Facilitated Communication Reveals Hidden Abilities
False Assumption: Facilitators enable non-verbal individuals with autism to spell coherent messages on keyboards, unveiling normal intelligence.
Summaries Written by FARAgent (AI) on February 09, 2026 · Pending Verification
In the late 1970s and then especially in the early 1990s, facilitated communication was sold as a breakthrough. The claim was simple and flattering: many nonverbal autistic people and others with severe disabilities were said to have normal, even exceptional intelligence, trapped inside bodies that could not speak. A facilitator only had to provide light hand or arm support, and the person could type or point to letters. Schools, clinics, and media outlets embraced the idea. It fit the hopeful line that these were "hidden voices" finally being heard, and it offered professionals and families a dramatic answer to years of uncertainty.
What went wrong was authorship. When researchers tested facilitated communication under controlled conditions in the 1990s, the messages tracked what the facilitator knew, not what the disabled person knew. Study after study found that the facilitator was doing the pointing, usually without meaning to. The result was not merely embarrassment for a fashionable therapy. False messages shaped education and care, grossly inflated assessments of ability, and in some cases produced accusations of sexual abuse that led to investigations, family separations, and ruined lives.
By the mid-1990s, major professional bodies had turned against FC, and subsequent reviews only hardened the verdict. ASHA, the American Psychological Association, and other organizations concluded that facilitated communication had been disproven and should not be used as a valid means of communication. The current debate is not about whether FC works, it does not. The argument now is over its rebranded descendants, such as the "rapid prompting method" and "supported typing," which preserve the old promise while trying to escape the old record.
Status: Mainstream now strongly agrees this assumption was false
People Involved
- Rosemary Crossley was a special educator in Australia who developed facilitated communication in the 1970s while working with 12 children who had severe handicaps. She founded the DEAL Communication Centre to offer the technique and insisted that minor physical support allowed her clients to spell out coherent thoughts on keyboards. Her work drew widespread attention after apparent successes with nonverbal individuals who suddenly produced eloquent messages. Crossley maintained that the method revealed hidden intelligence long after controlled tests raised doubts. The centre continued to promote facilitated communication despite mounting experimental evidence that facilitators were authoring the output. [5]
- Douglas Biklen was an educator at Syracuse University who brought facilitated communication to the United States in 1989 after observing Crossley in Australia. He promoted the technique through academic channels and trained facilitators who soon reported breakthroughs with autistic clients who had never spoken. Biklen argued that the method unlocked normal cognition trapped by motor difficulties. His influence helped embed facilitated communication in university programs and disability advocacy circles. The practice spread rapidly under his endorsement even as early studies questioned its validity. [5]
- Anna Stubblefield was a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University who used facilitated communication to claim she had obtained consent from Derrick Johnson, a man with profound intellectual disabilities. She was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault in 2015 after a court determined the messages had come from her own hand. The case illustrated how the assumption could be exploited in deeply personal contexts. Stubblefield maintained her belief in the technique throughout the legal proceedings. [6]
- Portia Iversen was the author of the 2006 memoir Strange Son and the mother of a severely autistic nonverbal son named Dov. She coined the phrase intact mind to describe her conviction that typical cognitive abilities lay buried within even the most impaired autistic individuals. Her book and public statements helped popularize the idea among parents and advocates. Iversen’s narrative influenced policy debates long after experimental work had cast doubt on the premise. [11]
- Amy S.F. Lutz is a historian of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the parent of an adult son with severe autism. She published the 2023 book Chasing the Intact Mind which traced the history of the assumption and its consequences for disabled people. Lutz documented how the belief had shaped activism and policy in ways that harmed the very population it claimed to help. Her work summarized decades of controlled studies showing facilitator influence. [11]
▶ Supporting Quotes (11)
“my advisor at the time, Leda Cosmides, taught the class. ... The very first study section was always given over to having the students watch a Frontline episode that investigated a technique called “facilitated communication.””— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“B B Montee 1 , R G Miltenberger 1 , D Wittrock 1 , N Watkins 1 , A Rheinberger 1 , J Stackhaus 1 ... Psychology Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105, USA.”— An experimental analysis of facilitated communication.
“The committee included the following individuals in alphabetical order: Balandin, Susan (Deakin University, Australia), Bober, Allmuth (Stiftung Scheuern – Einrichtung der Behindertenhilfe, Germany), Hemsley, Bronwyn (The University of Newcastle, Australia), Iacono, Teresa (La Trobe University, Australia), Ochs, India (AAC Consumer, USA), Probst, Paul (Universitaet Hamburg, Germany), Schlosser, Ralf (Northeastern University, USA) (Chair)”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“This position statement is an official policy of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). The position was developed by the ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Facilitated Communication (FC) and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM): Meher Banajee, chair; Bronwyn Hemsley; Russell Lang; Ralf W. Schlosser; Howard C. Shane; and Diane Paul, ex officio.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“special educator Rosemary Crossley used it on 12 children with physical and mental handicaps. Right from the get-go,her findings were disputedby the hospital and the Health Commission of Victoria. Undeterred, Crossley founded the DEAL Communication Centre (now the Anne McDonald Centre)”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“in 1989, educator Douglas Biklen saw Crossley in Australia and transplanted FC into the United States, specifically Syracuse University.”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“Janyce Boynton has since renounced FC and has become a vocal critic of this discredited technique.”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“former Rutgers University professor Anna Stubblefield, who was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault in 2015 for raping Derrick Johnson, a profoundly intellectually disabled 28-year-old whose “consent” she claimed to have procured through facilitated communication.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“In a 2012 paper critical of FC, James Todd rightly articulates a “moral obligation to be empirical,””— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“In her 2006 memoir Strange Son, Portia Iversen coined the phrase “intact mind” to describe the typical cognitive abilities she believed were buried within even the most seemingly impaired autistic individuals, like her son Dov—who, at nine years old, was completely nonverbal and spent much of his time “chewing on blocks and tapping stones.””— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
“Lutz, a historian of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who has previously written a book about her experiences raising a son (now an adult) with severe autism, goes on to lay out a fascinating history of this concept in the first half of Chasing the Intact Mind.”— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
Organizations Involved
The DEAL Communication Centre, later known as the Anne McDonald Centre, promoted facilitated communication as a legitimate therapy in Australia and continued to offer it despite early scientific disputes. Staff trained facilitators and produced testimonials that portrayed the method as a breakthrough for nonverbal clients. The centre maintained its commitment to the technique even after controlled experiments demonstrated that facilitators were directing the messages. Its persistence helped sustain the practice in clinical and educational settings. [5]
Syracuse University hosted Douglas Biklen and became an academic hub for facilitated communication in the United States. The institution supported research and training programs that presented the method as a path to independence for people with autism. University-affiliated advocates carried the technique into schools and clinics across the country. Syracuse continued to platform the approach long after major professional organizations had issued warnings. [5]
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association issued its first position statement questioning the validity of facilitated communication in 1995 and strengthened its opposition in 2018 after reviewing decades of research. The organization concluded that the messages were authored by facilitators and that the practice carried serious risks. ASHA aligned its stance with at least 19 other professional bodies that had reached similar conclusions. It advised clinicians to direct clients toward empirically supported alternatives. [4][8]
The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee appointed a letterboard user, a contemporary form of facilitated communication, to its membership in 2021. The decision gave an official federal platform to a method that controlled studies had repeatedly discredited. Critics noted the move ignored the strong expert consensus against the technique. The committee’s action illustrated how the assumption could still influence policy circles. [6]
The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders hosted a 2023 webinar that featured a facilitated communication speller. The event lent federal endorsement to a practice that systematic reviews had found lacking in evidence of independent authorship. Observers pointed out that the institute had overlooked the body of experimental work showing facilitator control. The webinar renewed debate about institutional memory regarding discredited methods. [6]
▶ Supporting Quotes (10)
“I was a teaching assistant for Introductory Psychology several times when my advisor at the time, Leda Cosmides, taught the class.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“Psychology Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105, USA.”— An experimental analysis of facilitated communication.
“According to the Institute on Communication and Community Inclusion (see Syracuse, n.d.), the physical support may be provided at the index finger, hand, arm, elbow, or shoulder. Besides the provision of physical supports, the facilitator may provide emotional encouragement, and other communication supports (e.g., monitoring to make sure the person looks at the keyboard and checks for typographical errors)”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) formed an Ad Hoc Committee on FC and charged this committee to synthesize the evidence base related to this question in order to develop a position statement.”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“ASHA first developed a position statement about FC in 1995 due to a lack of scientific validity and reliability (ASHA, 1995). This updated FC position statement takes a stronger stance against the use of FC than did ASHA’s 1995 statement... ASHA's position on FC is consistent with as many as 19 other national and international professional and advocacy organization statements.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“Crossley founded the DEAL Communication Centre (now the Anne McDonald Centre) to offer this therapy”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“transplanted FC into the United States, specifically Syracuse University.”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“In 2021, a letterboard user was appointed to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee;”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“in 2022, facilitated students graduated from UCLA, Berkeley, and Rollins College.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“And in 2023, a speller was featured in a webinar hosted by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
The Foundation
Facilitated communication rested on the assumption that minor hand support from a facilitator allowed nonverbal individuals with autism to point to letters on a keyboard and produce coherent messages that revealed normal intelligence. Proponents presented the apparent eloquence of the typed output as proof that cognitive ability had been hidden behind motor and communication barriers. The technique gained credibility through rapid revelations of poetry, personal insights, and even academic discourse from clients who had previously shown little evidence of literacy. Early case reports and descriptive studies reinforced the belief that these individuals were expressing their own intentions. Subsequent experimental work, however, consistently showed that the messages matched only what the facilitators knew. [1][5][6]
Reports claimed that clients with moderate or severe mental retardation could communicate fluently once supported by a facilitator. These accounts seemed persuasive because observers watched the individuals type detailed and grammatically correct sentences. The messages often displayed knowledge or opinions that surprised caregivers. Yet controlled tests later revealed that the typed content corresponded exclusively to information held by the facilitator and not by the client. The pattern held even when facilitators were given false information. [2]
The core argument for validity hinged on whether people with disabilities were expressing their own intentions or whether facilitators were sourcing the output. Non-experimental evidence such as anecdotal reports, testimonials, and qualitative descriptions propped up the belief for years. Only when researchers conducted level-one experimental studies that manipulated information available to each party did the pattern of facilitator authorship become clear. Systematic reviews concluded that the assumption lacked empirical support. Most experts now regard the technique as invalid on the basis of this body of research. [3][4]
▶ Supporting Quotes (10)
“Facilitated communication was a technique in which a facilitator—a nurse, caregiver, or teacher—would gently touch the patient’s hand and the patient could, with this minor connection, point to letters to spell out words on a specially designed keyboard.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“The clients had been reported to be communicating fluently through facilitated communication.”— An experimental analysis of facilitated communication.
“We evaluated the authorship of messages produced through facilitated communication by 7 adults with moderate or severe mental retardation and their facilitators.”— An experimental analysis of facilitated communication.
“The evidence was classified into articles that provided (a) quantitative experimental data related to the authorship of messages, (b) quantitative descriptive data on the output generated through FC without testing of authorship, (c) qualitative descriptive data on the output generated via FC without testing of authorship, and (d) anecdotal reports in which writers shared their perspectives on FC. Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship.”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“The main area of dispute is whether people with disabilities are being facilitated to express their own communicative intentions, or whether the source of the output is that of the facilitators (e.g., Mostert, 2012).”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“Proponents of FC state that the technique reveals previously undetected literacy and communication skills in people with autism and other disabilities. However, these statements are made only on the basis of anecdotal reports, testimonials, and descriptive studies.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“There is no scientific evidence that (a) FC provides access to communication or that (b) individuals achieve independence in communication through the use of FC.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“Through this facilitation, individuals who had been thought of as unable to communicate or even as intellectually disabled are revealed, very quickly after the start of FC, to have rich inner lives. To people who believe in the miracle of FC, the facilitation demonstrates that what was first thought of as a mental disability is in fact purely a motor problem.”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“Dozens of controlled studies dating back to the mid-1990s overwhelmingly prove that facilitators (often unintentionally) direct the output in FC through a host of cues, psychological biases, and ideomotor effects–the same small, unconscious movements that also explain Ouija boards and other allegedly paranormal phenomena”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“Although he didn’t know the alphabet, colors, or numbers; although he “could hardly point or nod his head to show what he meant”; although doctors had diagnosed Dov as “retarded” and told Iversen she “shouldn’t wreck [her] marriage and destroy [her] other children’s lives for his sake, when doing so was utterly and completely useless”—although all these things were true about her son, Iversen still imagined him “falling down a deep well, believed to be dead. And then years later, a light shone down that dark shaft and I could see him there, somehow still alive” (emphasis in original).”— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
How It Spread
Facilitated communication spread first through caregivers, nurses, and teachers in clinical and educational settings who were eager to believe that hidden capabilities lay within their nonverbal patients. Testimonials of sudden breakthroughs circulated quickly among desperate families and hopeful professionals. The promise of unlocking normal intelligence proved emotionally compelling even in the absence of controlled evidence. Media coverage of apparent miracles amplified the technique’s reach. Self-advocacy groups endorsed it despite the growing scientific literature against it. [1][5]
The idea gained further traction when peer-reviewed journals published descriptive studies, qualitative reports, and anecdotal accounts that did not test authorship. These lower-level sources created an impression of legitimacy that outpaced the experimental work. Systematic reviews that later synthesized the full evidence base found no support for independent communication. Proponents continued to cite the earlier non-experimental literature long after 2014 when no new supporting studies appeared. [3][4]
Social pressure discouraged dissent by labeling critics as ableist or guilty of epistemological violence against disabled people. High-level institutional endorsements from government committees, universities, and federal webinars kept the practice visible despite repeated professional warnings. At least 19 professional and disability advocacy organizations eventually issued formal statements against facilitated communication. The assumption nonetheless persisted in pockets of advocacy and policy. [6][8]
The intact mind belief spread through popular memoirs written by parents of severely autistic children. These personal narratives portrayed typical cognition as trapped inside impaired bodies and influenced disability advocates in policy debates. The emotional power of such stories helped sustain the assumption even as controlled studies accumulated. [11]
▶ Supporting Quotes (8)
“a facilitator—a nurse, caregiver, or teacher—would gently touch the patient’s hand”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“A multi-faceted search was conducted including electronic database searches, ancestry searches, and contacting selected authors. The authors considered synopses of systematic reviews, and systematic reviews, which were supplemented with individual studies not included in any prior reviews. Additionally, documents submitted by the membership were screened for inclusion.”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“In the almost 3 decades since FC was introduced, there has been no empirical evidence that messages composed using FC can be attributed to the person with a disability. Indeed, the conclusions of earlier systematic reviews... are supported, and there have been no new authorship studies in the peer-reviewed literature since 2014.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“Powerful testimonials—often aided by a media machine hungry for medical miracles—are the leading form of evidence.”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“is not only surging in popularity under different names–including the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C)–but is also currently being platformed at the highest levels of science and education.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“those who challenge the authenticity of the sophisticated and poignant reflections that emerge through FC are often attacked as “ableist” perpetrators of “epistemological violence”.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“known harms of FC are well-documented in the peer-reviewed literature and the foundation of repeated warnings of at least 19 professional and disability advocacy organizations worldwide against the use of FC”— The Pseudoscientific Phenom—Facilitated Communication Makes a Comeback
“She focuses heavily on memoirs written by parents of children with autism, showing how at every stage in the modern history of our understanding of this condition, such parents have pined for — and in some cases gone to herculean and frequently pseudoscientific lengths to free — the “intact mind” supposedly lurking behind their severely disabled child’s troubled exterior.”— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
Resulting Policies
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association advised speech-language pathologists to evaluate all techniques according to its Code of Ethics and to warn clients about the risks of facilitated communication. Clinicians were instructed to inform families of the lack of validity and to recommend empirically supported augmentative and alternative communication methods instead. The 2018 position statement emphasized the ethical obligation to avoid practices that could mislead care or produce false allegations. Most professional organizations aligned with this guidance. [4]
Disability activists influenced by the intact mind assumption have worked to eliminate Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That provision permits sub-minimum wage employment for severely disabled workers in sheltered workshops. Advocates argued that such programs underestimated the capabilities of people with autism. The campaign reflected the belief that hidden normal intelligence made protected employment unnecessary. Controlled research on facilitated communication has not supported the premise underlying these efforts. [11]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“SLPs should be mindful of their own legal and ethical responsibilities and risks; they are obliged to "provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected" and not do harm (ASHA, 2016).”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“I was most fascinated by the first chapter of the second half: “The Fight to Eliminate 14(c).””— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
Harm Caused
Facilitated communication produced false allegations of sexual abuse and maltreatment that were based entirely on messages authored by facilitators. In one case a facilitator named Janyce Boynton generated accusations that led to the temporary separation of a family before tests showed she had written the messages herself. More than five dozen such claims resulted in parents being imprisoned and autistic children placed in foster care. The Wendrow family endured a similar ordeal when their daughter could not answer basic questions like the color of her sweater unless the facilitator heard them. Charges were eventually dismissed. [5][10]
The assumption enabled the sexual abuse of a man with profound intellectual disabilities when Anna Stubblefield claimed to have obtained consent through facilitated communication. She was convicted of rape in 2015. A mother was found guilty of manslaughter after a facilitated message supposedly revealed her son’s desire to commit suicide. These incidents demonstrated how the technique could be used to fabricate consent or intent. [5][6]
Resources were diverted from evidence-based interventions such as established augmentative communication systems and applied behavior analysis. The annual cost of facilitated communication has been estimated at thirty thousand dollars per student in some programs. Every interaction using the method co-opted the autistic individual’s agency by substituting the facilitator’s words for any authentic communication. The belief also fueled efforts to remove sheltered employment options that provide structure and income for people with severe disabilities. [6][11]
▶ Supporting Quotes (9)
“People previously believed to have sharply circumscribed mental abilities were, using the technique, a”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 2/3)
“The harms of FC also include false allegations of sexual abuse (Probst, 2005) and other forms of maltreatment (Boynton, 2012; Chan & Nankervis, 2014; Wombles, 2014)... The use of FC risks harm to individuals with communication disabilities in that it may hinder or delay access to appropriate services and effective forms of intervention.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“several people have been accused of sexual abuse through FC... Janyce Boynton... Betsy seemingly accused both her brother and father... at leastone facilitator has been convicted of rapeafter getting “consent” from her non-communicative partner through FC. There’s also the truly grim tale of a mother who was foundguilty of manslaughterfor the death of her eight-year-old autistic son”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“the sexual abuse documented in the Stubblefield case representing only the most well-known example.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“More than five dozen false abuse claims were also made through FC, resulting in the imprisonment of parents and the placement of severely autistic children in foster care.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“which not only costs upwards of $30,000 per year per student, but is pursued in place of evidence-based forms of alternative and augmentative communication (AAC).”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“every FC interaction involves the co-option of authentic autistic communication by nondisabled facilitators, which strips very disabled people of what little control they have over their day-to-day lives.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“she was unable to answer questions, including 'What color is your sweater?' and 'Are you a boy or a girl?' The charges were ultimately dismissed in March of 2008”— Not Just the Wendrows: Sex Abuse Cases Dismissed After Facilitated Communication
“Lutz argues that the myth of the intact mind has caused significant damage to disabled people — damage at least partially inflicted by activists claiming to represent that very same group.”— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
Downfall
Controlled experiments conducted in the 1990s began to undermine the assumption by showing that clients produced correct answers only when facilitators had access to the same information. When facilitators were given false details or were blinded to the questions, the typed output reflected the facilitator’s knowledge rather than the client’s. Researchers at North Dakota State University demonstrated this pattern clearly in their 1990s studies. The results were replicated across dozens of subsequent experiments. [2][9]
Systematic reviews by Ralf Schlosser and colleagues in 2014 and by Hemsley and others in 2018 synthesized the experimental literature and concluded that facilitated communication showed no evidence of independent authorship. The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication issued a position statement based on that evidence. No new peer-reviewed studies supporting the technique have appeared since 2014. Major organizations including the American Psychological Association and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities adopted similar stances. [3][4][6]
A one-million-dollar prize offered by the James Randi Education Foundation for any demonstration of independent facilitated communication went unclaimed. Amy Lutz’s 2023 book documented the persistence of the intact mind myth despite the accumulated experimental record. Most experts now reject the assumption on the basis of this body of research although pockets of advocacy continue to endorse variants of the method. [6][11]
▶ Supporting Quotes (10)
“The results showed that the clients typed the correct answer only when the facilitator had access to the same information, never typed the correct answer when the facilitator had no information or false information, and typed the picture or activity presented to the facilitator when it was different from the one experienced by the client.”— An experimental analysis of facilitated communication.
“These results provide unequivocal evidence for facilitator control of typing during facilitated communication.”— An experimental analysis of facilitated communication.
“Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity.”— Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
“Recent systematic literature reviews of FC (Hemsley et al., 2018; Schlosser et al., 2014), based on research appropriately designed to determine the effectiveness of FC, demonstrate a lack of scientific studies to support the effectiveness of the technique and a preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrating "facilitator" influence and authorship of messages delivered by FC.”— Facilitated Communication Position Statement
“Several trials were conducted in this way (also by using pairs of headphones that played back different words to the facilitator), and these studies revealed that it was the facilitator who was doing the pointing. Systematicreviews of the evidence up until 2018have summarized the state of our scientific knowledge: there is no evidence that FC is a valid form of communication... The American Psychological Association even issueda resolution in 1994to this effect.”— Who Is Doing the Pointing When Communication Is Facilitated?
“Dozens of controlled studies dating back to the mid-1990s overwhelmingly prove that facilitators (often unintentionally) direct the output in FC”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, the American Psychological Association, as well as many other organizations, issued position statements against FC.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“independent communication through facilitation has never been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even though the James Randi Education Foundation offered a $1 million prize for anyone who could successfully do so.”— Bioethicists Should Speak Up Against Facilitated Communication : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
“By 2005, more than 50 controlled studies and blind tests had been conducted... The studies consistently showed 'without a doubt' that the messages obtained through facilitated communication were controlled by the facilitators”— Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies
“In the very first sentence of Chasing the Intact Mind: How the Severely Autistic and Intellectually Disabled Were Excluded from the Debates That Affect Them Most, author Amy S.F. Lutz explains the striking term in her book’s title:”— Why Disability Advocates Are Trying to Shut Down A Policy That Benefits Disabled People
Sources
-
[1]
-
[2]
-
[3]
-
[4]
-
[5]
-
[6]
-
[7]
-
[8]
-
[9]
-
[10]
-
[11]
Related False Assumptions