Facilitated Communication - Possibility of Third Party Influence

The article I read was entitled: "Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies." (Mostert, 2001) This review examined FC studies that were published since previous reviews by Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995). The results of the review support and confirm the conclusions reached by previous reviewers of empirical FMC literature. Studies using tight control procedures did not support FC.

Studies providing less stringent control offered mixed results. The only two studies that purported to have positive results, Cardinal et al. and Weiss et al. (as cited by Mostert, 2001) were challenged. The review felt positive results were probably due to methodological controls. Cardinal et al. (as cited by Mostert 2001) claimed that: (a) "under controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass accurate information," and (b) "measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive practice of test protocol." Cardinal's protocol (as cited by Mostert) was as follows:

The recorder asked the facilitator to come into the room.

The student was shown a word on a flash card by a "recorder"

The facilitator said the letters aloud as the student typed them and the

recorder wrote those letters on the data sheet exactly as said.

The student was always given the same positive comment regardless of a

correct or incorrect response; the facilitator left the room and the

recorder repeated the process.

There were 43 subjects ranging from ages 11 to 22, exhibiting a range of disabling conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy and developmental delays. All were identified as having severe communication disorders. Results showed that 75% of the students were able to pass information to a "blind" facilitator to a greater degree than they were able to without FC. Fifty-three percent were able to pass messages in at least 2 out of 5 trials by the end of six weeks.

Mostert felt the study had methodological problems. Possible errors in data collection, degree of possible guessing, inconsistency of researcher presence, prior knowledge, and preconceived assumptions that may have led to a desired study effect were mentioned as problems that could have affected outcomes.

It is important to note that the 27 recorders Cardinal used were teachers and other school personnel who were involved with the subjects in similar educational activities prior to the study. Here is a list of main points:

Like others, Mostert " did not "comprehend" — the possibility of "recorder" influence.

The recorder knew the words that were to be typed.

The recorders had previous relationships with the students as teachers and paraprofessionals.

The students had been using FC for sometime. (Cardinal, 95)

The teachers and paraprofessionals provided a supportive environment. I hypothesize, the "recorders" may have been sending out the image telepathically. They may have also sub-vocalized.

Weiss et al., (as cited by Mostert, 2001) studied a single subject. Study participants were the subject, an experienced "naive" facilitator and Weiss as the experimenter. With the naive facilitator absent, a short story was read to the subject by the experimenter. While the facilitator was out of the room, the experimenter asked the subject questions about the story. The subject answered with the experimenter acting as the facilitator. When the naive facilitator returned, he asked the subject the same questions about the story. Accurate responses were received on trials 1 and 3 but not on trial 2. Trials 1 and 3 occurred in the classroom and trial 2 occurred in the home. Based on the result, Weiss et al. made two claims: (a) Story information elicited by the questions emanated from the subject, not the facilitator, and (b) The subject was unexpectedly able to use inferential and abstract reasoning.

Mostert contends that this also had a problematic methodological approach. Concerns included: 1} possible experimenter influence, 2} the consolidation phase matched the test phase, 3} the experimenters did not explain why in trial 2, the questions asked of the subject were markedly different from the experimenter versus the naive facilitator, 4) a referee was only present for the third trial, and 5) inferential material passed was predictable to the story.

Based on my experiences, I further hypothesis that it is possible the subject was receiving the information from "the experimenter," who was privy to the questions. Answers may have been transferred via "mental prompts." This also helps to explain the unexplained failure in trial 2, when the questions asked of the subject were markedly from the experimenter versus the facilitator.

Mostert does not address the obvious. He suggests the possibility of physical cueing, but steers clear of the communicative relationship that occurs between sender and receiver. Based on years of personal experience, I postulate that it is possible that neither Cardinal's subjects or Weiss's subject would have achieved positive results if the third party influence were not there. I suggest the influence is not necessarily coming from the person who is providing physical support.

Mary Ann Harrington

Reference:

Cardinal D. N. (1995) Presentation of results of a validation study regarding facilitated communication . January 30, 1995 Chapman University, Orange, CA.

Mostert, M.P.(2001) Facilitated Communication since 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.

since 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.