Resolution on Facilitated Communication by the American Psychological Association Adopted

Resolution on Facilitated Communication
by the
American Psychological Association
Adopted in Council, August 14, 1994, Los Angeles, CA

Facilitated communication (FC) has been widely adopted throughout North
America in special/vocational education services for individuals with
developmental disabilities who are nonverbal.  A basic premise of
facilitated communication is that people with autism and moderate and
profound mental retardation have "undisclosed literacy" consistent with
normal intellectual functioning.  Peer reviewed, scientifically based
studies have found that the typed language output (represented through
computers, letter boards, etc.) attributed to the clients was directed or
systematically determined by the paraprofessional/professional therapists
who provided facilitated assistance (Bligh & Kupperman, 1993; Cabay, in
press; Crews et al., in press; Eberlin, McConnachie, Ibel, & Volpe, 1993;
Hudson, Melita, & Arnold, 1993; Klewe, 1993; Moore, Donovan, & Hudson,
1993; Moore, Donovan, Hudson, Dykstra, & Lawrence, 1993; Regal, Rooney, &
Wandas, in press; Shane & Kearns, in press; Siegel, in press; Simon, Toll,
& Whitehair, in press; Szempruch & Jacobson, 1993; Vasquez, in press;
Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, & Schwartz, 1993). Furthermore, it has not
been scientifically demonstrated that the therapists are aware of their
controlling influence.

Consequently, specific activities contribute immediate threats to the
individual civil and human rights of the person with autism or severe
mental retardation.  These include use of facilitated communication as a
basis for a) actions related to nonverbal accusations of abuse and
mistreatment (by family members or other caregivers); b) actions related to
nonverbal communications of personal preferences, self-reports about
health, test and classroom performance, and family relations; c) client
response in psychological assessment using standardized assessment
procedures; and d) client-therapist communication in counseling or
psychotherapy, taking therapeutic actions, or making differential treatment
decisions.  Instances are widely noted where use of facilitated
communication in otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of abuse has led to
psychological distress, alienation, or financial hardship of family members
and caregivers.  The experimental and unproved status of the technique does
not preclude continued research on the utility of facilitated communication
and related scientific issues.  Judicious clinical practice involving use
of facilitated communication should be preceded by the use of fully
informed consent procedures, including communication of both potential
risks and likelihood of benefit.

Facilitated communication is a process by which a facilitator supports the
hand or arm of a communicatively impaired individual while using a keyboard
or typing device.  It has been claimed that this process enables persons
with autism or mental retardation to communicate.  Studies have repeatedly
demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid
technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular,
information obtained via facilitated communication should not be used to
confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment
decisions.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APA adopts the position that facilitated
communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with
no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy.

References:

(1) Bligh, S. & Kupperman, P. (1993). Evaluation procedure for determining
the source of the communication in facilitated communication accepted in a
court case. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 553-557.

(2) Cabay, M. (in press). A controlled evaluation of facilitated
communication with four autistic children. Journal of  Autism and
Developmental Disorders.

(3)  Crewe, W. D., Sanders, E. C., Hensley, L. G., Johnson, Y. M.,
Bonaventura, S., & Rhodes, R. D. (in press). An evaluation of facilitated
communication in a group of nonverbal individuals with mental retardation.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

(4)  Eberlin, M., McConnachie, G., Ibel, S. & Volpe, L. (1993). Facilitated
communication: A failure to replicate the phenomenon. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 23, 507-530.

(5) Hudson, A., Melita, B., & Arnold, N. (1993). Brief report: A case study
assessing the validity of facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 23, 165-173.

(6) Klewe, L. (1993). An empirical evaluation of spelling boards as a means
of communication for the multihandicapped.  Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 23, 559-566.

(7) Moore, S. Donovan, B., & Hudson, A. (1993). Facilitator-suggested
conversational evaluation of facilitated communication.  Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 23,  541-551.

(8) Moore, S. Donovan, B., Hudson, A., Dykstra, J., & Lawrence, J. (1993).
Evaluation of facilitated communication: Eight case studies. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 531-539.

(9) Regal, R. A., Rooney, J. R., & Wandas, T. (in press). Facilitated
communication: An experimental evaluation.  Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders.

(10) Shane, H. C., & Kearns, K. (in press). An examination of the role of
the facilitator in "facilitated communication". American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology.

(11) Siegel, B. (in press). Assessing allegations of sexual molestation
made through facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders.

(12) Simon, E. W., Toll, D. M., & Whitehair, P. M. (in press). A
naturalistic approach to the validation of facilitated communication.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

(13) Szempruch, J., & Jacobson, J. W. (1993). Evaluating the facilitated
communications of people with developmental disabilities. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 14, 253-264.

(14) Vasquez, C. (in press). A multi-task controlled evaluation of
facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

(15) Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. A.
(1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental
Retardation, 31, 49-60.

PM Subject: FC Press Release

From: INTERNET:BZG.APA@email.apa.org, INTERNET:BZG.APA@email.apa.org To:
James A. Mulick, 72345,1721 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994, 3:03 PM Subject: FC
Press Release

Sender: bzg.apa@email.apa.org

From: BZG.APA@email.apa.org (Gladue, Brian) To: 72345.1721@COMPUSERVE.COM
(-) Subject: FC Press Release Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 15:03


*********************************************************
Date:  August 24,1994
Contact:  Steve Blommer Public Affairs Office (202) 336-5700

FACILITATED COMMUNICATION NOT A SCIENTIFICALLY VALID TECHNIQUE FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH AUTISM OR MENTAL RETARDATION

APA Adopts New Position On Controversial Procedure

WASHINGTON -- The American Psychological Association (APA) last week
adopted the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and
unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated
support for its efficacy. Facilitated communication is a process by which a
facilitator supports the hand or arm of a communicatively impaired
individual while using a keyboard or typing device.

This technique has been widely adopted throughout North America in
special/vocational education services for individuals with developmental
disabilities who are nonverbal.  A basic premise of facilitated
communication is that people with autism and moderate and profound mental
retardation have "undisclosed literacy" consistent with normal intellectual
functioning.  It has been claimed that this process enables persons with
autism or mental retardation to communicate; however, scientifically based
studies have repeatedly demonstrated that this is not a valid technique for
individuals with profound developmental disabilities.

"From a scientific standpoint," stated Brian A. Gladue, Ph.D., senior
scientist for the APA, "the overwhelming evidence arguing against the wide
and vast claims of facilitated communication is more than compelling.  And
this resolution by APA is yet another example of how scientists and
practitioners in psychology work together on issues that serve the best
public interest."

Furthermore, the APA stated that using facilitated communication as a basis
for actions related to nonverbal accusations of abuse or mistreatment by
family members or other caregivers could contribute to threats to the civil
and human rights of the person with autism or severe mental retardation as
well as those accused. Instances are widely noted where use of facilitated
communication in otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of abuse has led to
psychological distress, alienation or financial hardship of family members
and caregivers.

"The most serious problem with facilitated communication is that people
using it are susceptible to a strong illusion of communication where, in
fact, there is none," said James Mulick, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and
psychology, The Ohio State University and Children's Hospital, Columbus,
Ohio.  "Psychologists are now in a much better position to help and protect
people with autism and severe mental disability from being misused and
inappropriately influenced by this false training technique."

The experimental and unproved status of the technique does not preclude
continued research on the utility of facilitated communication and related
scientific issues.  Judicious clinical practice involving use of
facilitated communication should be preceded by the use of fully informed
consent procedures, including communication of both its potential risks and
benefits.

The American Psychological Association (APA),  in Washington, DC, is the
largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in
the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists.
APA's membership includes more than 124,000 researchers, educators,
clinicians, consultants and students.  Through its divisions in 48
subfields of psychology and affiliations with 57 state and Canadian
provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a
profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

#       #       #