Facilitated Communication (FC), a controversial educational intervention touted for persons with autism and other non-communicative conditions, has reemerged as a viable educational option despite a number of earlier empirical studies that unequivocally identified the facilitator as the author of any communication and not the client. Several intersecting vectors including a current dearth of new empirical studies debunking the practice, the proliferation of questionable research favorable to FC, and the increased acceptance by academic journals of the legitimacy of FC have fueled this resurgence. I suggest a series of activist approaches to counter the acceptance of FC as legitimate educational practice.
BaileyJ. S. (1992). Gentle teaching: Trying to win friends and influence people with euphemism, metaphor, smoke, and mirrors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 879-883.
BiklenD. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 291-314.
6.
BiklenD.KliewerC. (2006). Constructing competence: Autism, voice, and the “disordered” body. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 169-188.
7.
BiluY.GoodmanY. (2001). The otherworldly gifts of autism: Mystical implementation of facilitated communication in the ultra-orthodox community in Israel. In SchoplerE.YirmyaN.ShulmanC. (Eds.), The research basis for autism intervention (pp. 43-55). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
8.
BoyntonJ. (2012). Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6, 3-13.
9.
BrandlC. (2001). The education of a teacher. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 36-41.
10.
BroderickA. A.Kasa-HendricksonC. (2001). “Say just one word at first”: The mergence of reliable speech in a student labeled with autism. Journal of the Association for People With Severe Handicaps, 26(1), 13-24.
11.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
CronbachL. J.SuppesP. (Eds.). (1969). Research for tomorrow’s schools: Disciplined inquiry for education. New York, NY: MacMillan.
14.
CumminsR. A.PriorM. P. (1992). Autism and assisted communication: A response to Biklen. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 228-241.
15.
DomanG.DelecatoC. (1968). Doman–Delecato philosophy. Human Potential, 1, 113-116.
16.
FattJ. P. T. (2000). Understanding the learning styles of students: Implications for educators. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 20(11/12), 31-45.
GreenC.MartinC. W.BassettK.KazanjianA. (1999). A systematic review of craniosacral therapy: Biological plausibility, assessment reliability and clinical effectiveness. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 7, 201-207.
19.
GreenG. (1992, October). Facilitated communication: Scientific and ethical issues. Paper presented at the E.K. Shriver Center University Affiliated Program Service-Related Research Colloquium Series, Waltham, MA.
20.
GreenG. (1994). The quality of the evidence. In ShaneH. C. (Ed.), Facilitated communication, the clinical and social phenomenon (pp. 157-226). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
21.
HallahanD. P.KauffmanJ. M.PullenP. C. (2014). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
22.
HallahanD. P.KauffmanJ. M. (1978). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
HudsonA. (1995). Disability and facilitated communication: A critique. In OllendickT. H.PrinzR. J. (Eds.), Advances in clinical psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 59-83). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
24.
The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. (2014). Available from http://iahp.org
25.
JacobsonJ. W.MulickJ. A.SchwartzA. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1983). Hyperactivity and diet treatment: A meta-analysis of the Feingold hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 324-330.
28.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228-239.
29.
KavaleK. A.HirshorenA.FornessS. R. (1998). Meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences: A critique of what was Dunn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(2), 75-80.
30.
KavaleK. A.MostertM. P. (2004). The positive side of special education: A history of fads, fancies, and follies. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
31.
KavaleK. A.MattsonP. D. (1983). “One jumped off the balance beam”: Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 165-173.
32.
KingC. (2006, May1). Is your kid indigo? Proponents of the theory say creative, hard-to-manage kids are more highly evolved than the rest of us. Critics doubt it. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
33.
LandrumT. J.McDuffieK. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18, 6-17.
34.
McGeeJ. J. (1992). Gentle teaching’s assumptions and paradigm. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 869-872.
35.
McGeeJ. J.MenolascinoF. J.HobbsD. C.MenousekP. E. (1987). Gentle teaching: A non-aversive approach to helping persons with mental retardation. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press.
36.
MirendaP. (2003). “He’s not really a reader”: Perspectives in supporting literacy development in individuals with autism. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 271-282.
37.
MostertM. P. (2000). A partial etiology of discriminative disability: Bandwagons and beliefs. Exceptionality, 8, 117-132.
38.
MostertM. P. (2001). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.
39.
MostertM. P. (2010). Facilitated communication and its legitimacy—Twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality, 18, 1-11.
40.
MostertM. P. (2012). Facilitated communication: The empirical imperative to prevent further professional malpractice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6, 18-27.
41.
MostertM. P.CrockettJ. B. (1999-2000). Reclaiming the history of special education for more effective practice. Exceptionality, 8, 133-143.
42.
The National Council Against Health Fraud. (2014). Available from http://www.ncahf.org
43.
PalfremanJ. (Producer). (1993, October19). Frontline: Prisoners of silence (Videotape). Boston, MA: WGBH Public Television. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXw8Ksvyt5Y
RousseauD. L. (1992). Case studies in pathological science. American Scientist, 80, 54-63.
46.
SiegelB. (1995). Brief report: Assessing allegations of sexual molestation made through facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(3), 319-326.
47.
SimpsonR. L.MylesB. S. (1995). Facilitated communication and children with disabilities: An enigma in search of a perspective. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(9), 1-16.
SpauldingL. S.MostertM. P.BeamA. P. (2010). Is Brain Gym® an effective educational intervention?Exceptionality, 18(1), 18-30.
53.
StubblefieldA. (2011). Sound and fury: When opposition to facilitated communication functions as hate speech. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4), The history of FC detraction, para. 13.
54.
WakefieldA. J.MurchS. H.AnthonyA.LinnellJ.CassonD. M.MalikM.. . . Walker-SmithJ. A. (1998). Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children [retracted]. The Lancet, 351, 637-641.
55.
WallisC. (2006, May7). Inside the autistic mind. Time Magazine.
56.
WegnerD. M.FullerV. A.SparrowB. (2003). Clever hands: Uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 5-19.
57.
WhedonS. W. (2009). The wisdom of Indigo children: An emphatic restatement of the value of American children. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 12(3), 60-76.
