| This article examines facilitated communication, a | | | | single subject. Study participants were the |
| controversial process, where hand or arm support | | | | subject, an experienced "naive" facilitator, and |
| is provided to individuals, often diagnosed with | | | | Weiss, as the experimenter. With the naive |
| severe autism, who are unable to type on their | | | | facilitator absent, a short story was read to the |
| own. Two studies (Cardinal et al. and Weiss et al.) | | | | subject by the experimenter. While the facilitator |
| showed positive results. These studies were | | | | was out of the room, the experimenter asked |
| reviewed, (Mostert, 2001) yet, I question whether | | | | the subject questions about the story. The |
| the reviewer considered all the variables. What do | | | | subject answered with the experimenter acting |
| you think? | | | | as the facilitator. When the naive facilitator |
| "Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review | | | | returned, he asked the subject the same |
| of Published Studies," (Mostert, 2001) examined | | | | questions about the story. Accurate responses |
| FC studies that were published since previous | | | | were received on trials 1 and 3 but not on trial 2. |
| reviews by Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995). | | | | Trials 1 and 3 occurred in the classroom and trial 2 |
| The results of the review support and confirm | | | | occurred in the home. Based on the result, Weiss |
| the conclusions reached by previous reviewers of | | | | et al. made two claims: (a) Story information |
| empirical FMC literature. Studies using tight control | | | | elicited by the questions emanated from the |
| procedures did not support FC. | | | | subject, not the facilitator, and (b) The subject |
| Studies providing less stringent control offered | | | | was unexpectedly able to use inferential and |
| mixed results. The two studies that purported to | | | | abstract reasoning. |
| have positive results, Cardinal et al. and Weiss et | | | | Mostert contends that this also had a problematic |
| al. (as cited by Mostert, 2001) were challenged. | | | | methodological approach. Concerns included: 1} |
| The reviewer felt positive results were probably | | | | possible experimenter influence, 2} the |
| due to methodological controls. Cardinal et al. (as | | | | consolidation phase matched the test phase, 3} |
| cited by Mostert 2001) claimed that: (a) "under | | | | the experimenters did not explain why in trial 2, |
| controlled conditions, some facilitated | | | | the questions asked of the subject were |
| communication users can pass accurate | | | | markedly different from the experimenter versus |
| information," and (b) "measurement of facilitated | | | | the naive facilitator, 4) a referee was only |
| communication under test conditions may be | | | | present for the third trial, and 5) inferential |
| significantly benefited by extensive practice of | | | | material passed was predictable to the story. |
| test protocol." Cardinal's protocol (as cited by | | | | Based on my experiences, I hypothesis that it is |
| Mostert) was as follows: | | | | possible the subject was receiving the information |
| 1. The recorder asked the facilitator to come into | | | | telepathically from "the experimenter," who was |
| the room. | | | | privy to the questions. |
| 2. The student was shown a word on a flash card | | | | I suggest, based on personal experience, that |
| by a "recorder" out of view of the facilitator. | | | | influence does not necessarily come from the |
| 3. The facilitator said the letters aloud as the | | | | person who is providing physical support, but can |
| student typed them. | | | | come from another party privy to the |
| 4. The recorder wrote those letters on the data | | | | information. Answers may have been transferred |
| sheet exactly as said. | | | | from the experimenter via inadvertent "mental |
| 5. The student was always given the same | | | | prompts." This also helps to explain the |
| positive comment regardless of a correct or | | | | unexplained failure in trial 2, when the questions |
| incorrect response. | | | | asked of the subject were markedly from the |
| 6. The facilitator left the room and the recorder | | | | experimenter versus the facilitator. |
| repeated the process. | | | | Mostert suggests the possibility of physical cuing, |
| There were 43 subjects ranging from ages 11 to | | | | but steers clear of the communicative relationship |
| 22, exhibiting a range of disabling conditions such | | | | that occurs between sender and receiver. Based |
| as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy and | | | | on years of personal experience, I postulate that |
| developmental delays. All were identified as having | | | | it is possible that Cardinal's subjects and Weiss's |
| severe communication disorders. Results showed | | | | subject achieved positive results with a naive |
| that 75% of the students were able to pass | | | | facilitator because the recorders and the |
| information to a "blind" facilitator to a greater | | | | experimenter may have inadvertently cued them |
| degree than they were able to without FC. | | | | via mental prompts. ( I have had similar |
| Fifty-three percent were able to pass messages | | | | experiences. For example, one day I was |
| in at least 2 out of 5 trials by the end of six | | | | facilitating with a child and he typed Tom. I said, |
| weeks. | | | | Tom??? I was confused because it was out of |
| Mostert felt the study had methodological | | | | context of our interaction. Then my assistant |
| problems. Possible errors in data collection, degree | | | | who was standing next to me said, Oh, I'm sorry, |
| of possible guessing, inconsistency of researcher | | | | I was just thinking about my friend Tom.) |
| presence, prior knowledge, and preconceived | | | | Summary: |
| assumptions that may have led to a desired | | | | I hypothesize that the source of the information |
| study effect were mentioned as problems that | | | | varies. Many children can pick up my mental |
| could have affected outcomes. | | | | prompts whether I'm engaged in facilitation or not. |
| There are other variables that I believe were | | | | I have seen some glean information from others |
| overlooked. It is important to note that the 27 | | | | in the room besides the facilitator. It is possible |
| recorders Cardinal used were teachers and other | | | | that they also communicate with each other. To |
| school personnel who were involved with the | | | | my knowledge, formal studies of mental and/or |
| subjects in similar educational activities and had | | | | sub-vocal prompts have not occurred. It is long |
| provided a supportive environment prior to the | | | | overdue. It is time we come together, ask the |
| study. Mostert did not consider the possibility of | | | | right questions and get to work! |
| recorder influence via mental prompts from the | | | | Mary Ann Harrington MA |
| recorder. | | | | Reference: |
| The recorder knew the words that were to be | | | | Cardinal D. N. (1995) Presentation of results of a |
| typed. | | | | validation study regarding facilitated communication |
| The recorders had previous relationships with the | | | | . January 30, 1995 Chapman University, Orange, |
| students as teachers and paraprofessionals. | | | | CA. |
| The students had been using FC for sometime. | | | | Mostert, M.P.(2001) Facilitated Communication since |
| (Cardinal, 95) | | | | 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal of |
| I hypothesize, the recorders may have been | | | | Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313. |
| sending out the image telepathically. They may | | | | Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal |
| have also sub-vocalized. | | | | of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, |
| Weiss et al., (as cited by Mostert, 2001) studied a | | | | 287-313. |