Dear Mr. Elliott,
We want to thank you for writing this article and highlighting a very controversial topic among the autism community – facilitated communication (FC). As part of our mission statement, we at The Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT) promote safe, science-based treatments for people with autism through the dissemination of accurate and scientifically sound information. We applaud many of the points that you have made in your article. This topic is an important conversation that we need to continue so that we can advocate for consumers, educators, and professionals to adopt higher standards of treatment for all individuals with autism.
Your article highlighted that as capable adults we often have more than one way to communicate (typing, writing, speaking, etc.) and also to verify our communication intent to a listener. However, individuals with autism are affected by deficits in social communication. Typically, they do not have multiple ways to communicate and, thereby, to validate their messages in a different form. Thus, as you accurately pointed out, the role of the “communication partner” is not that of a translator from one form to another form of communication but should be one of listener and responder to independently formed comments or questions (regardless of the form of the communication). The unfortunate reality is that often children and adults with autism may not be experts in using the only form of communication that they do have. They may have very limited communication in that one form, which can impact their ability to express their needs and desires at any given time and to verify and clarify their intended messages. You made a key point that the “facilitator’s” or “translator’s” role is not to interpret the message nor prompt a message but rather state verbatim what the communicator has independently formulated. This key difference in roles, translator versus communication partner, is at the core of the controversy.
There has been a long history of failed treatments and many different “fads” surrounding autism interventions. You accurately describe the dangers of using autism interventions that are not evidence based. As a best case scenario, these unsubstantiated treatments are a waste of precious time that could be spent making meaningful progress and acquiring skills via different and substantiated treatments and, as a worst case scenario, these unproven treatments may increase the likelihood that susceptible individuals incur possible harm and abuse. We encourage your readers to visit our website to learn more about what autism interventions have scientifically sound research to support them.
At ASAT, we agree that facilitated communication hasn’t disappeared and appears to be making a comeback, often under the name Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). One reason for this may be due to “naïve realism,” which is the belief that our experiences regarding treatment effectiveness override information gathered through highly controlled studies (Ross & Ward, 1996). When an individual hears or sees what may appear to be a successful story in the media, the individual believes this holds a higher value than scientific findings in research. There are additional reasons why these “fad” treatments never seem to fade completely. We encourage you to read ASAT’s Research Synopsis (Bravo, 2015) reviewing the article, “The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative, scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example” (Lilienfeld, Marshall, Todd & Shane, 2015), for more information.
We agree that supporters of FC and RPM may be playing on the emotions and hope of caregivers who are often vulnerable and desperate to “hear” an individual communicate. We highly recommend that families, caregivers, educators, and professionals turn to reputable resources such as The Association for Science in Autism Treatment and The May Institute’s National Autism Center to become savvy consumers of autism interventions. Again, we praise the amount of information that your article contained and are grateful that it will add to the growing body of articles that continue to expose fad treatments and, more importantly, educate consumers.
Sincerely,
Melissa Taylor, BCaBA and Tracie Lindblad, M.Sc., Reg. SLP (CASLPO), M.Ed., BCBA
Association for Science in Autism Treatment
References
Bravo, A. (2015). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example. Science in Autism Treatment, 12(2), 34-36.
Lilienfeld, S., Marshall, J., Todd, J., & Shane, H. (2015). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 66–101. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2014.976332. Available free for a limited time: http://goo.gl/o7DqGn.
Ross, L., & Ward, A., (1996). Naïve realism: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. Reed, & E. Turiel (ends.), Values and knowledge (pp. 547-125). Hills dale, NJ: Erlbaum
