Facilitated communication: possibility of influence of third parties

This article examines facilitated communication, a controversial process, in which support for the hands or arms is provided to people, often diagnosed with severe autism, who are unable to write on their own. Two studies (Cardinal et al. And Weiss et al.) Showed positive results. These studies were reviewed (Mostert, 2001), however I doubt that the reviewer considered all variables. What do you think?

“Communication facilitated since 1995: A review of published studies” (Mostert, 2001) examined CF studies that were published from earlier reviews by Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995). The results of the review support and confirm the conclusions reached by previous reviewers of the FMC empirical literature. Studies using strict control procedures did not support HR.

Studies that provided less strict control had mixed results. The two studies that claimed to have positive results, Cardinal et al. and Weiss et al. (cited by Mostert, 2001) were questioned. The reviewer considered that the positive results were probably due to the methodological controls. Cardinal et al. (cited by Mostert 2001) stated that: (a) “under controlled conditions, some users of facilitated communication can transmit accurate information”, and (b) “measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions can significantly benefit from extensive practice of the test protocol. “Cardinal’s protocol (cited by Mostert) was as follows:

1. The recorder asked the facilitator to come into the room.

2. A “tape recorder” showed the student a word on a flash memory card out of the facilitator’s sight.

3. The facilitator said the letters aloud as the student typed them.

4. The recorder wrote those letters on the data sheet exactly as stated.

5. The student was always given the same positive comment regardless of a correct or incorrect answer.

6. The facilitator left the room and the recorder repeated the process.

There were 43 subjects ranging in age from 11 to 22, displaying a variety of disabling conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and developmental delays. All were identified with severe communication disorders. The results showed that 75% of the students were able to pass information to a “blind” facilitator to a greater degree than they could without FC. Fifty-three percent were able to pass messages in at least 2 out of 5 trials at the end of the six weeks.

Mostert felt that the study had methodological problems. Possible errors in data collection, degree of possible guesswork, inconsistency of investigator presence, prior knowledge, and preconceived assumptions that may have led to a desired study effect were mentioned as issues that could have affected the results. .

There are other variables that I think were overlooked. It is important to note that the 27 Cardinal recorders used were teachers and other school personnel who participated with the subjects in similar educational activities and who had provided a supportive environment prior to the study. Mostert did not consider the possibility of influence of the recorder through mental cues from the recorder.

• The recorder knew the words to be written.
• Recorders had prior relationships with students as teachers and paraprofessionals.
• The students had been using FC for some time. (Cardinal, 95)
• I suppose the recorders may have been sending the image using a form of telepathy. They may also have subvocalized.

Weiss et al., (Cited by Mostert, 2001) studied a single topic. The study participants were the subject, an experienced “naive” facilitator, and Weiss, as the experimenter. With the naive facilitator absent, the experimenter read a story to the subject. While the facilitator was out of the room, the experimenter asked the subject questions about the story. The subject responded with the experimenter acting as a facilitator. When the naive facilitator returned, he asked the subject the same questions about the story. Precise responses were received in trials 1 and 3, but not in trial 2. Trials 1 and 3 occurred in the classroom and trial 2 occurred in the home. Based on the result, Weiss et al. made two statements: (a) the information in the story obtained by the questions emanating from the subject, not the facilitator, and (b) the subject was unexpectedly able to use inferential and abstract reasoning.

Mostert argues that this too had a problematic methodological approach. Concerns included: 1} possible influence of the experimenter, 2} the consolidation phase coincided with the testing phase, 3} the experimenters did not explain why in trial 2, the questions asked of the subject were markedly different from those of the experimenter versus to the naive facilitator, 4) a referee was only present for the third test, and 5) the transmitted inference material was predictable for the story.

Based on my experiences, I hypothesize that it is possible that the subject was receiving the information via telepathy from the “experimenter” who was aware of the questions.

I suggest, based on personal experience, that the influence does not necessarily come from the person providing the physical support, but may come from another party with knowledge of the information. The responses may have been transferred from the experimenter through inadvertent “mental cues”. This also helps to explain the inexplicable failure in test 2, when the questions asked of the subject were markedly from the experimenter versus the facilitator.

Mostert suggests the possibility of physical signals, but departs from the communicative relationship that occurs between the sender and the receiver. Based on years of personal experience, I posit that it is possible that Cardinal’s subjects and Weiss’s subject achieved positive results with a naive facilitator because the recorders and experimenter may have inadvertently hinted at them through mental cues. (I have had similar experiences. For example, one day I was facilitating with a child and he typed Tom. I said, Tom ??? I was confused because it was out of the context of our interaction. Then my assistant, who was next to me, told me : Oh sorry, I was just thinking about my friend Tom.)

Resume:

I guess the source of information varies. Many children can pick up on my mental cues, whether I participate in facilitation or not. I have seen information collected from other people in the room besides the facilitator. They may also communicate with each other. As far as I know, there have been no formal studies of mental and / or subvocal cues. It should have been a long time ago. It’s time for us to come together, ask the right questions, and get down to business!

Mary Ann Harrington MA

Reference:

Cardinal DN (1995) Presentation of results of a validation study on facilitated communication. January 30, 1995 Chapman University, Orange, CA.

Mostert, MP (2001) Communication facilitated since 1995: a review of published studies Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.

Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.