FC Controlled Studies
Controlled studies are used to determine authorship in facilitated messages. Simply observing the pairs as they type or analyzing written output inadequately addresses how much control each individual has over the typing activity. Individuals with disabilities can and have successfully participated in controlled studies without exhibiting undue stress, with facilitators reporting the sessions were completed as expected. Overwhelmingly, when facilitators are blinded to test protocols, these studies demonstrate that it is the facilitators and not the individuals with disabilities who are controlling the written output. Curiously, proponents complain the controlled studies are “dated,” all the while refusing to participate in testing designed to address facilitator influence during the typing activity. As it stands, there is no reliably controlled studies that prove proponent claims of independent communication using any variant of FC.
2014
Saloviita, T, Leppanen, M, and Ojalammi, U. (2014). Authorship in facilitated communication: An analysis of 11 cases. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30:3, 213-225. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2014.927529
The purpose of this study was to examine the authorship of messages using FC. 11 facilitators and 11 individuals with autism and/or severe developmental delays participated. Test protocols involved open (facilitator cue) and blind (facilitator cue or different cue) formants. Data collection activities were similar to normal communication therapy sessions, were performed in familiar surroundings with known staff, and did not include any strange or new elements. Activities involved six testing activities: object naming, picture naming, describing a picture, reading, name writing, and independent pointing. A consistent pattern of arose both in the Pilot Test and the Final Test such that, when the facilitator knew the answers to question, the facilitated answer was correct. When the facilitator did not know the answer or the keyboard was screened from view, only three correct or partially correct answers were obtained. Based on these results, there was no evidence that FC was a valid form of communication for any of the 11 individuals who participated in this study.
Evidence of independent communication 0/11
Wegner, DM, Fuller, VA, Sparrow, B. (2003, July). Clever hands: Uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (1): 5-19. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.5
The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate whether facilitators subconsciously influenced communication despite their genuine belief that they were only conduits and not creators of the communication allegedly coming from their clients. The study was divided into 5 experiments.
Experiment 1 had 64 university students as participants. The students were asked easy questions to which they knew the answer and, then, difficult questions whose answers were impossible for them to know. For both sets of questions, participants were asked to randomly answer whether they knew the answer. Results showed that participants’ knowledge of answers to questions influenced their random responses at levels significantly above chance and that they were only partially aware of this influence.
Experiment 2 had 60 participants and used the same easy/difficult format to test whether the proportion of correct answers in the random answering task could be influenced toward true randomness by (a) monetary incentives, and (b) whether pressure to make participants answer questions more quickly decreased responses closer to chance. Results showed that participants were influenced by their knowledge of answers to easy questions even though they were trying to answer randomly. There was no significant effect for either speeded up answers or for monetary incentive.
Experiment 3 had 19 participants from a different university. In this experiment, researchers examined whether answers provided by participants might be misattributed to another person. Participants designated as facilitators were informed about the FC technique and were asked to use it to see if they could ‘read the muscle movements’ of a normal participant. The “normal” participant was a confederate-client. The facilitators were blind to the client’s confederate status. Similar sets of easy/difficult questions were used. Easy questions were answered much more accurately than difficult questions and at levels greater than chance. The facilitators reported considerable influence by the confederate-clients, even though the confederates had not heard any of the questions and therefore were unable to respond at all. Perceived confederate-client influence was significantly greater among facilitators who believed FC worked. Projection of answers by facilitators was more a function of their own beliefs in attributing the communication to the confederate-client.
Experiment 4 continued with the same participants as Experiment 4 and sought to explore how much belief in FC influenced facilitators’ answers using an easy/difficult question set. Findings showed that the higher the level of FC belief the more likely that the facilitator assumed the answers to yes/no questions was coming from the confederate-client and not the facilitators themselves. Further, participants viewing the tape representing FC positively were much more likely to agree with the statement that FC worked and vice-versa for the negative tape showing that FC belief could be manipulated.
Experiment 5 had 68 participants and was designed to establish whether direct facilitator contact was different from facilitation executed at a distance (i.e., muscle-reading vs. no muscle reading). Participants were assigned to the touch and no-touch facilitation condition. The touch condition was as for Experiment 4. The no-touch condition required facilitators to answer yes/no questions via empathizing with the confederate-client. The no-touch facilitator was to answer as they would have answered had they been the confederate-client. First, under the no-touch condition the facilitators, acting on empathy only, produced correct answers. This was to be expected because it was they and not the confederate-clients producing the answers. Second, even higher levels of correct answers were reported in the touch condition, indicating that touch along with high levels of FC belief produced even higher numbers of correct answers from the facilitator and not the confederate-client.
Combined, the five experiments clearly provided powerful empirical evidence that FC efficacy is completely attributable to the facilitator and not the client where evidence standards have met as many threats to internal and external validity as possible.
1998
Edelson, S. M., Rimland, B., Berger, C. L., & Billings, D. (1998). Evaluation of a mechanical hand-support for facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 153-157. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026044716536
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a mechanical device replacing a human (facilitator). One facilitator and six individuals with autism participated. The facilitator was an experienced teacher who had used FC for a number of years, lectured and published extensively on the subject. The conditions of the study included facilitator support, independent typing, and typing using a mechanical FC device. Pre-training, task execution, and task extensions (post-training) were included in the report. The sessions were videotaped and rated using an independent interrater agreement. Results showed that all subjects performed at a level above chance when facilitated. Four of the six participants were unable to type or point independently. Two of the participants could type and point independently to complete tasks, but they had these skills prior to the study. None of the participants were able to type via a mechanical device. An informal follow-up to the study revealed no positive gains.
Evidence of independent communication using FC or mechanical device 0/6
Kerrin, R. G., Murdock, J. Y., Sharpton, W. R., & Jones, N. (1998). Who's doing the pointing? Investigating facilitated communication in a classroom setting with students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 73-79. DOI: 10.1177/108835769801300202
The purpose of this study was to explore facilitator effectiveness in using supported typing (FC). One facilitator and two individuals with autism participated. Test protocols included a naive (unsighted) and informed (sighted) facilitator. Sighted and unsighted conditions were alternated. Two independent observers were used to evaluate subject responses. Results indicated that the subjects’ responses were more accurate in the sighted condition. Researchers reported that facilitator influence was likely unintentional.
Evidence of independent communication 0/2
1997
Kezuka, E. (1997). The role of touch in facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 571-593. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025882127478
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of the facilitator in the typing activity under five separate test conditions using a keyboard and rods or ribbons attached to participants fingers.
Experiment 1, using one facilitator and one individual with autism, employed electromyography to confirm keyboard strokes and an observer to evaluate the subject’s responses. Results indicated that the facilitator supplied force cues to the individual with disabilities and controlled the typing.
Evidence of independent communication 0/1
Experiment 2 sought to verify facilitator control of the subject’s facilitated movements. One facilitator and one individual with disabilities participated. Test protocols employed a strain gauge and dynamic strain amplifier. Results indicated that the facilitator provided force cuing around the correct response key (e.g., the target letter to be typed).
Evidence of independent communication 0/1
Experiment 3 sought to explore whether motor control during facilitated typing was visually cued or occurred by physical pressure. 32 individuals without disabilities participated. Individuals were trained for the study and protocols included responses under two conditions (contact and non-contact). Results favored the contact (touch) condition. Correct responses were more likely with practice
Evidence of independent communication 0/32
Experiment 4 sought to determine how facilitators control subjects’ movements through visual or touch cues. 7 individuals without disabilities participated. Test protocols included a contact rod blind (direct) and contact ribbon (indirect). Results indicated that contact rod blind responses were more accurate than sighted contact rod trials. Visual cuing was not necessary for facilitator influence, touch was sufficient. The contact ribbon condition indicated that facilitator pressure was necessary for subjects’ accurate responses.
Evidence of independent communication 0/7
Experiment 5 sought to determine the relative effectiveness of pressure vs. motor control in facilitated communication. Five individuals without disabilities participated. Test protocols included a contact rod/immobile condition, contact rod/facilitator blind condition, and contact spring. Results indicated that facilitator force influenced speed of subjects’ response. In addition, facilitators unconsciously applied sufficient force to move subjects’ hands toward the correct responses.
Evidence of independent communication 0/5
1996
Beck, A.R. & Pirovano, C.M. (1996). Facilitated communicators’ performance on a task of receptive language. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 26: 497. DOI: 10.1007/BF02172272
The purpose of this study was to explore the validity of FC as a receptive language task across input variables. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) was used to determined receptive language scores. Nine facilitators and 12 individuals with autism and/or severe-profound impairments participated in various settings familiar to the subjects. Individuals with disabilities were paired with the most successful facilitators. The test protocols included facilitated and independent responses. Auditory and visual conditions were randomized. The subjects’ PPVT scores were unobtainable. Some individuals actually scored higher on independent responses than on facilitated responses. The effect of FC on receptive language was unsupported.
Evidence of independent communication 0/12.
Bomba, C., O'Donnell, L., Markowitz, C., & Holmes D.L. (1996). Evaluating the impact of facilitated communication on the communicative competence of fourteen students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders; 26(1), 43-58. DOI: 10.1007/BF02276234
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of supported typing (FC) as a communication device on communicative competence. Three facilitators and 14 individuals with autism participated. Subjects were paired with familiar facilitators. Researchers used pre- and post-tests with set work and open-ended conversation. The instruction did not produce functional, typed communication. Subjects were unable to individually communicate with FC.
Evidence of independent communication 0/14
Myles, B., Simpson, R. L., & Smith, S. M. (1996a). Collateral behavior and social effects of using facilitated communications with individuals with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 163-169, 190.
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of FC on behaviors and social interactions. 12 facilitators and 12 individuals with autism participated. The researchers observed the participants in varying conditions for a range of targeted social behaviors. Results indicated no differences in targeted behaviors after FC. Using FC did not make subjects more socially adept.
Evidence of change in behaviors and social adeptness 0/12
Myles, B. S, Simpson, R. L., & Smith, S. M. (1996b). Impact of facilitated communication combined with direct instruction on academic performance of individuals with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 37-44. DOI: 10.1177/108835769601100105
The purpose of this study was to explore the educational utility of FC. 12 facilitators and 12 individuals with autism participated. Test protocols used academic variables under different conditions. Results indicated no differences among subjects on any task after FC. The subjects were unable to demonstrate academic skills using FC. Researchers noted that the novelty of facilitators’ headphones might have influenced the outcome. FC was found not to be an effective educational tool.
Effectiveness on academic skills 0/12
Simon, E. W., Whitehair, P. M., & Toll, D. M. (1996). A case study: Follow-up assessment of facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 9-18. DOI: 10.1007/BF02276232
The purpose of this study was a follow-up of apparent effectiveness of FC from Simon, Toll and Whitehair (1994) to compare the accuracy of FC to the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). One facilitator and one individual with moderate developmental delays participated. Test protocols included randomized presentation of stimulus known to the individual with disabilities. Activities involved description of stimulus using a naive facilitator (FC) or naive teacher (using PECS), and subject description of stimulus with cuing. There was a follow-up at 10 weeks. Results indicated that there was no validated FC communication on any of the trials. The individual with disabilities preferred PECS to FC and achieved 100% accuracy using that communication system. PECS is a valid and reliable communication method.
Evidence of independent communication with FC 0/1; with PECS 1/1
1995
Braman, BJ, Brady, MP, Linehan,SL, & Williams, RE. (1995). Facilitated communication for children with autism: An examination of face validity. Behavioral Disorders. Vol 21 (1); 110-118. DOI: 10.1177/019874299502100102
The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of messages obtained using supported typing (FC). Two facilitators and three individuals with autism participated. The sessions took place with preferred facilitators and typing devices in a familiar environment. The protocols were randomly presented and were considered by researchers to be non-confrontational. Results showed that the responses were systematically influenced by the facilitator. Response latency was much faster under facilitator-known condition.
Evidence of independent communication 0/3
Calculator, S.N. & Hatch, E.R. (1995). Validation of facilitated communication: A case study and beyond. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 49-58. DOI: 10.1044/1058-0360.0401.49
The purpose of this study was to assess the likelihood of FC-generated allegations of sexual abuse. The allegations were made by two facilitators working with an individual with moderate to severe developmental delays. The father was accused, removed from the home and forbidden contact with his son for 6 months during the investigation. Validation protocols included formal and informal procedures, standardized and non-standardized procedures across different input and output modalities. The facilitators were masked (naive) and unmasked (informed) during portions of the study. Results showed that the subjects’ responses were 100% correct in the unmasked (informed) condition. The subject’s ability to produce correct answers using FC depended on the facilitator’s knowledge of the tasks. Researchers determined that the subject did not possess the communication skills to make sexual allegations.
Evidence of independent communication 0/1
Crews, W. D., Sanders, E. C., Hensley, L. G., Johnson, Y. M., Bonaventura, S., Rhodes, R. D., & Garren, M. P. (1995). An evaluation of facilitated communication in a group of nonverbal individuals with mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 205-213. DOI: 10.1007/BF02178505
The purpose of this study was to explore FC as a message passing paradigm. Three facilitators and eight individuals with developmental delays participated. The facilitators were master’s level speech pathologists with extensive training in FC and had practiced the method for a minimum of nine months. The sessions took place in sound-attenuated rooms and individuals were paired with the facilitators with whom they worked best. Sessions were video-and audiotaped. Results showed that six of eight subjects were unable to pass any messages. Two subjects appeared to pass some messages, but other explanations were not ruled out. The study showed no evidence of the efficacy of FC.
Evidence of Independent Communication 2/8; with alternative explanations for correct response not ruled out.
Hirshoren, A., & Gregory, J. (1995). Further negative findings of facilitated communication. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 109-113. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6807(199504)32:2<109::AID-PITS2310320206>3.0.CO;2-0
The purpose of this study was to explore the communication value of FC and check for facilitator influence. Twenty-two individuals with autism and/or other developmental delays participated. They were matched with the same faciltator(s) who worked with the individuals during a typical school day. These pairs were, reportedly, highly experienced working together using FC. Test protocols included randomized conditions, the use of headphones, and blind response raters. Results showed that only 2 of the 192 responses across 3 conditions could possibly be attributed to FC.
Evidence of independent communication 0/22
Montee, B. B., Miltenberger, R. G., & Wittrock, D. (1995). An experimental analysis of facilitated communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 189-200.
The purpose of this study was to check for facilitator influence. 5 facilitators and 7 individuals with developmental delays participated. The researchers set up the testing in a naturalistic setting using familiar client/facilitator pairings. They varied the response formats and conditions and terminated sessions when the subjects appeared to be anxious. Results indicated no valid communication via FC. Facilitators, not the individuals with disabilities, controlled the typing. Researchers found no difference in the subjects’ responses to formats and determined that anxiety and/or avoidance behaviors were not a factor in the failure of FC.
Evidence of independent communication 0/7
Siegel, Byrna. (1995). Brief report: Assessing allegations of sexual molestation made through facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol 25 (3); 319-326. DOI: 10.1007/BF02179293
The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the courts should allow evidence gained by FC. Two facilitators and two individuals with developmental delays participated. Both facilitators received training from a individual who had trained with Douglas Biklen, founder of FC in the United States. Allegations of abuse had been brought against the individuals’ family members. The children were removed from their homes. All sessions were videotaped with close-up lens on the keyboard, as well as shots of child and facilitator to periodically assess whether the subject was looking at the keyboard while facilitating. Test protocols included asking subjective questions that included personal information, presented aurally. Independent facilitators were used. The results indicated strongly that little reliable communication occurred using FC. Both subjects’ responses were essentially random. Objective information that required an open-ended response was consistently inaccurate. The facilitators believed the children were facilitating at expected levels. Charges against the families were dropped.
Evidence of independent communication 0/2
Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1995). Facilitated communication and children with disabilities: An enigma in search of a perspective. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1-16. Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1995). Effectiveness of facilitated communication with children and youth with autism. Journal of Special Education, 28, 424-439. DOI: 10.1177/002246699502800403
The purpose of this study was to investigate the temporal effectiveness of FC. 13 facilitators and 18 individuals with autism participated. Test protocols included 5 response conditions (set work, questions, informed/naive teacher questions, subject affective questions, and spontaneous communication events). Individuals with disabilities were paired with the same facilitator throughout the study. The response conditions were conducted in the same order across subjects and the sessions were conducted in a setting where the subjects were most productive. All responses were recorded and submitted for analysis. Facilitators were monitored for faithful execution of controlled conditions with inter-observer reliability for facilitator compliance. The results indicated that 50% of the subjects were only able to perform at pre-study levels. Subject responses increased over time, especially in facilitator-known condition. Subjects were uniformly inaccurate in passing information in naive facilitator conditions. There was no evidence of independent communication. The authors felt there might be some small highly specific application for some individuals with autism.
Evidence of independent communication 0/13
Vazquez, C. A. (1995). Failure to confirm the word-retrieval problem hypothesis in facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 597-610. DOI: 10.1007/BF02178190
The purpose of this study was to measure the effectiveness of FC to facilitate word retrieval. 2 facilitators and 3 individuals with autism participated. Test protocols used blind and double blind conditions in activities that included word retrieval and handling of objects. The evaluation was conducted as a game. Repeated testing occurred over a period of 5 months in which there were no instances of independent typing without facilitator cuing. When facilitators were not blinded to test protocols, there were instances of “pseudo-correct” responses in which meaningful words were spelled out, but the information was incorrect (e.g. the individual was shown a banana and typed “little green garbage truck” as a description). Researches noted that what appears to be meaningful typing may be a result of a participant’s “compulsion to randomly hit the keys,” plus facilitator cuing. All participants showed a willingness to be facilitated, calling into question proponents’ claims of diminished performance under controlled conditions.
Evidence of independent communication 0/3
1994
Cabay, M. (1994). Brief report: A controlled evaluation of facilitated communication using open-ended and fill-in questions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol 24 (4): 517. DOI: 10.1007/BF021721321
The purpose of this study was to determine if responses produced by users or otherwise influenced by the facilitators. Two facilitators and four individuals with autism, autistic-like traits or severe developmental disabilities participated. Test protocols included sessions where the facilitator was aware and unaware of questions and fill-in-the-blanks. 95% of the responses were correct when the facilitator knew the item that was presented. Facilitators knew the item pool, but guessed answers to questions not asked, with 19% correct. 10 of the 11 correct responses were made in response to blank cards. Researchers reported that facilitator influence was apparently unintentional.
Evidence of independent communication 0/4
Myles, B., & Simpson, R. L. (1994). Facilitated communication with children diagnosed as autistic in public school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 208-220. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6807(199407)31:3<208::AID-PITS2310310306>3.0.CO;2-Z
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of FC in increasing academic skills. 10 individuals with autism participated. The number of facilitators was not disclosed. Test protocols included set work questions, affective questions, and spontaneous communication opportunities with informed and naive facilitators. Results indicate that the subjects were generally unable to answer questions with naive facilitators and had no appearance of cognitive, social, and communicative abilities above previous levels.
Evidence of independent communication 0/10
Oswald, D. P. (1994). Facilitator influence in facilitated communication. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 191-199. DOI: 10.1007/BF01544112
The purpose of this article was to assess and measure facilitator influence when using FC. 7 individuals with autism and/or moderate to severe developmental delays participated in the study. The number of facilitators was not disclosed in the article. Test protocols involved distractor pictures paired with stimulus pictures. Presentation of distractor pictures were randomized. Prerecorded verbal stimuli was delivered simultaneously via headphones to subject and facilitator. There was interrater agreement for all responses. Results indicated clear facilitator influence. Facilitators were unable to detect their influence, which was provided at different levels for different subjects. No unexpected subject linguistic competence was demonstrated by the use of FC.
Evidence of independent communication 0/7
Regal, R. A., Rooney, J. R., & Wandas, T. (1994). Facilitated communication: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 345-355. DOI: 10.1007/BF02172232
The purpose of this article was to assess the validity of FC. Five facilitators and 19 individuals with autism and/or developmental disabilities participated. The five staff members were regularly involved with FC. Test protocols included the use of naive and informed facilitators, pre-training in experimental tasks and an experimenter monitoring the “experimental room.” Response variables (shape, number, color) were randomly presented. No verbal cues were given from the facilitators. Results indicated total responses at chance levels. Facilitators confidence in the effectiveness of FC was not supported by subject responses.
Evidence of independent communication 0/19
Shane, HC & Kearns, K. (1994). An examination of the role of the facilitator in facilitated communication. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 50, 750-765. DOI: 10.1044/1058-0360.0303.48
The purpose of this study was to determine the origin of FC authorship and facilitator influence. One facilitator and one individual with severe developmental delays participated. Test protocols included naive (unshared information) and informed facilitator (shared information). Activities included labeling tasks and commenting on events. Tape recorded stimuli was used to present information simultaneously to the facilitator and individual with disabilities in both shared and unshared conditions. Some of the tasks were re-administered in reverse order. Results indicated that the informed facilitator condition (shared information) produced responses at 100% accuracy. In the uninformed facilitated condition (unshared information), none of the responses were correct. Authorship of the messages obtained using FC was, conclusively, the facilitator and not the individual with disabilities.
Evidence of independent communication 0/1
Simon, Toll, and Whitehair. (1994). A naturalistic approach to the validation of facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol 24 (5); 647-657. DOI: 10.1007/BF02172144
The purpose of this study was to assess students’ FC competence and facilitators’ propensity to guide. 7 individuals with autism, developmental delays, and/or hearing impairment participated. The number of facilitators was not disclosed. Test protocols included message passing with a double-blind phase (facilitators were given accurate or inaccurate information about an activity to be discussed). The individuals engaged in school activities using photos, written, verbal, and signed descriptions of the activities. The results revealed a large degree of guiding by each facilitator. Initially, it was thought that for some students there was evidence of authorship for information unknown to the facilitator. See Simon, Whitehair and Toll (1996) for a retest of one of the students.
Evidence of independent communication, questionably 2/7
Smith, M. D., Haas, P. J., & Belcher, R. G. (1994). Facilitated communication: The effects of facilitator knowledge and level of assistance on output. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 357-367. DOI: 10.1007/BF02172233
The purpose of this study was to determine facilitator influence over written output. 10 individuals with developmental delays participated. The number of facilitators was not disclosed. All facilitators had trained with Biklen or consultants from the Adrianna Training Foundation. Test protocols included multiple sessions with naive and informed facilitators. Item selection was randomized. Facilitator support levels included none, medium support, and full support. Results indicated that substantial correct responses occurred with full support and only 1 correct response with medium help. There were no correct responses to items when the individuals received no help from the facilitators. Researchers recommended that clinical and education use of the procedure be curtailed pending further experimental investigation.
Evidence of independent communication 0/10
1993
Apel, K. & Vandervelde, S. (1993, November). Facilitated communication: One validation study. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Anaheim, CA. (conference paper)
The purpose of this study was to determine validity of responses during a picture naming activity using supported typing (FC). A single blind test protocol was used. The pictures were shown only to the FC user. The proportion of FC users showing unexpected literacy skills (above the probability of guessing) was zero out of four.
Evidence of independent communication 0/4.
Bligh, S., & Kupperman, P. (1993). Evaluation procedure for determining the source of communication in facilitated communication accepted in a court case. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 553-557. DOI: 10.1007/BF01046056
The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of messages obtained using FC in a court case. The individual involved was legally blind with severe developmental delays. The child was removed from home after an FC session describing allegations of sexual abuse against the mother’s fiance. A medical examination revealed no physical evidence of abuse. Test protocols included a videotaped session (uncontrolled) and a controlled session. The results of the investigation was that, in both situations, the source of communication was the facilitator, not the child. Charges were dismissed and the child was returned to the family. The facilitator remained convinced that FC works and continued using it in her classroom.
Evidence of independent communication 0/1.
Eberlin, M., McConnachie, G., Ibel, S., & Volpe, L. (1993). Facilitated communication: A failure to replicate the phenomenon. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23(3), 507-530. DOI: 10.1007/BF01046053
The purpose of this study was to test for unexpected literacy or communicative abilities using FC. Ten facilitators and twenty-one individuals with autism and/or pervasive development disorders participated. Two of the authors (Eberlin and Volpe) had attended workshops by Douglas Biklen, founder of FC from Syracuse University, or his assistant, Annegret Schubert. Observations during the test sessions indicated the subjects were generally cooperative with the assessment process. Results showed that, after an initial exposure to FC, no student demonstrated unexpected literacy or improved communication ability. No students demonstrated emerging literacy skills or communicative competence that exceeded their already established communicative abilities. There was evidence that some facilitators influenced the subjects’ typed responses while facilitating when they knew the content of questions and/or answers.
Evidence of independent communication 0/21
Green, G., Chellquist, K, Krendel-Ames, S. Ross, S. & MacDonald, R. (1993, May). Analyzing the source of "facilitated" communications. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago. (conference paper).
The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of FC output. Three facilitators and three individuals with autism and/or developmental delays participated. Test protocols included single blind (keyboard screened from the facilitator) and double-blind (items showed to facilitators and individuals with disabilities separately) measures. Participants were asked to describe or name pictures or familiar objects and actions, set work (e.g., fill-in-the-blank, short answer), and describe or respond to multiple-choice questions regarding recent activities. Items were presented visually and aurally, depending on the activity. Responses showed unexpected skills above the probability of guessing.
Evidence of independent communication 0/3
Hudson, A., Melita, B. and Arnold, N. (1993). Assessing the validity of facilitated communication: A case study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 165-173. DOI: 10.1007/BF01066425
The purpose of this study was to determine if responses were produced by the individual with disabilities or otherwise influenced by the facilitators. Two facilitators and one individual with autism participated. Allegations of abuse were brought against the individual’s family using FC. Test protocols included open-ended questions and personal information presented aurally. In the single-blind portion of the test, information was presented only to the the individual with disabilities. In the double-blind portion of the test, information was presented to the facilitator and the individual with disabilities separately via headphones. Results indicated that correct responses were based on what the facilitator heard.
Evidence of independent communication 0/1
Kallstrom, S., Piazza, C., Hunt, L. & Owen, J. (1993, May). Experimental analysis of facilitated communication training with developmentally disabled and autistic clients. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago. (Conference paper)
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of FC output. Two individuals with autism and/or developmental delays participated. The number of facilitators was unspecified. Test protocols included naming pictures. A double-blind procedure was used. Items were shown to the individual with disabilities and the facilitator separately. Results indicated no evidence of independent communication.
Evidence of independent communication 0/2
Klewe, Lars. (1993). Brief report: An empirical evaluation of spelling boards as a means of communication for the multi-handicapped. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol. 23 (3). 553-557. DOI: 10.1007/BF01046057
The purpose of this study was an experimental-psychological examination conducted to distinguish between facilitator influence and original productions by individuals with disabilities. 10 facilitators and 17 individuals with disabilities participated. All the facilitators had used spelling boards for a long time, with 5 of the facilitators receiving specialized training. Only 9 of the 17 individuals with disabilities completed all three test series. Test protocols included single-blind (pictures shown only to the individuals with disabilities) and double-blind (pictures presented separately to the participants with a screen in between the pairing) measures. Results indicated that only when the facilitator had access to this information was the communication meaningful. Researchers reported that correct responses at different times in the study were reasonably explained by guessing by either the facilitator or the individual(s) with disabilities. Any appearance of communication during the experiments came from the facilitators, not the individuals with disabilities who were unable to communicate independently using spelling boards.
Evidence of independent communication 0/9
Marks, H.E., Conrad, T. & Hart, P. (1993, June). Facilitated communication: An empirical demonstration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Retardation, Chicago. (conference paper)
The purpose of this study was to test the validity of FC. 15 Facilitators and 18 individuals with autism or pervasive developmental disorders participated. Test protocols included single-blind measures (words presented only to the individual with disabilities using headphones). Participants were asked to reproduce or match one printed word, previously rehearsed or presented aurally and to describe videos.
Evidence of independent communication, questionably 3/18.
Moore, Donovan and Hudson. (1993). Brief report: Facilitator-suggested conversational evaluation of facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol 23 (3); 541-552. DOI: 10.1007/BF01046055
The purpose of this study was to test the validity of FC in conversation settings. 4 facilitators and 5 individuals with moderate to severe developmental disabilities participated. During the testing, individuals with disabilities were engaged in activities presented visually, aurally, and tactilely, then asked to have a conversation about their activities using an independent facilitator. The conversational responses failed to produce evidence of the ability of the subjects to communicate independently using FC. The authors reported that the individuals with disabilities were not disadvantaged by the presence of word-finding problems. Results of the study indicated that the observed communications originated from the facilitators, not the individuals with disabilities.
Evidence of independent communication 0/5
Price, GR & Kirkpatrick,MA (1993, May), Clinical and psychometric data on facilitated communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago. also Saxe, CD, Kirkpatrick, M, and Price G. (1993, June). Facilitated Communication: a validation procedure and outcome. Unpublished manuscript. Datahr Rehabilitation Institute, Brookfield, CT [Available from Kelly Smith, Ruder-Finn, 501 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022]. (conference papers)
The purpose of this study was to explore the validity of FC output. 1 individual with autism and developmental delays participated. The number of facilitators was not disclosed in the article. Test protocols included single blind items which were presented only to the individual with disabilities. Activities included copying words, printed yes/no questions, sentence arrangement, printed multiple choice questions, fill-in, and proofing sentences. All items were read by the individual with disabilities.
Evidence of independent communication 0/1
Smith and Belcher. (1993). Brief report: Facilitated communication with adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 23 (1), 175-183. DOI: 10.1007/BF01066426
The purpose of this study was to explore the use of FC. 8 individuals with autism participated. The number of facilitators was not disclosed. Test protocols included copying “set work” and open-ended questions presented visually and aurally. There was no “co-activity” or error prevention by facilitators. In all instances, typed communications from verbal subjects were at or below the level of their verbal communications. The content and quality of typed communications mirrors the content and quality of the subjects’ spoken communications. There was no evidence of unexpected literacy skills. Results suggested that FC may not be effective in enhancing the communication of adults with autism.
Evidence of independent communication 0/8
Szempruch, J. and Jacobson, J.W. (1993). Evaluating facilitated communications of people with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. Vol 14 (4), 253-264. DOI: 10.1016/0891-4222(93)90020-k
The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of FC. 6 facilitators and 23 individuals with developmental disabilities participated. The principal source of training for the facilitators was Syracuse University. Test protocols included describing pictures of common objects presented visually and aurally; message passing. None of the 23 participants demonstrated empirical evidence or authorship using the authors’ operational definition. There was no instance in which participants successfully identified an object through FC within the trials. Participants cooperated throughout the activities.
Evidence of independent communication 0/23
Teodoro, J., Meinhold, P., & Koch, E. (1993, May). Validating and invalidating claims of facilitated ccommunication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago.; also Meinhold, P. (1993, August). A clinical method for testing claims of Facilitated Communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.
The purpose of this study was to explore the validity of FC output. 4 facilitators and 4 individuals with autism and/or developmental delays participated. Test protocols included presenting key words to the individuals with disabilities about familiar activities. A message passing portion of the test included a double-blind phase (facilitators were given accurate or inaccurate information about the activity).
Evidence of independent communication 0/4
Wheeler, DL, Jacobson, JW, Paglieri, RA, and Schwartz, AA. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation. Vol 31 (1), 49-60.
The purpose of this study was to explore authorship in FC-generated messages. 9 facilitators and 12 individuals with autism participated. Test protocols included single-blind (pictures shown only to the facilitator) and double-blind (pictures shown to the individual with disabilities and the facilitator separately) measures. The individuals were asked to name pictures of familiar objects presented visually and aurally. Results indicated that all of the individuals with autism were being systematically and unknowingly influenced by their facilitators. In fact, the nature of the findings led the authors to assert that their output in facilitated communication was not only influenced but controlled and determined by the facilitators.
Evidence of independent communication 0/12
1992
Beck, B, Warburg, M, Parving, A, Jansen, E, Arendt-Nielsen, Elbro, /C.& Klewe, L. (1992, August). The Copenhegan investigation of assisted communication between severely handicapped persons and their assistants. Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Gold Coast, Australia. (conference papers)
This study was an analysis of the content of supported typing (FC) messages using 17 individuals with severe developmental delays. In typical FC conversation, researchers used electromyographic measures of elbow movements of FC users and facilitators and linguistic fingerprinting to analyze facilitated content.
Evidence of independent communication 0/17.