Facilitated Communication - Possibility Of Third Party Influence


Written on February 22, 2008 – 4:22 am | by admin

This article examines facilitated communication, a controversial process, where hand or arm support is provided to individuals, often diagnosed with severe autism, who are unable to type on their own. Two studies (Cardinal et al. and Weiss et al.) showed positive results. These studies were reviewed, (Mostert, 2001) yet, I question whether the reviewer considered all the variables. What do you think?

“Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies,” (Mostert, 2001) examined FC studies that were published since previous reviews by Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995). The results of the review support and confirm the conclusions reached by previous reviewers of empirical FMC literature. Studies using tight control procedures did not support FC.

Studies providing less stringent control offered mixed results. The two studies that purported to have positive results, Cardinal et al. and Weiss et al. (as cited by Mostert, 2001) were challenged. The reviewer felt positive results were probably due to methodological controls. Cardinal et al. (as cited by Mostert 2001) claimed that: (a) “under controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass accurate information,” and (b) “measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive practice of test protocol.” Cardinal’s protocol (as cited by Mostert) was as follows:

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

2. The student was shown a word on a flash card by a “recorder” out of view of the facilitator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The recorder knew the words that were to be typed.
  • The recorders had previous relationships with the students as teachers and paraprofessionals.
  • The students had been using FC for sometime. (Cardinal, 95)

    • I hypothesize, the recorders may have been sending out the image telepathically. They may have also sub-vocalized.

    Weiss et al., (as cited by Mostert, 2001) studied a single subject. Study participants were the subject, an experienced “naive” facilitator, and Weiss, as the experimenter. With the naive facilitator absent, a short story was read to the subject by the experimenter. While the facilitator was out of the room, the experimenter asked the subject questions about the story. The subject answered with the experimenter acting as the facilitator. When the naive facilitator returned, he asked the subject the same questions about the story. Accurate responses were received on trials 1 and 3 but not on 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 claims: (a) Story information elicited by the questions emanated from the subject, not the facilitator, and (b) The subject was unexpectedly able to use inferential and abstract reasoning.

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

    Based on my experiences, I hypothesis that it is possible the subject was receiving the information telepathically from “the experimenter,” who was privy to the questions.

    I suggest, based on personal experience, that influence does not necessarily come from the person who is providing physical support, but can come from another party privy to the information. Answers may have been transferred from the experimenter via inadvertent “mental prompts.” This also helps to explain the unexplained failure in trial 2, when the questions asked of the subject were markedly from the experimenter versus the facilitator.

    Mostert suggests the possibility of physical cuing, but steers clear of the communicative relationship that occurs between sender and receiver. Based on years of personal experience, I postulate that it is possible that Cardinal’s subjects and Weiss’s subject achieved positive results with a naive facilitator because the recorders and the experimenter may have inadvertently cued them via mental prompts. ( 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 context of our interaction. Then my assistant who was standing next to me said, Oh, I’m sorry, I was just thinking about my friend Tom.)

    Summary:

    I hypothesize that the source of the information varies. Many children can pick up my mental prompts whether I’m engaged in facilitation or not. I have seen some glean information from others in the room besides the facilitator. It is possible that they also communicate with each other. To my knowledge, formal studies of mental and/or sub-vocal prompts have not occurred. It is long overdue. It is time we come together, ask the right questions and get to work!

    Mary Ann Harrington MA

    Reference:

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

    Mostert, M.P.(2001) Facilitated Communication 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.

    I have used FC as a strategy in conjunction with many others. I am not consumed with “who” is emanating the communication. My experience indicates that Influence can and does occur. The connection between the person typing and the facilitator or agent is a phenomenon that needs to be acknowledged. I hypothesize that the source of the information itself varies and is dependent on the individuals involved. Thought sharing; right brain connection; savant skill; vibration frequency matching; shared energy field; open hearted joining; access of higher level of consciousness; entrainment, spirit/soul connection; telepathy; entanglement. Pick the words you are comfortable with. Questions and comments are appreciated.

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

    Share This

    Related Posts

    Post a Comment