Please forward this error screen to sharedip-232291637. Claims Disabled people may be able to communicate by pointing at letters or with a keyboard if physically children’s report writing examples and assisted by an expert facilitator. The technique involves providing an alphabet board, or keyboard.
There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that facilitators, not the person with the communication disability, are the source of all or most messages obtained through FC, by guiding the arm of the patient towards answers they expect to see or that form intelligible language. Some promoters of the technique have countered that FC cannot be clearly disproven by testing, since a testing environment might feel confrontational and alienating to the subject. Facilitated communication is promoted as a means to assist people with severe communication disabilities in pointing to letters on an alphabet board, keyboard or other device so that they can communicate independently. The person with disabilities, who is often not able to rely on speech to communicate, is referred to as the communication partner. The caregiver, educator or other provider offering physical support to the person with disabilities is called the facilitator.
The Canon Communicator, a small, portable, lightweight device that printed a tape of letters when activated, was popular with early FC users. Former facilitator Janyce Boynton, who came to reject the technique after taking part in double-blind trials, later reported that she received training from Syracuse University that took for granted that the process worked, and that the complexity of facilitation made it hard to realise that messages were coming from her expectations and not from her patients: “When you’re facilitating, you’re so distracted by other things. The FC movement may be traced back to the 1960s in Denmark where it failed to take hold because of lack of scientific evidence. FC experienced a period of rapid growth and popularity in Australia in the 1970—1980s, largely due to the efforts of special educator Rosemary Crossley. Early adopters of the technique praised FC for its apparent simplicity.
Many people believed FC had passed its peak, dismissing it as a fad and characterizing it as pseudo-scientific. All the newer pro-FC studies operate from the premise that FC works and is a legitimate practice to be used in investigating any number of other phenomena related to people with autism and other related severe communication problems. Such assumptions increasingly morph FC into a valid intervention among readers who are unaware of the empirical dismissal of the intervention and who might not be skilled in distinguishing solid from suspect research. RPM deny similarities with FC because the aide or facilitator in RPM holds the letter board but “does not touch the person typing” and that the prompts are “nonspecific.
The Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals and Disabilities Inc. One of the central questions regarding facilitated communication is who is really doing the communicating. Facilitators using the technique reported unexpected literacy skills in people otherwise thought to be nonverbal, illiterate and incapable of learning more than basic life skills. FC workshops, training materials, newsletters and newspaper accounts of its use contained emotionally compelling stories—alleged breakthroughs using FC—and, often, espoused the sentiment that FC could empower people with disabilities to “speak” for themselves for the first time.