If only there were some sort of simple test to determine if it’s the kid who’s typing, or the facilitator…
Joking aside, of course testing is the best way in any particular case.
But I think you can take a step back and ask some common sense questions to arrive at likely conclusions:
*Is the person “communicating” looking AT the keyboard or letter board or computer screen or whatever tool they use? Or are they staring in the other direction, seemingly unaware that the keyboard even exists?
*Is their hand in a static “home” position, off of which small movements can be made by touch, learned by repetition, or is their hand waving around in mid-air with no reference point?
*Does the disabled person ever *initiate *conversation, or is it always a matter of replying to what the facilitator asks?
*Is there a clear signal for “no, you got that wrong, please try to interpret my words again” or does the facilitator decide what’s correct without verification from the facilitated?
*Does the disabled person ever say things that the facilitator disagrees with, or couldn’t know about?
*Is the facilitation repeatable by other facilitators - could I sit with the child and use your technique to get meaningful results, or is this the result of some special secret bond that only you have?
For my disabled friend, the answers make sense - she often initiates conversation, as well as answering questions or adding spontaneous comments to ongoing conversation. She can shake her head in a recognizable “no” for negation. Anyone, even you, can learn to communicate with her in a matter of minutes, although fluency takes a lot of practice. And, of course, if you show her a picture or whisper a word into her ear and not mine, together we can tell you what that picture or word is.
Is my friend’s communication facilitated? Absolutely. But it’s legitimate, those are her words, not mine, and it’s terribly easy to tell without expensive testing.
In a form of facilitated communication that was used by my daughters therapists did work. So not all is bogus. They used a board with pictures/actions on it and guided her to point to the actions/items she wanted while guiding her to them. She now uses the board herself unguided, with 25 items/actions. (ie Jaelyn want drink, Jaelyn want cereal, Jaelyn tired) almost PECS like but not exactly.
Yeah not exactly the same but this is from a previously uncommunicative considered low(more recent medium) functioning autistic child.
She is also starting to be guided in using touchscreen computer, not to type but to use a far more advanced method of PECS.
So in summary I don’t think all FC is “fake”
That is not facilitated communication.
So what is the facilitator doing that Jaelyn can’t do herself? If Jaelyn can select the words or pictures herself, why involve another person? And if she cannot (lack of muscle control?), how do you know the facilitator is doing what Jaelyn wishes? Mental telepathy?
What criterion did you use to determine that the FC used by your daughters “worked”? Was there any action that would have convinced you that it did not?
In other words, if she points to one of the 25 symbols, how do you know that’s the one she desires? Would there be a wrong answer? If Jaelyn wanted cereal and she pointed to “Jaelyn tired”, how would you know that was wrong?
It would be simple to try something like this: Give her something other than what she’s apparently asking for, and see how she reacts.
In fact I can’t see any ethical problem with trying this out.
Hmm…
Would you mind trying this out?
-FrL-
I suggest one improvement on this test. Let someone else make the determination that she reacted favorably or unfavorably, without knowing what symbol was chosen and what object was supplied until after the results are tallied. Otherwise, we have too much experimenter bias to account for.
Also control for unconscious cueing by the facilitator. RE: Clever Hans.
Compare Washoe, Koko, Nkisi and other animals who have supposedly been taught to communicate with humans. When the ape associated a symbol with the proper object, she was credited with intelligence. If she chose something else, the experimenter said, “She’s just kidding. She does that all the time.” Or, “She’s making a pun on the word.” Or, “She’s just doing that to annoy me.”
In the example that RyJae gave, the child is now communicating unaided through the use of the system. There is no facilitated communication occurring. The only testing that is necessary is to evaluate her response to her own communication to assess whether she is satisfied with the response to the communication she initiated.
During the training, it sounds like there was some assistance in using the proper communication for the desired outcome, but this is essentially no different than teaching any communication to any child - the child has to learn what communication is associated with a particular desired outcome. I would say that the validity of that training is supported by the child’s currently unaided use of communication to successfully express her needs.
This is not facilitated communication.
The FC program at the university linked to above counts this kind of thing as an example of FC. As I’ve said above, it appears that “FC” turns out to be a very broad category. Of course this means there can’t be a test of “FC” in general, but rather, there have to be tests of each of the various FC techniques. (And probably even for the ones that show a positive result in general studies, individuals would still need to be tested in order to confirm it really is working for them.)
-FrL-
One of the more obvious warning signs of bad Facilitated Communication is something I call Damaged Angel Syndrome, where the claim is not only that the child is able to communicate, but is able to do so near-genius levels. Ideas and phrases spring forward that are apparently learned by a combination of osmosis and telepathy, since said child certainly didn’t learn them by reading about them. not surprisingly, this “genius” never seems to extend beyond the knowledge and interests of the facilitator.