At one point, Laureys, the neurologist, claimed that he had ruled out the possibility that it was actually the speech therapist doing the writing. But it turns out that his checks weren't quite thorough enough. Obtaining reliable results requires a rather protracted procedure. [...]
Laureys has now carried out those tests, and his results hold that it wasn't Houben doing the writing after all. The tests determined that he doesn't have enough strength and muscle control in his right arm to operate the keyboard. In her effort to help the patient express himself, it would seem that the speech therapist had unwittingly assumed control. This kind of self-deception happens all the time when this method -- known as "facilitated communication" -- is used. (As a result, the things that Houben was attributed as saying to SPIEGEL for an article printed in November 2009 were also not authentic.) [...]
But there is one thing for sure -- images taken of his brain activity reveal that it is behaving only slightly differently from that of a healthy brain. As a result, researchers are fairly certain that Houben is conscious -- and they find themselves in the desperate position of a rescue team trying to dig out a person from under the rubble.
Howlin (1997) in her review of 45 controlled trials of FC involving over 350 subjects found confirmation of independent communication in only 6% of subjects. In more than 90% of cases the responses were found to be influenced unwittingly by the facilitators rather than the clients.I mean, it's just the National Autistic Society (UK) saying this, not anyone reliable like Wikipedia, but...
Bebko, Perry and Bryson (1996) found some evidence of independent communication in nine (of 20) subjects. However, among students who were capable of responding independently, their responses were worse under facilitated conditions than they were unsupported.
...
Mostert (2001) in his review of studies into FC since 1995 confirms that their conclusions support those of earlier studies that claims are largely unsubstantiated and that its use as an intervention for people with communication impairments should not be recommended.
A further concern of Facilitated Communication has been around accusations of abuse. There has been some use of this unproven technique in court cases in the USA. It is suggested that this has only been possible by courts evading their state's test of scientific admissibility (Gorman 1999).
In the first case brought in the UK relying solely on accusations obtained via FC a businessman was cleared of the sexual abuse of his 17-year-old son who has autism, epilepsy and who cannot speak (Rumbelow 2000). Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the High Court Family Division, condemned FC as dangerous and declared that it should not be used by British courts to support or reject allegations of abuse. Gina Green, director of research at the New England Centre of Autism, has previously likened the method to the use of "dowsing sticks and the ouija board".
NARRATOR: More studies came out.From a UVA Special Ed blog, quoted in randi.org's "The Swift" (original link 404d):
1st STUDY: The results of this case study demonstrate quite clearly that the subject was not able to communicate using the facilitated communication techniques. [Hudson, et al., "Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders," March 1993.]
2nd STUDY: No client showed unexpected literacy or communicative abilities when tested via the facilitator screening procedure, even after 20 hours of training. [Eberlin, et al, "Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders," September, 1993.]
3rd STUDY: Considerable evidence was found of the facilitators influencing the attempts at communication. [Moore, et al, "Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders," September, 1993.]
4th STUDY: None of the 23 participants demonstrated authorship. There has been no instance in which a participant has successfully identified an object through F/C. [Szempruch/Jacobson, "Research on Developmental Disabilities," July/August, 1993.]
5th STUDY: These results suggest that the communications previously reported from individuals with autism may have been influenced by facilitator co-activity. [Smith/Belcher, "Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders," March 1993.]
NARRATOR: F/C had claimed to unlock expressive literacy in nonverbal autistic individuals. Under controlled scientific conditions, that literacy vanished. To date, over a dozen studies, involving hundreds of children and researchers in three different countries, have reported negative findings.
The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Association on Mental Retardation, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Association for Behavior Analysis, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the New York State Department of Health have all gone on record advising against the use of FC [Facilitated Communication]. Furthermore, the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health has expressed its criticism of Professor Biklen’s appointment, with which we concur.etc. etc etc etc.
As researchers and members of the teacher education communities in special education, we are deeply concerned by the harm to individuals with disabilities, their families, therapists, and teachers resulting from the use of FC. The harm to which we refer includes the false hopes, false accusations of abuse, wasted learning opportunities, and mis-education of teachers fostered by FC and training in its use.
posted by nadawi at 3:23 PM on February 17, 2010 [11 favorites]