1. Facilitated Communication FC is a method of assisting people with severe developmental disabilities to communicate Before it was adopted as a teaching-treatment technique, it was supported only by descriptive and anecdotal reports It involves providing physical support to people with diabilities as they type out messages on a keyboard Appears to result in unexpected literacy and intellectual skills Jaconbson, J.W., Mulick, J.A., Schwarts, A.A. (1995). History of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience: Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 9, 750-765.

2. Origins of FC Australia, 1970s Rosemary Crossley used FC with 12 children said that it showed that the children had normal intellectual skills (findings later disputed) 1989 Douglas Biklen at Syracuse adopted the technique and published articles reporting successful use of FC using qualitative and descriptive methodologies. There were no unambiguous, objective measures used for baseline or posttreatment assessment

3. Spread of FC Special education professionals, parents began to promote use of PC. Reports of success were published (not in peer- reviewed journals). Reports of evidence against FC that emerged were ignored – practitioners said that FC could not be scientifically tested – other words, had to be accepted on faith

4. FC – reports of abuse Margolin (1994) reported that at least 60 allegations of sexual abuse in the US made through facilitated communication resulted in caregivers being charged with abuse. Families separated, people lost their jobs, accusations had devastating effects on family Courts began to question the source of the allegation; people began to question the validity and reliability of FC

5. Experimentally evaluating FC Conventional research designs (double blind procedures, repeated measures, controls) showed that when access to information by the facilitator was manipulated, the communication through FC varied in a manner that showed that the content was determined by the facilitator. Facilitators not trying to deceive anyone, (weren’t aware of their influence, like with the Ouija board) (see 20/20 video)

6. FC as Pseudoscience Demonstrations of benefits based on anecdotes or testimonials Baseline abilities and possibility of spontaneous improvement ignored Scientific procedures disavowed – research interferes with the trusting relationship between client and facilitator, users anxious when tested, undermines facilitator’s confidence Those who used FC unsuccessfully blamed for not doing it correctly or for not believing that it will work.

7. Why did people accept FC? Professionals holding antiscientific view of human behavior Parents, motivated to help their children with disabilities, seemed to reveal that their disabled children had normal intellectual functioning Lack of skepticism “There are no miracles in mental health. All of us wish FC were true, but the facts simply do not allow scientists and critical thinkers to replace knowledge with wish” (Green, 1994)