Psychology Atlas

How The Mind Works
Studies and Experiments

Facilitated Communication Studies

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Facilitated communication was promoted from the late 1980s as a technique letting non-verbal people, particularly some autistic and intellectually disabled individuals, communicate by pointing at letters on a keyboard or board while a facilitator physically supported their arm or hand. A wave of controlled studies through the 1990s and 2000s tested whether the resulting messages actually originated from the person being facilitated.

Facts
Debunked
Key Finding
Controlled studies, including blind conditions in which the facilitator and the person being facilitated were shown different pictures or questions, repeatedly found that typed messages matched what the facilitator, not the person being facilitated, could see or know; by 2005 more than fifty controlled studies had reached this conclusion, the mechanism identified as an unconscious ideomotor effect akin to a Ouija board, and the American Psychological Association stated in 1994 that there was no scientifically demonstrated support for the technique's efficacy. 1
Study Year
1993 1
Cross-Tradition Connections

In Branch

Sources
1. Wikipedia: Facilitated Communication
Wikimedia FoundationScientific validity
Quote, Scientific validity
There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC is not a valid technique for communicating with those with autism spectrum disorder.
View the Source
1. Wikipedia: Facilitated Communication
Wikimedia FoundationOpen Questions: Why did facilitated communication persist for years after it was discredited?View the Source
Open Questions (1 open question)
Why did facilitated communication persist for years after it was discredited?

Despite more than fifty controlled studies by 2005 showing facilitators, not the person being facilitated, controlled the typed messages, and the American Psychological Association stating in 1994 there was no scientifically demonstrated support for the technique, some practitioners and family members continued to use and defend it for years afterward. The sources consulted here do not settle how much of that persistence reflects genuine belief formed from specific favorable cases versus institutional and emotional investment that made abandoning the technique difficult.

What would resolve this A study of practitioner and family decision-making that traces why individual cases and institutions continued after the aggregate controlled evidence became clear, rather than only re-testing whether the technique itself produces authentic communication.
History and sociology of science, clinical psychologyWikipedia: Facilitated Communication

Take a Related Quiz

Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.