Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 647–657

A naturalistic approach to the validation of facilitated communication

  • Elliott W. Simon
  • Donna M. Toll
  • Patricia M. Whitehair
Article

Abstract

By manipulating the facilitator's knowledge of a student's just-completed activity, facilitated communication ability and the extent of guiding were assessed. Seven students diagnosed with mental retardation and their facilitators participated in the study. All 7 students were purported at the start of the study to be communicating via facilitation at levels far above what was previously thought possible given their level of intellectual ability. A large degree of facilitator guiding was revealed for each of the 4 facilitators. Minimal evidence of facilitation was found for 4 of the 7 students. One of the 7 students demonstrated validated facilitated communication on two trials.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis.Harvard Educational Review, 60, 291–314.Google Scholar
  2. Biklen, D. (1992). Typing to talk: Facilitated communication.American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 2, 15–17, 21–22.Google Scholar
  3. Biklen, D. (1993).Communication unbound. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biklen, D., Morton, M. W., Saha, S. N., Duncan, J., Gold, D., Hardardottir, M., Karna, E., O'Connor, S., & Rao, S. (1991). “I AMN NOT A UTISTIVC OH THJE TYP” (“I'm not autistic on the typewriter”).Disability, Handicap & Society, 6, 161–180.Google Scholar
  5. Biklen, D., & Schubert, A. (1991). New words: The communication of students with autism.Remedial and Special Education, 12, 46–57.Google Scholar
  6. The Crestwood Company. (1993).Crestalk Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  7. Cummins, R. A., & Prior, M. P. (1992). Autism and assisted communication: A response to Biklen.Harvard Educational Review, 62, 228–241.Google Scholar
  8. Green, G. (1992, October).Facilitated communication: Scientific and ethical issues. Paper presented at the Shriver Center UAP Research Colloquium, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Hudson, A., Melita, B., & Arnold, N. (1993). Brief report: A case study assessing the validity of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 165–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kurtz, A. (1992, March). Testing for validity.New England Newsletter on Facilitated Communication, 1.Google Scholar
  11. Moore, S., Donovan, B., & Hudson, A. (1993). Brief report: Facilitator-suggested conversational evaluation of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 541–552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Moore, S., Donovan, B., Hudson, A., Dykstra, J., & Lawrence, J. (1993). Brief report: Evaluation of eight case studies of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 531–539.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1992).An experimental assessment of facilitated communication (TR #92-TA1). Schenectady, NY: O. D. Heck/ER DDSO.Google Scholar
  14. Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication.Mental Retardation, 31, 49–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wolfensberger, W. (1992, August/October). The facilitated communication craze: The cold fusion of human services.Training Institute Publication Series, p. 39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elliott W. Simon
    • 1
  • Donna M. Toll
    • 1
  • Patricia M. Whitehair
    • 1
  1. 1.Elwyn, Inc.Elwyn

Personalised recommendations