ABA-International Conference 2009 blog: "Facilitated Communication Lives"

In this paper session from the 2009 ABA International Annual Conference in Phoenix, AZ, James T. Todd, Ph.D. will be presenting on Facilitated Communication--which persists despite numerous research reports of lack of effect and facilitator influence, and may be undergoing a resurgence of use for those with developmental disabilities.

page 8, Figure: Popular Media Citations for Faciliated Communications,
Autism and Related Developmental Disabilities Special Interest Group Newsletter, Winter 2009, 25(1). Special issue on Alternative Treatments.
Based on a poster presented by Jennifer Wick and Tristram Smith, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center at the International Meeting For Autism Research (IMFAR) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada (May, 2006).

He will also be presenting on a recent unfortunate court case in Michigan reminiscent of similar in the early '90's where charges were based on facilitated testimony.

Frontline: Prisoners of Silence. 55 min.
Originally broadcast on PBS, October 19th, 1993, 55min.

Transcript of the program
BAAM Science Watch on the program

---------------
#47 Paper Session
5/23/2009
2:30 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.
North 126
AUT
Facilitated Communication Lives
Chair: James A. Mulick (The Ohio State University)

They Don't Make Coffin Nails Like They Used to: Facilitated Communication Rises Again. (Applied Behavior Analysis) JAMES T. TODD (Eastern Michigan University)

Abstract:

Deep into its third decade, the advocates of facilitated communication (FC) have failed to produce a single properly controlled peer-reviewed study showing that their method works, much less a body of credible research supporting their fanciful claims. During the same period, researchers of all stripes, from radical behaviorists to cognitive psychologists, have not only demonstrated that FC does not produce independent communication, they have repeatedly shown that the typed output comes from the facilitator rather than the communicator. Despite the total failure of FC in the scientific realm and its abandonment by almost everyone in the 1990s, FC seems to be making a comeback. FC is found again in schools. It gets administrative support at universities. It is promoted by major autism organizations. It is touted in a best-selling augmentative communication textbook. It receives considerable positive coverage from the media. False FC accusations are sending people to prison. FC is even used, and presumably advocated, by some BCBAs. This address will describe the basic features of FC as it is currently practiced--showing what has changed and what has not--and examine the factors that have allowed this menace to creep back from its well-deserved oblivion.

How the Court Accepted Superstition and Rejected Science: The Michigan Facilitated Communication Horror Story. (Applied Behavior Analysis) JAMES T. TODD (Eastern Michigan University)

Abstract:

Falsely accused through facilitated communication (FC) of raping his daughter, a Michigan man spent 80 days in jail before all charges were dropped. His wife, also accused, was placed on an electronic tether. The children were taken away. The girl's 13-year-old developmental disabled younger brother was subjected to an intense police interrogation in which he was lied to about evidence implicating his parents. Despite (1) hearing no testimony supporting the validity of the facilitated accusations, (2) having no good physical evidence that a crime had occurred, (3) seeing two failed in-court tests of FC, (4) hearing two experts testify to the lack of scientific support for FC, (5) having a credible alibi provided by an Orthodox Rabbi against additional charges, and (6) discovering many errors in accusations themselves, the court nevertheless accepted the accusations and refused to allow further scientific testimony on the reliability of FC. This address will describe how a Michigan court could accept FC in the first place, then reject science and direct evidence to rule that FC is a valid means of communication. It will also show the extreme danger this fallacious legal theory poses for those accused of crimes through FC.

---------------
References and for further reading

Schreck, K.A., & Mazur, A. (2008). Behavior analyst use of and beliefs in treatments for people with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 23(3), 201-212.
DOI: 10.1002/bin.264

Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(3), 287-313.
DOI 10.1023/A:1010795219886

Jacobson, J.W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A.A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50(9), 750-765.
DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.750

Montee, B.B., Miltenberger, R.G., Wittrock, D., Watkins, N., Rheinberger, A., & Stackhaus, J. (1995). An experimental analysis of facilitated communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 189-200.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-189.

Facilitated Communication
Research Autism UK
8/5/09

p.11, An Interview with Gina Green, Ph.D., BCBA
Autism and Related Developmental Disabilities Special Interest Group Newsletter, Winter 2009, 25(1). Special issue on Alternative Treatments.

Facilitated Communication news items from BAAM

Facilitated Communication: Sifting the Psychological Wheat from the Chaff

What's the harm in Facilitated Communication?

Policy statements

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1993, October). Policy statement of facilitated communication. AACAP Newsletter, February 1994.
American Association on Mental Retardation (1994). AAMR Board approves policy on facilitated communication. AAMR News & Notes, 7 (1), 1.
American Psychological Association (1994). Resolution on facilitated communication by the American Psychological Association. Adopted in Council, August 14, 1994, Los Angeles, California.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1995, March). Position statement on facilitated communication. ASHA, 37, 22.
Association for Behavior Analysis. (1995). Statement on facilitated communication. ABA Newsletter, 18 (2).
A statement of reaffirmation for this policy was published on May 1, 2006.
POLICY STATEMENT
American Academy of Pediatrics (1998). Auditory integration training and facilitated communication for autism. Pediatrics, 102(2), 431-433.