Brief report: assessing allegations of sexual molestation made through facilitated communication

Adverse event reporting in intervention research for young autistic children

LAY ABSTRACT

In this study, we looked at published research on interventions for young autistic children that did not involve administering medication. We were interested in determining how often studies reported on whether adverse events (i.e. physical or psychological distress to the participants) or adverse effects (i.e. adverse events that are thought to be caused by the intervention) had occurred. We found that of the 150 reports we examined, only 11 mentioned adverse events. One of these studies reported adverse events occurred, and three reported that adverse effects occurred. We also reviewed the studies to examine the reasons that were given to explain why any participants dropped out of the intervention (termed "withdrawal"), to determine if any of these reasons could be considered adverse events or adverse effects. Fifty-four studies described reasons for withdrawal, and 10 of these studies had reasons that could be categorized as an adverse event, 8 studies had reasons that could be categorized as an adverse effect, and an additional 12 studies had reasons that were too vaguely described to determine whether they were adverse events or not. We recommend that autism intervention researchers develop more systematic methods of looking for and reporting adverse events and effects, so that professionals and families can be better informed when choosing to enroll their autistic children in interventions.

Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique whereby individuals with disabilities and communication impairments allegedly select letters by typing on a keyboard while receiving physical support, emotional encouragement, and other communication supports from facilitators. The validity of FC stands or falls on the question of who is authoring the typed messages--the individual with a disability or the facilitator. 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. The purpose of this paper is to report this synthesis of the extant peer-reviewed literature on the question of authorship in FC. 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. 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. 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.

Voices from the past: comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication

OBJECTIVE

This article briefly reviews the history and damage caused by facilitated communication (FC) and highlights the parallels between FC and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM).

BACKGROUND

FC involves a therapist (or facilitator) supporting the hand of a person with autism while a message is typed on a letter board. FC is widely acknowledged to be a pseudoscientific, unsafe, and unethical treatment for people with autism. RPM is a more recent intervention for people with autism that involves the facilitator holding and moving the letter board while the individual with autism moves their own hand. Those who espouse the perceived benefits of FC and RPM make strikingly similar claims of hidden intelligence and extraordinary communication abilities in people with autism following treatment.

CONCLUSION

Clients, proponents, and practitioners of RPM should demand scientific validation of RPM in order to ensure the safety of people with disabilities that are involved with RPM.

Clever hands: uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication

Five studies examined how people who are answering questions on behalf of another person may use their own knowledge to answer correctly while attributing authorship of their answers to the other. Experiments 1 and 2 found that participants instructed to answer yes/no questions randomly were unable to do so. They were more often correct on easy than hard questions, and extended opportunity and incentive did not reduce this effect. Experiments 3-5 found similar correctness for participants who were asked to answer yes/no questions by sensing either the ostensible keyboard finger movements or unvoiced inclinations of another person who had been admonished not to answer, and who was infact a confederate and was not even given the questions. In this paradigm, the answers were often attributed to the other.