FACILITATED COMMUNICATION a Young Woman Who Had Athetoid Cerebral Palsy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
F-Lee.qxd 2/8/2005 6:54 PM Page 201 F At St. Nicholas, Crossley became acquainted with FACILITATED COMMUNICATION a young woman who had athetoid cerebral palsy. This individual was unable to effectively communi- Facilitated communication (FC) is an augmen- cate, feed herself, or walk. Although the staff at the tative communication method that purportedly allows institution believed the young woman to have pro- persons with severe communication and other dis- found retardation, Crossley was convinced that she abilities to demonstrate an unanticipated ability to had more ability than she was given credit. Crossley communicate that significantly exceeds the bound- also considered her capable of communication if given aries of their potential abilities. Assisted by hand- assistance. over-hand support or other types of physical assistance By supporting the woman’s index finger, Crossley from an individual without disabilities, individuals found that she was able to identify many objects with disabilities thought to have limited communica- by pointing. Using a procedure similar to what is now tion and other abilities purportedly are able to type known as facilitated communication, Crossley was FC-enhanced thoughts and ideas that are extra- able to assist this young woman to read and write by ordinary. After only minimal experience with FC, pointing to letters with facilitation. In 1979, when the individuals with severe disabilities allegedly have woman was 18 years of age, she left the institution to communicated that they have normal intelligence and live with Crossley. Crossley and the young woman adept social skills and knowledge. Other individuals were instrumental in closing the St. Nicholas institu- have revealed that through FC they are for the first tion, based on claims that the staff treated residents in time in their lives able to communicate. Others with an inhumane fashion. severe disabilities have allegedly communicated that In 1986 the Dignity through Education and they are trapped within a body that prohibits them Language Communication Centre (DEAL) opened in from competently communicating with others because Victoria, Australia, to assist persons with severe com- of a condition known as global apraxia. Biklen (1992) munication disorders. Crossley introduced facilitated stated that persons with global apraxia may have nor- communication to DEAL, because of her belief that mal intelligence and language processing abilities, clients’ physical problems did not permit them to and when permitted to use FC, these individuals may, readily use standard augmentative communication indeed, reveal their normal intelligence and good devices. Facilitated communication was determined communication abilities. to be an effective communication option for many Rosemary Crossley, an Australian, is acknowl- of DEAL’s clients, including those thought to have edged as the developer of FC. During the 1970s she mental retardation and autism. worked at the St. Nicholas Institution in Melbourne Douglas Biklen is given credit for introducing with persons with multiple disabilities, most of whom facilitated communication in the United States. He saw were thought to have severe and profound retardation. FC used at the DEAL Centre, during which individuals 201 F-Lee.qxd 2/8/2005 6:54 PM Page 202 202———Facilitated Communication with severe disabilities revealed unexpected literacy validation attempts of FC violate the trust bond and abilities. Biklen was impressed by the alleged between communicator and facilitator by suggesting desire of many of these students to be in normalized that the person with a disability is incapable of educational settings and to be able to use their pur- advanced communication. Because of these factors, ported FC-supported skills in general education class- Crossley (1988) and others have contended that objec- rooms. Upon his return to the United States, Biklen tive, scientific validation of FC is not recommended. introduced FC to the Syracuse, New York, public Not withstanding the arguments against scientific school system. Based on the remarkable success he validation of FC by some proponents, the generally purportedly witnessed, Biklen (1990)wrote an article agreed-upon issue for the vast majority of profession- strongly supporting FC. als and parents is whether or not this controversial From that point, word of FC spread throughout the method “works.” That is, when physically assisted United States. Professionals and parents perceived it in communicating by a nondisabled individual, to be the breakthrough that ultimately would allow can persons with severe disabilities such as autism, people with severe disabilities to reveal their true communicate independently at a level that is signi- abilities. Remarking on the rapid spread of FC infor- ficantly above their estimated cognitive, social, and mation, Rimland (1992b) noted that “facilitated com- language abilities? munication workshops spread throughout the country Researchers have convincingly demonstrated and virtually every major newspaper, news magazine through numerous objective, scientific validation stud- and news show ran stories on facilitated communica- ies that individuals being facilitated are able to respond tion” (p. 1). Because of its interactive connection and correctly only to the extent that their facilitators have lack of scientific support, controversy also quickly the information needed to answer questions and other- became an element of FC. Thus, acceptance of FC as wise communicate, and that extraordinary communi- a valid method was widely questioned almost from cation fails to occur. In contrast, less rigorous studies the time the method was first introduced in the United and those that have used less scientific methodology States. The newsletter of the Autism Society of (e.g., anecdotal reports) have reported more positive America, Inc., The Advocate, observed that “hard evi- results. Accordingly, inconsistent research findings dence for the authenticity of FC [facilitated communi- resulting from the use of different research methods cation] is nearly nonexistent” (1992–1993, p. 19). and models confront individuals attempting to ana- Calculator (1992) also noted that “in the absence lyze the efficacy of FC. Nevertheless, there is clear of empirical evidence, this communication technique evidence that FC has not been demonstrated to be a [facilitated communication] remains one that is char- reliable and scientifically valid method. In this regard, acterized by its ambiguity, mystique, recurring scientific and valid refers to use of systematic, stan- anecdotes, and spiritual underpinnings” (p. 18). dard methods that assures others that claims of effec- The most prominent issue related to the use of tiveness are supported by objective observations, and FC as an intervention for persons with disabilities that nonobjective variables are accounted for or con- concerns authorship. Scientific FC validation studies trolled. Scientific methodology also relies on measur- have consistently concluded that when facilitators able outcomes, established research designs, empirical lack the information needed to answer questions cor- data-collection procedures, and quantitative data rectly, individuals whom these facilitators assist are analysis. In this regard, Calculator (1992) contended unable to communicate independently beyond their that, in the absence of objective scientific evidence, FC expected level. However, some advocates contend that is little more than an “Ouija Board phenomenon.” FC should not be subjected to robust forms of scien- It is also important to recognize that there have tific evaluation, because such objective scientific been reports of individuals who have allegedly been methods are ineffective in assessing the efficacy of harmed by FC. For example, Rimland (1992a) FC. This argument against scientific validation is reported that, according to the Australian newspaper, based on the contention that individuals with severe The Sunday Age, a 29-year-old woman with retarda- disabilities, especially autism, resist communication tion was removed from her home after communi- in objective, scientific studies because they resist com- cating through FC that her family had abused her municating with more than one facilitator. In addition, sexually. According to the article, the woman was proponents have argued that systematic, scientific removed from her home on two separate occasions F-Lee.qxd 2/8/2005 6:54 PM Page 203 Facilitated Communication———203 after typing, during FC, that she wanted to leave home 3. While wearing earphones the facilitator and the to escape sexual abuse. However, after being removed woman heard different questions. from the family she had purportedly asked to escape, 4. While wearing earphones the facilitator heard the woman was distraught. To establish reliability only music while the woman heard the questions. regarding the reported abuse, the Australian govern- ment contracted two facilitators, one of whom was The study revealed that under condition (1), the unfamiliar with the woman, to work with the individ- woman correctly knew 8 or 9 of the 10 items; under ual. The woman’s FC reports of sexual abuse came condition (2), she correctly answered 4 of 10 items; under serious question when she was unable to answer under condition (3she answered her own questions basic questions, such as her father’s name or the name incorrectly, but answered 4 questions correctly that of the family’s pet. Moreover, she spelled