Facilitated Communication

Facilitated Communication (FC) has been a subject of both fervent advocacy and intense scrutiny in the realm of school psychology. This article provides a comprehensive examination of FC, offering insights into its historical development, controversies, and contemporary practices. The article explores the concept’s definition, the roles of facilitators and communicators, and the ethical, legal, and scientific challenges it has engendered. With a focus on current applications in educational settings and evidence-based alternatives, it offers a balanced perspective on the utility of FC, underlining the critical importance of evidence-based approaches in school psychology. As the field continues to evolve, this article also highlights future directions and research needs, recognizing the potential for innovation and improved support for individuals with communication difficulties.

Introduction

The concept of Facilitated Communication (FC) has a complex history marked by both promise and controversy. Emerging as an intervention method in the field of communication disorders and special education, FC has garnered attention and debate due to its unconventional approach. FC involves an individual with communication impairments, often diagnosed with conditions such as autism or cerebral palsy, typing messages on a communication device or keyboard with the physical assistance of a facilitator. This method was first introduced in the 1970s, with the aim of providing a voice to individuals who were otherwise nonverbal or had limited verbal communication abilities. It offered the possibility of enhanced social interaction, educational opportunities, and self-expression for those who had been marginalized due to their communication difficulties. Nevertheless, its emergence also brought about fervent controversies and debates centered around the authenticity and efficacy of FC. Critics argue that FC may lack scientific validation, potentially leading to issues of exploitation, false hope, and pseudoscientific practices.

This article serves to shed light on the multifaceted phenomenon of Facilitated Communication, addressing both its historical development and the contemporary debates it has ignited. Its purpose is twofold. First, it aims to provide an in-depth understanding of FC, including its principles and processes, and to explore the historical events that have shaped its evolution. This historical overview will encompass the pivotal figures and milestones in the development of FC as an intervention method, allowing readers to grasp the roots and foundations of this approach. Second, this article underscores the critical need for a balanced and evidence-based evaluation of FC within the domain of school psychology. While acknowledging the passion and dedication of those who advocate for FC, we underscore the importance of scientific scrutiny and ethical considerations in the practice of school psychology. As communication is a fundamental aspect of human development and education, it is imperative to critically assess the utility and ethical implications of FC, which is the very essence of school psychology’s mission to foster the holistic development of students with diverse needs. In an era where individuals with communication challenges deserve the best possible support, a balanced understanding of FC’s advantages and limitations is crucial for informed decision-making and evidence-based practice in school psychology.

Understanding Facilitated Communication

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a communication method designed to assist individuals with severe communication impairments, particularly those diagnosed with conditions such as autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, or other developmental disabilities, in expressing their thoughts and ideas. At its core, FC involves a partnership between a communicator and a facilitator. The communicator is an individual with limited or no verbal communication abilities, while the facilitator is a person trained to provide physical support. The primary aim of FC is to enable the communicator to type or point to symbols or letters on a communication device, keyboard, or alphabet board with the assistance of the facilitator. The key principle underlying FC is the belief that individuals with communication difficulties have unexpressed thoughts and emotions and that this method can unlock their ability to convey these thoughts. The process often involves physical support provided by the facilitator, such as hand support or guidance, to help the communicator access the means of communication. FC is rooted in the assumption that with facilitation, individuals can overcome their motor challenges and communicate effectively.

The historical development of Facilitated Communication dates back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. It emerged as a response to the pressing need to provide a voice to individuals who had been previously considered nonverbal or minimally verbal due to various disabilities. FC gained popularity in the United States and other countries as a potential breakthrough in communication intervention. Key milestones in its development include the introduction of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) by Soma Mukhopadhyay, the concept of Supported Typing, and the widespread advocacy by proponents of FC. Influential figures such as Douglas Biklen, a professor and advocate, played pivotal roles in promoting FC, which led to its implementation in educational and therapeutic settings. The increased recognition of FC was driven by the hope it offered to individuals with communication difficulties and their families. Throughout its evolution, FC has undergone modifications and refinements in techniques, but the fundamental premise of facilitation remains consistent. Over time, FC has generated considerable interest, not only among professionals and educators but also within the community of parents and caregivers seeking to enhance the communicative abilities of their loved ones. This historical context underscores the significance of understanding the origins and development of FC, which has had far-reaching implications in the field of communication interventions and special education.

Controversies and Debates

Facilitated Communication (FC) has been the subject of extensive scientific scrutiny, with a multitude of studies and investigations aimed at assessing its validity and reliability as a communication intervention. A critical examination of these scientific studies has yielded mixed findings. While some early studies appeared to support the efficacy of FC, many more recent, methodologically rigorous investigations have raised profound concerns. Challenges to the reliability and validity of FC primarily center on the facilitator’s role in the communication process. Questions are raised regarding the potential influence of facilitators on the messages produced, including the possibility of involuntary cues or cues that lead to confirmation bias. Ethical considerations in FC research and practice are paramount, given the potential for facilitator influence, which may compromise the autonomy and authentic communication of the communicator. Ethical concerns relate to issues of consent, privacy, and the potential for exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Balancing the ethical imperative to provide communication support with safeguarding the rights of individuals with disabilities is an ongoing challenge in the FC debate.

In contrast to the skepticism and critique surrounding FC, there exists a body of literature that advocates for its use. Proponents of FC argue that it offers a lifeline to individuals with communication impairments, granting them a voice and an opportunity for meaningful social interaction and education. Advocates believe that FC can unveil the intellectual and emotional potential of communicators, enabling them to express their thoughts, ideas, and desires. They emphasize the importance of taking a person-centered approach and adapting FC techniques to individual needs. Advocates point to case studies and anecdotal evidence as powerful testimonials to the effectiveness of FC. These narratives showcase instances where individuals with communication difficulties have used FC to convey complex thoughts, emotions, and knowledge, challenging prevailing assumptions about their capabilities.

The ethical and legal dimensions of Facilitated Communication (FC) have been central to the controversies and debates surrounding this method. Ethical concerns encompass the potential for facilitator influence, which raises questions about the authenticity of messages produced through FC. The issue of informed consent is of particular significance, as individuals with communication impairments may be unable to provide explicit consent for the facilitation process. Moreover, FC has been associated with legal cases and implications, including disputes over its use in educational settings and therapeutic interventions. The legal framework often intersects with ethical considerations, leading to complex discussions about the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities. The impact of FC extends beyond legalities, affecting individuals with disabilities and their families emotionally, educationally, and socially. Understanding the ethical and legal aspects of FC is crucial in the ongoing quest for balance between the potential benefits of communication intervention and the protection of the rights and dignity of individuals with disabilities.

Current Practices and Future Directions

In recent years, Facilitated Communication (FC) has found its place in educational settings, albeit with varying degrees of acceptance and implementation. Some educational institutions and professionals continue to use FC as a communication intervention for students with significant communication difficulties. Contemporary usage of FC often involves a trained facilitator working alongside individuals with disabilities in the classroom. Its application ranges from aiding in academic tasks to fostering social interaction. Proponents of FC suggest that it can enhance the educational experience for these students, offering a means of participation in classroom activities and learning opportunities. However, there are significant variations in the application of FC, leading to differences in outcomes and experiences. Some educators and school psychologists have reported positive results, while others remain skeptical due to concerns over facilitator influence. The strengths of FC in educational contexts are seen in its potential to provide a voice to individuals who would otherwise struggle to express themselves. However, its weaknesses lie in the unresolved questions surrounding its validity and reliability. School psychologists play a critical role in the implementation and evaluation of FC in educational settings. Their expertise is invaluable in ensuring that the use of FC is ethical, evidence-based, and respectful of the rights and needs of the students involved.

In light of the controversies and uncertainties surrounding Facilitated Communication (FC), it is essential to explore evidence-based alternatives for individuals with communication difficulties. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems have emerged as a promising alternative that relies on technology and symbols to support communication. These systems encompass a wide range of tools, from simple picture boards to sophisticated speech-generating devices. AAC systems are designed to be individualized, ensuring that they meet the unique needs and abilities of the user. Unlike FC, AAC does not rely on a facilitator to support communication, reducing concerns related to facilitator influence. The importance of individualized, data-driven approaches is underscored in AAC implementation. Assessments are conducted to determine the most suitable AAC system and strategies for each individual, and ongoing data collection helps refine the approach over time. Evidence-based interventions like AAC have garnered support from research and have been integrated into best practices for individuals with communication difficulties.

The future of Facilitated Communication (FC) is marked by both potential advancements and unresolved questions. Emerging trends suggest that FC may continue to evolve with the integration of technology. This includes the development of software and hardware solutions aimed at reducing facilitator influence, enhancing user independence, and improving the overall reliability of FC. Research needs in FC are substantial, with a focus on addressing the concerns surrounding its efficacy and validity. Future investigations should adopt rigorous research designs, incorporate large sample sizes, and control for potential biases, thus contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of FC. Gaps in research also pertain to the development of standardized protocols and guidelines for FC practice. The evolving role of technology in communication interventions, including FC, should be explored further. As technology advances, it may offer new avenues for improving communication support for individuals with disabilities, thus guiding the future direction of FC and related methods. With continued research and innovation, there is potential for enhanced support for individuals with communication difficulties while maintaining ethical and evidence-based standards in school psychology practice.

Conclusion

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a communication intervention method that has generated profound controversies, debates, and an array of perspectives within the realm of school psychology. In summary, this article has provided a comprehensive exploration of FC, addressing its historical development, scientific critiques, alternative perspectives, ethical and legal issues, contemporary use in school psychology, evidence-based alternatives, and future directions.

The historical overview of FC unveiled its emergence as a method that held promise for individuals with communication impairments, offering the potential for self-expression, social interaction, and education. However, this development also gave rise to fervent debates concerning its efficacy and authenticity. The scientific critiques revealed a mixed landscape of findings, with challenges to the reliability and validity of FC, primarily related to facilitator influence, leading to ethical concerns in research and practice.

On the opposing side, alternative perspectives highlighted the advocates’ beliefs in the benefits of FC, with case studies and anecdotes portraying remarkable instances of individuals using FC to express complex thoughts and emotions. Ethical and legal issues demonstrated the complex ethical dilemmas and legal implications associated with FC, highlighting the need to balance the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities with the potential benefits of communication interventions.

Contemporary usage of FC in school psychology reflects a diverse landscape, with variations in its application and outcomes. While FC can provide a voice to students with communication difficulties, it remains a topic of ongoing scrutiny. In response to the controversies and uncertainties surrounding FC, evidence-based alternatives, particularly Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems, have gained prominence in offering individualized, technology-driven support for communication.

In conclusion, this article underscores the paramount importance of critical evaluation and evidence-based practices in school psychology. It calls for a balanced approach to understanding FC, considering both its potential benefits and the unresolved questions surrounding its efficacy. As the field continues to evolve, it is imperative to prioritize rigorous research, ethical considerations, and the rights of individuals with disabilities. The ongoing controversies surrounding FC serve as a reminder of the complexities and responsibilities inherent in school psychology’s mission to enhance the lives of students with diverse needs through ethical, evidence-based, and individualized support. In the quest for the best possible communication interventions, a commitment to these principles will guide future practice and research in the field.

References:

1. Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis. Harvard Education Press.
2. Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(3), 287-313.
3. Bebko, J. M., Perry, A., & Bryson, S. E. (1996). Multiple method validation study of facilitated communication: II. Individual differences and subgroup results. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26(1), 19-42.
4. Keane, E. (2015). Facilitated communication: What harm it can do. Psychology of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 3(3), 271-282.
5. Green, G. (1994). The myth of the wandering womb: Some historical and ethical aspects of facilitated communication. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(1), 29-36.
6. Sigafoos, J., & Woodyatt, G. (2011). Facilitated communication and its implications for individuals with autism: A decade in review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 890-900.
7. Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O. (2008). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 212-230.
8. Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
9. Light, J., & Drager, K. (2007). AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 204-216.
10. Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. (2011). Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies. Guilford Press.
11. Wilke, A., & Woods, J. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication system use and social functioning in children with autism spectrum disorders. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(2), 99-107.
12. National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities. (2002). Guidelines for meeting the communication needs of persons with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107(2), 121-138.
13. Carr, D., & Felce, J. (2007). Response to Carr and Felce. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 141-142.
14. O’Connor, C., & Klein, P. D. (2004). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: What do we know, and when do we know it? Journal of Communication Disorders, 37(5), 391-400.
15. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2021). Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Retrieved from https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589942991&section=Key_Issues