Download Facilitated Communication: A House Divided

558830
research-article2014
RPSXXX10.1177/1540796914558830Research and Practice for Persons with Severe DisabilitiesAgran
Editorial
Facilitated Communication:
A House Divided
Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities
2014, Vol. 39(3) 175­–177
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1540796914558830
rps.sagepub.com
Martin Agran1
The value and utility of Facilitated Communication (FC), currently referred to as “supported typing,” has
been one of the most highly contested issues for TASH. TASH members come from diverse geographic,
socio-economic, academic, and cultural backgrounds, with varying opinions and perspectives, and it is not
unexpected that they would disagree about different issues (e.g., classroom vs. community-based instruction). Nevertheless, it is safe to say that a unique and exemplary quality of TASH is that its members are in
agreement with the primary goals of the TASH mission—to achieve full equality, inclusion, and meaningful
quality of life outcomes for people with significant disabilities, and the members are united in their commitment to supporting individuals in achieving these outcomes. That said, divisions in TASH exist and may
only serve to divide and prevent or stall decisions or policies that can benefit people with support needs.
One continuing division that has only served to separate TASH members is FC. Despite sharing a common
agenda, many TASH members continue to disagree about the use of FC and subsequently question the
legitimacy of their opponents’ positions—an undesirable situation for any organization. As a matter of historical perspective, a special issue about FC was published in JASH (former name of Research and Practice
for Persons With Severe Disabilities [RPSD]) in 1994 (see Halle, Chadsey-Rusch, & Reichle, 1994). In this
special issue, both proponents and opponents of FC were invited to discuss the benefits and limitations of
this practice. Halle et al. believed that it was necessary to “explore the controversy in a “reasoned and balanced fashion” (p. 149). Because of several current concerns of TASH members, it was felt that a second
special issue was necessary.
Based on a number of empirical investigations that have disproved the validity of FC, most of which
were conducted in the 1990s (Green & Shane, 1994; Simpson & Myles, 1995; Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri,
& Schwartz, 1993), many TASH members believe that FC has little value or efficacy and its use should
neither be encouraged nor supported. Such investigations suggested that FC does not produce consistent,
reliable, and predictable outcomes; has failed to suggest functional relations among or between variables;
and does not allow for systematic replication. As such, FC does not stand up to rigorous, scientific criteria
to confirm its validity and trustworthiness. It is no surprise that critics of FC reference quantitative research
(e.g., research that seeks to understand causal or functional relations based on controlled experimental studies) to debunk FC.
However, a good number of TASH members believe that the effectiveness of FC has been adequately
demonstrated in the research literature (Broderick & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001; Cardinal & Falvey, 2014;
Sheehan & Matuozzi, 1996) and may be of great value in helping individuals, who have had great difficulty
communicating their needs, wishes, and experiences, to finally have a voice. These proponents suggest that
FC is indeed a useful and effective communication practice, and has been shown to allow some individuals
in some situations to have an effective means of communication. Likewise, it is no surprise that proponents
of FC reference qualitative research (i.e., understanding phenomena based on the context in which it occurs
and the points of view of participants) to support their claims.
1University
of Wyoming, Laramie, USA
Corresponding Author:
Martin Agran, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3374, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
176
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 39(3)
As indicated previously, this difference has produced much debate and polarization, not only in terms
of preferred research methodology, but also how TASH understands and accepts (or rejects) recommended
practices. As indicated previously, based on the quantitative research conducted on the effects of FC, many
TASH members feel that as FC does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry, professionals, advocates, and parents should dismiss it as an invalid augmentative communication practice and instead choose
practices that have been “proven” to be replicable and predictable. For these TASH members, the issue is
closed. As Mostert (2010) indicated, because researchers see little point in repeatedly replicating solid
evidence around a settled empirical question, they believe that FC is a practice that should deservedly be
abandoned. But, apparently, this has not been the case. As Travers, Tincani, and Lang (2014) noted in their
article in this issue, FC has experienced a resurgence in popularity among families, professionals, selfadvocates, and advocacy groups. Case in point: At the 2013 TASH Conference, one of the keynote speakers was Peyton Goddard, who was assisted by her parents. Peyton shared personal experiences and
reflections and, in doing so, clearly promoted the use and value of FC. Peyton was well received by many
in the audience but a number of TASH members were put off by what they interpreted was an endorsement
of FC and even questioned if what Peyton shared was indeed authored by her. A number of TASH members felt that TASH was endorsing an invalid practice, which contradicted TASH’s commitment to promoting the use of valid and evidence-based practices. However, others were pleased that FC was receiving the
attention it deserved and given a voice it had been denied. Once again, TASH members were taking sides
on this issue.
Considering this division, we felt that RPSD could serve a valuable function by providing a forum for a
meaningful exchange of opinions and perspectives about FC, and an open call for a second special issue
about FC was announced. So as not to bias content, specific contributors were not invited, as was done in
the first special issue. In this call, it was emphasized that all points of view would be respected. Furthermore,
the intent of the special issue was not to persuade the reader to accept one opinion over another or to contrast opposing points of view about FC but to inform readers about the current knowledge and understandings about FC.
In response to this Call for Papers, four manuscripts were received: three critical of FC and one in favor.
In the first article, George Singer, Rob Horner, Glen Dunlap, and Mian Wang discuss the value of scienceor evidence-based practices and how such practices serve a double purpose: They provide evidence that
certain practices are efficacious (effective) and they warn or caution us about false practices that can either
be ineffective or dangerous. They argue that FC appears to belong to the latter and has thus failed to stand
up to scientific scrutiny. Also, they appeal to TASH to neither endorse nor give the impression that it is
endorsing such practices—in this case, FC—and to adopt a resolution that TASH, in both policy and practice, commit itself to scientifically-based research. Following, Jason Travers, Matt Tincani, and Russell
Lang provide detailed evidence as to why FC is not a valid (and acceptable) augmentative communication
approach and discuss why individuals promote it, despite the reported evidence that discredits it. They suggest that we need to use validated and “authentic” augmentative and alternative communication practices
that promote “independent” communication. Next, Don Cardinal and Mary Falvey review the research,
both qualitative and quantitative, that support FC; discuss how FC has changed over the last 15 years; and
suggest that FC serves as an effective procedure for individuals in specific circumstances. Last, Mark
Mostert presents a strong criticism of FC and suggests six approaches to refute FC claims and present credible evidence about its limitations.
It is hoped that by bringing this issue to the table we can better understand both the interest in and criticism about FC, and, as a result, be able to make more informed decisions about FC, specifically, and augmentative communication practices, generally.
A valued feature of RPSD are Exchange papers in which authors are invited to present thoughtful views
on current controversies or new developments in practices, curricula, or policies; as with regular manuscripts submitted, Exchange papers go through a formal review. If you believe that this issue warrants further discussion, you are invited to submit such a paper.
I trust you find this special issue of interest. Thank you!
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
177
Agran
References
Broderick, A., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2001). Say just a word at first: The emergence of reliable speech in a student
with autism. Journal for the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 13-24.
Cardinal, D., & Falvey, M. (2014). The maturing of facilitated communication: A means toward independent communication. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36.
Green, G., & Shane, H. C. (1994). Science, reason, and facilitated communication. The Journal of the Association for
Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19, 151-172.
Halle, J., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Reichle, J. (1994). Editorial introduction to special topic on facilitated communication.
The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19, 149-150.
Mostert, M. P. (2010). Facilitated communication and its legitimacy—Twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality,
18, 1-11.
Mostert, M. P. (2014). An activist approach to debunking FC. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 36.
Sheehan, C., & Matuozzi, R. (1996). Validation of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34, 94-107.
Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1995). Effectiveness of facilitated communication with children and youth with autism.
Journal of Special Education, 28, 424-439.
Singer, G., Horner, R., Dunlap, G., & Wang, M. (2014). Standards of proof: TASH, facilitated communication and the
science-based practices movement. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36.
Travers, J., Tincani, M. J., & Lang, R. B. (2014). Facilitated communication denies people with disabilities their voice.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36.
Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 31, 49-60.
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016