THREE VALIDITY ARTICLES ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
by Alan Kurtz
The journal Mental Retardation has accepted for publication three articles concerning the validity of facilitated communication. In all three studies participants demonstrate that they are the authors of their typed messages.
Weiss, Wagner, and Bowman described two boys with autism. One of the boys answered questions about a story that was read to him when his facilitator was in a different room. The other boy described activities in which he had participated with short answers.
Cardinal and Hanson's work has been described in previous issues. Briefly, they examined the ability of 43 students using facilitated
Communication to pass one-word messages in blind conditions over a six week period. Only perfect spellings were accepted. Thirty eight passed at least one message. Twenty three of those were able to pass at least two messages in at least one 5 trial session.
Sheehan and Matouzzi developed a brilliant protocol for validating communication in blind conditions. FC users were provided prompts or increased structure as needed, thus preserving most of the essential features of FC as it occurs in natural conditions. All three participants validated their communication in trials in which the facilitators had no information about the information communicated.
The results of these three studies contrast dramatically with much of the previously published quantitative research on FC's validity. Message passing in blind conditions was possible in these new studies in spite of the fact that it occurred only rarely in previous experiments. How do we account for this discrepancy? Honest FC researchers must ask themselves a number of important questions. Are the various studies sampling different populations? Are their methodological differences among the studies making message passing possible in some while difficult or impossible in others? Are the controls adequate? in controlling for "facilitator influence" do some studies alter the technique they are studying? In other words do they have internal validity?
Regardless of how these questions are ultimately answered, these
new articles will change forever the debate around FC. Critics will
no longer be able to simply dismiss the technique as invalid and
unreliable without first accounting for these results.
The purpose of Facilitated Communication In Maine is to promote the appropriate use of facilitated communication through education, technical assistance, and support to people with disabilities, parents, educators, speech and language pathologists support providers, and other interested individuals. The project provides up-to-date information on current best practices, introductory and advanced workshops on the technique, resources regarding theoretical and practical components of facilitated communication and ongoing support to a network of resource persons who provide local education and support to other facilitators.
In complying with the letter and spirit of applicable laws and in pursuing its own goals of pluralism, the University of Maine shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or citizen status, age, disability, or veterans status in employment education, and all other areas of the University. The University provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. This publication is available on audiotape and upon request this material will be made available in other alternative formats to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities.