Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:13:25.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the Validity of Facilitated Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Alan Hudson
Alan Hudson*
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
*
Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Plenty Road, Bundoora3083 Victoria
Get access

Abstract

The technique known as facilitated communication training involves a disabled person being physically assisted to point to letters or words in order to communicate a message. Use of the technique is controversial in that it is difficult to determine if the person providing the physical assistance is also influencing the message. The literature reports little empirical evaluation of the validity of communication using the technique. The current paper outlines a methodology which can be used to investigate whether the messages relayed using the facilitated communication technique actually are generated by the disabled person. The methodology invoves both quantitative and qualitative procedures.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , November 1992 , pp. 24 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Autism Research Institute (1992). Facilitated Communication: Courts say “no”. Autism Research Review International, 6 (3). 1 & 7.Google Scholar
Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biklen, D., Morton, M., Saha, S., Duncan, J., Gold, D., Hardardottir, M, Kama, E., O’Conner, S., & Rao, S. (1991). “IAMN NOT A UTISTIVC ON TIUE TYP” (“I’m not autistic on the typewriter”). Disability, Handicap, & Society, 6, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, R. (1992a). Communication training involving facilitated communication. In DEAL Communication Centre, Facilitated Communication Training. Melbourne: DEAL Communication Centre.Google Scholar
Crossley, R. (1992b). Who said that? In Deal Communication Centre, Facilitated Communication Training. Melbourne: DEAL Communication Centre.Google Scholar
Crossley, R. (1992c). Getting the words out: Case studies in facilitated communication. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
Cummins, B., & Prior, M. (1992). Autism and assisted communication: A reply to Biklen. Harvard Educational Review, 62,228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, A., Melita, B., & Arnold, N. (in press). Assessing the validity of facilitated communication: A case study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.Google Scholar
Intellectual Disability Review Panel. (1989). Report to the Director General on the reliability and validity of assisted communication. Melbourne, Author.Google Scholar
Jacobson, J.W., & Mulick, J.A. (1992). Speak for yourself, or & I can’t quite put my finger on it! Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 77(3). 3–7.Google Scholar
Moore, S., Donovan, B., Hudson, A., Dykstra, J., & Lawrence, J. (1992). Evaluation of facilitated communication: Eight case studies. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Moore, S., Donovan, B., & Hudson, A. (1992). Evaluation of facilitated communication : Alternative methodology but the same result. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Wheeler, D., Jacobson, J., Paglieri, R., & Schwartz, A. (1992). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. (TR#92-TA1). Schenectady, NY: O D. Heck/ER DDSO.Google Scholar