Facilitated Communication and Its Legitimacy—Twenty-First Century Developments

Mostert, Mark P.

doi:10.1080/09362830903462524

Cited by 44 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But they are not sufficient to counter the scientific evidence about the direct efficacy of FC much less to recommend dissemination of FC as a practice. The assumption that the argument is settled is manifestly incorrect as seen in the findings of the reviews of experimental evaluations from 1994 to 2014 (Felce, 1994;;Jacobson et al, 1995;Mostert, 2001Mostert, , 2010Probst, 2005;Schlosser et al, in press;Wehrenfennig & Surian, 2008).…”

Section: Recent Developments and Contextual Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experiments include studies using double blind control conditions as well as ones in which participants are not blind to the research conditions, studies with no controls, and descriptive qualitative studies. These extensive reviews have repeatedly concluded that in well-controlled experiments, the preponderance of the evidence shows that FC messages originate from facilitators rather than from the people who receive facilitation or from people with disabilities who are equally able to provide the messages without the help of the facilitator (e.g., Felce, 1994;Schlosser et al, in press;Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995;Mostert, 2001Mostert, , 2010Wehrenfennig & Surian, 2002). In all of these reviews, the weight of the evidence has failed to support the claims that FC represents the voice of people who receive facilitation.…”

Section: Updating the Controversy Over Fcmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Standards of Proof

Singer

Horner

Dunlap

et al. 2014

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TASH's historic commitment to advocacy and science has enabled it to be a trusted voice for people with severe disabilities and their families. We review recent developments in the controversy over facilitated communication (FC) in light of major contextual continuities and changes in the past two decades. A series of scholarly reviews of the literature on controlled experiments have established a preponderance of evidence that FC is not reliably an expression from the individual who receives facilitation. Evidence indicates that the facilitator is the usual source of the text. We discuss the standards of proof of efficacy that must apply before an intervention should be endorsed by a national organization that aims to have a major impact on policy and practices. The need for controlled experiments in evaluation interventions is discussed. The central concern in establishing efficacy of a practice is to rule out other plausible explanations for an outcome. The main concern in establishing effectiveness is replication under real-world conditions. The science-based practices movement has been taken up by most of the helping professions contributing to the education and support of people with severe disabilities. The movement aims to identify practices and catalog them in terms of the trustworthiness of the evidence supporting them. The movement has led to establishing standards for determining when an intervention can be said to be efficacious. We urge TASH to join this movement and, in light of a commitment to science-based practices, argue that it should withdraw its stated endorsement of FC, which is not supported by science-based research. Keywords science based practices, research methods, values, facilitated communicationWe offer this article from our perspective as longtime TASH members deeply committed to the vision of TASH as an organization combining values and science to advocate ". . . for human rights and inclusion for people with significant disabilities and support needs-those most vulnerable to segregation, abuse, neglect and institutionalization" (TASH-About, n.d., para. 1). Our aim is to focus on the controversy over facilitated communication (FC). Our concern, however, goes beyond this particular issue. It more broadly addresses the importance for TASH of joining the "science-based practices" movement and to exercise due diligence in determining when a practice can be said to be science-based. TASH should uphold the widely accepted standards for judging the efficacy of a practice when such evidence exists. When it does not, TASH should

show abstract

Section: Recent Developments and Contextual Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Updating the Controversy Over Fcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standards of Proof

Singer

Horner

Dunlap

et al. 2014

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Predictably, skeptics moved on to other research endeavors as they saw little point in repeatedly replicating solid evidence around a settled empirical question (Mostert, 2010). This may explain why only one carefully designed study has been done recently showing that FC is ineffective (Wegner, Fuller, & Sparrow, 2003).…”

Section: Fc the Research Community And The Knowledge Vacuummentioning

confidence: 99%

An Activist Approach to Debunking FC

Mostert

2014

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facilitated Communication (FC), a controversial educational intervention touted for persons with autism and other non-communicative conditions, has reemerged as a viable educational option despite a number of earlier empirical studies that unequivocally identified the facilitator as the author of any communication and not the client. Several intersecting vectors including a current dearth of new empirical studies debunking the practice, the proliferation of questionable research favorable to FC, and the increased acceptance by academic journals of the legitimacy of FC have fueled this resurgence. I suggest a series of activist approaches to counter the acceptance of FC as legitimate educational practice.

show abstract

“…Those who embrace evidence-based practices must be willing to question or even abandon popular practices that lack compelling empirical support, even when the practices conform to one's epistemological frameworks and beliefs (Carr & Firth, 2005). Proponents of FC have repeatedly pointed to anecdotal reports and case studies in futile efforts to illustrate efficacy (e.g., Rosetti et al, 2008), but every well-designed study indicates facilitators (often subconsciously) generate the messages (Green, 1994;Jacobson et al, 1995;Mostert, 2001Mostert, , 2010. Recently, organizations like Council for Exceptional Children (2014) and the US Department of Education through the What Works Clearinghouse (Kratochwill et al, 2010) have established standards for evaluating the quality and rigor of empirical evidence in support of specific interventions.…”

Section: Augmentative and Alternative Communication Facilitated Commmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice

Travers

Tincani

Lang

2014

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facilitated Communication (FC) has been rebranded as "supported typing" and repackaged as rapid prompting method, but remains a disproven intervention for people with disabilities. Despite the absence of supportive evidence and abundant evidence that facilitators always author the messages, 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.

show abstract

Facilitated Communication and Its Legitimacy—Twenty-First Century Developments

Cited by 44 publications

References 21 publications

Standards of Proof

Standards of Proof

An Activist Approach to Debunking FC

Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About