FC (Jason) does not look at the letter board during the activity. (Central, not peripheral, vision is needed to distinguish letters from one another on a letter board).
Jason’s father holds on to his elbow, controls access to the letter board, and maintains constant eye contact with the board while his son stares off into space during an FC session. (Posted on Instagram February 26, 2024 by user mariemyungoklee)
With decades of research against FC available to us (See Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews), I shouldn’t have to point out that facilitators believe they can support their clients or loved ones without building prompt dependency (something they have not been able or willing to prove with reliably controlled testing) or that pointing (aggressively, in this case) at a letter board does not equal comprehension skills but, in looking at the comments under the video, I see that the majority of the commenters seem to have fallen for the illusion of FC (or Rapid Prompting Method or Spelling to Communicate or Supported Typing or whatever it’s being called these days). These commenters seem to believe that FC-generated messages could not possibly be the product of facilitator cueing and control and that FC magically erases the cognitive and communication difficulties that nonspeaking or minimally speaking individuals with autism or developmental disabilities experience. Sadly, neither of these things are true.
To be clear, I believe individuals with complex communication needs have the potential to communicate independently (e.g., without facilitator cueing and control) using evidence-based techniques and devices designed to meet their individual goals. But FC/S2C/RPM are not evidence-based techniques and until proponents produce reliable, science-based research proving their claims of independence and ruling out facilitator cueing and control, then videos promoting FC like this one and the ever-increasing examples on social media platforms cannot be seen as representative of FCed individuals’ points of view.
In today’s example, a father, acting as facilitator, grips his son’s arm at the elbow as the two, purportedly, select letters from a letter board the facilitator holds in the air. As the son’s limp hand slams against the letter board, I can’t help thinking that the son might be using this “spelling” opportunity as a substitute for self-stimulation (e.g., it’s repetitive, he’s getting physical/tactile feedback when his hand hits the board, he’s receiving praise and attention from his parents for participating in the activity, and he can zone out). At no time does the son convincingly engage with the letter board. Nor does he look at the board or move his eyes to track letters.
The hand slaps to the board are aggressive, rapid, and non-distinct (e.g., letter selection is not deliberate or precise) and I wonder, too, how the facilitator can possibly have enough processing time to detect the accuracy of letter selection or mentally keep track of the words supposedly being spelled out. (Although it would be easier to remember the sequence of letters in an FC-generated message if the facilitator—subconsciously—already knows what the words in the sentence will be). Even without the questions FC raises about authorship, this example of the technique is, by all accounts, problematic. Surely, some of the “hits” to the board are between letters or, indeed, on letters that do not correspond with the targeted words while the letter board visible moves around in the air (ostensibly to aid in letter selection).
The words “AMA on autism and spelling!! Dad is not harming me” appear in white letters on the title screen of the video. Given that false allegations of abuse are commonplace with FC use, I wondered at first glance if this was a video about that topic, but an off-screen narrator (Jason’s mother?) explains that it’s “ask Jason time” and that they’ll be answering the question “Why does it look like your dad is slamming your hand into the board?” (My initial impression was “because the dad is slamming his hand into the board” and I was not dissuaded from this idea by watching the whole video).
Perhaps showing my lack of internet savvy, I also wondered what AMA stood for. My first thought was that this video was supported by an autism group. (Astonishingly, some autism advocacy groups continue to support and promote FC despite the evidence against it and, in the case of RPM and S2C, the absence of evidence). But, as a friend pointed out, AMA most likely stands for “ask me anything.”
Of course, the person posting the video doesn’t really mean that you can ask them anything. In my experience, questioning the technique of FC—especially on social media platforms—is likely to draw the ire of proponents who are quite generous with ad hominem attacks while being quite stingy with supplying questioners with reliably controlled research to prove their claims of independent communication. That’s because proponents only have testimonials, anecdotes, and poorly designed studies like those coming out of the University of Virginia (reviewed here, here and here) to rationalize the use of facilitator-dependent techniques.
As a critic of FC, even though I’ve stated repeatedly that my problem is with facilitator-dependent techniques (FC/S2C/RPM) and not the individuals being subjected to them, I suppose I’m opening myself up to attacks from believers who are caught up emotionally in defending a technique that, on the surface, seems to provide an extraordinarily simplistic, if magical, solution to an extraordinarily difficult problem (e.g., accessing the inner thoughts of individuals who, because of autism, developmental disabilities, or other cognitive challenges are nonverbal). And, though it’s not pleasant to receive nasty, emotion-filled, often hateful emails from proponents, it does seem to be par for the course.
I think it’s even more difficult for the family, friends, and colleagues of parents who subject their children to FC to say anything. By questioning FC, they’re risking bad feelings, loss of relationships, ad hominem attacks, ostracization from (pro-FC) autism support groups and/or, in an alarming number of cases, accusations of abuse (often generated by facilitators during FC sessions following conversations in which a family member, friend, teacher or caregiver expresses doubts about the technique). I suspect it’s also difficult for family members, friends, and colleagues of the facilitators to believe they could fall for a technique that was discredited over 30 years ago (longer in other parts of the world).
It is easier, for the sake of maintaining relationships with facilitators, to take an “Emperor’s New Clothes” approach and ignore, downplay, or rationalize away facilitator cueing and control, even when it is blatantly obvious that the person being facilitated is not attending to the activity. Granted, sometimes facilitator cueing is very subtle but there are reliable ways to rule in or rule out facilitator influence. The problem is facilitators are trained not to test for authorship. It’s part of their indoctrination, so getting facilitators to agree to participate in such testing is nearly impossible. I’m aware of at least two court cases involving FC-generated allegations of abuse where the facilitator preferred to drop the charges against the accused rather than undergo reliably controlled (court ordered) testing. It seems, then, these facilitators are more concerned with preserving the illusion of FC than determining the authorship of very serious allegations. Or, perhaps, these facilitators already know, deep down inside, who is really authoring FC-generated messages. I wonder if any of these facilitators have conducted their own “tests” in private (like RPM founder Soma Mukhopadhay’s husband did) or, perhaps read about the results of controlled tests or watched Prisoners of Silence (which is still relevant even though it was produced in 1993) and realized that the technique they’re so emotionally attached to as a coping strategy cannot withstand close scrutiny.
I can empathize with the pressure a facilitator might feel regarding testing, since I personally underwent double-blind testing in the early 1990s. I’ve talked publicly about my experiences and have provided links below for those who would like more information. The experience radically changed my understanding and perception of the technique, since it gave me access to information (e.g., controlled studies) that is not included in FC workshops.
Because of my experiences with FC, I have a particular interest in facilitator behavior and motivations (to the extent these can be gleaned from pro-FC books, movies, articles, and videos). I have found that by focusing on facilitator behavior (in addition to the behavior of their clients) it is possible to better understand how facilitators influence and control letter selection. As a rule, facilitators provide visual, physical, and auditory cues often without fully realizing the extent to which they do so (although S2C and RPM facilitators appear to share common hand signals and verbal prompts that, to me anyway, do not appear inadvertent or coincidental). Furthermore, facilitators are taught that it is okay to cue their clients to their heart’s content and therefore come away from FC workshops believing that even though the technique does not “work” without their interference (e.g., on-going physical, auditory, or verbal cueing), that FC-generated messages are somehow “independent.” We know from reliably controlled studies that this simply is not true.
Our readers often send links of individuals being subjected to FC like this one (thank you!) asking what I think. As this post is running long, I will stop it here, but next time will share with you with some questions that I ask when analyzing facilitator behaviors in FC videos. These are questions all facilitators should be able to answer when they say you can ask them anything (but probably can’t or won’t).
References and Recommended Reading:
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.
Boynton, J. (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
Mostert, M. (2012). Facilitated Communication: The empirical imperative to prevent further professional malpractice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.693840
Palfreman, J. (2012) The dark legacy of FC. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 14-17. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.688343
Schlosser, R.W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H. et al. (2019).Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 403–412.
Sigafoos, J. and Schlosser, R. (2012) An experiential account of facilitated communication. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 1-2. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.710992
Todd , J.T. (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
Von Tetzchner, S. (2012) Understanding facilitated communication: Lessons from a former facilitator—Comments on Boynton. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 28-35. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.699729
Vyse, S. (2018). An Artist with a Science-Based Mission. Skeptical Inquirer.