Talk:Facilitated communication/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please note: this is an archive page. New content should be added at the active Talk:Facilitated_communication page.


Contents

FCT vs FC

This page should be titled "Facilitated Communication Training". I have made the page for "Facilitated Communication".

I would also like to see slid evidence that "Facilitted Communication Training" started in 1977. I never heard of it until the late Nineties.


Reference for FC /FCT starting in 1977

Rosemary Crossley, founder of the method, on the first page of the "Introduction"chapter of her book Crossley, R., 1994, Facilitated Communication Training, Teachers College Press, New York: "My initial use of facilitated communication had no theoretical basis. It was a measure forced upon me by circumstances. After teaching children with cerebral palsy for five years, in 1977 I started to try and devise a means of communication for a socially responsive sixteen year-old with athetoid cerebral palsy and no intelligible speech, who had been labelled profoundly intellectually impaired."

Comments to the version by DavidWBrooks

Thank you very much for the editing. It improved my proposal very much. I would like to make some remarks: To my knowledge most proponents would not describe FC as a therapy. They would describe it as a communication method or as an instructional method. Did you have any reasons for calling it a therapy? Otherwise I would prefer to eliminate the term "therapy" in the context of FC. As far as I know Rosemary Crossley did not coin the terminus "Facilitated Communication method" as a consequence of the controversy about the method. She coined it much earlier and the differences between FC and FCT are conceptualized in different manners, that are not consistent with each other (by different authors, sometimes by the same author in different articles, sometimes by the same author in the same text). The version you wrote is not correct. When it is mentioned that Mr. Schawlow's son is facilitated on the shoulder, than it should be mentioned also, that during the experimental studies it has been demonstrated that 100% facilitator guiding is possible only by touching the shoulder (after months or years of training of course). If this is not mentioned, the information about the shoulder-touch is misleading in my opinion, because people will assume that this person is communicating via FC.

Yes, perhaps the therapeutic effect is more for the parents than the child!
Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up on the differnce between FC and FCT ... remember, this is a general encyclopedia article designed to provide anybody, including those with no knowledge of the matter, a basic understanding of the topic - it is not a detailed treatise for medical personnel or patients. Every medical practice splinters into variants; If it requires paragraph after paragraph to detail the differences then we're probably in the wrong arena to do it. If you can summarize the matter without being misleading (which is difficult, I know) then do so, but otherwise perhaps it would be enough just indicating that Crossley has developed a somewhat different variant and not to get into detail about which parts get touched by who for how long.

I agree. I tried to solve it by linking to the original publications. So someone who is more interested in the details has a starting point for investigation.

David Brooks did an "edit war" number by wiping out my last improvements to the article. It's recommended that discussion should come first.

The changes I made were to insert the theories of the practitioners to balance those of the skeptics which were already in there and that I didn't change. Please discuss before being a butthead and changing it back. I would also like to know alittle about the experience and connection to autism and disabilities of those contributing. I'm a worker of thirty years in disabilites, a leading autism and FC advocate and an experienced Wikipedian of five years. QIM

Within minutes of my revision, "Almuth" changed the article back. I can't work with blatantly biased and unprofessional (NPOV) people here, not to mention people who intentionally break Wikipedia's rules. I will contact Wikipedia staff. Almuth has no other history here at Wikipedia and is clearly using this space for his agenda. He should be removed from Wikipedia QIM

Objections to QIM's changes

Well, here's a problem or two, with the bolded stuff being items you have added, QIM:

Shortly afterwards double-blind studies were done on the method and it failed miserably, giving the appearance that it was the facilitator who was unconsciously producing the communication.

... "giving the appearance"? there's no alternative! Why don't you just write "leading those close-minded science types who don't accept this valuable field to say ..."

OK Mr Science, where are the studies that PROVE it's the facilitator producing the communication instead of the communicator using FC? Science isn't based on "appearances" which is exactly what you are basing your conclusions on. QIM

And how about this: Practitioners also theorize that the communicators have strong empathetic abilities and can produce what the facilitators want in much the same way as happens in most communication.

... Come on, that's absurd: That's saying it's done by ESP! Why not bring in crystal power, too? Don't expect that to be included in an NPOV encyclopedia article.

You're jumping to conclusions here. I'm the one advocating a scientific approach and you're the one jumping to unscientific conclusions. I wasn't speaking of ESP in the above comment, but even if I were it would still be a legitimate object of science. Didn't the pentagon use it in a multi-million dollar program? What I was speaking of above is the natural tendency to know what people are going to say, ESP or no ESP. QIM

On a calmer note, perhaps you could create a Wiki account (no personal information need be given out) so you could sign your posts with the time and date, like this - and like I neglected to do a couple months ago, higher up; my apologies) - DavidWBrooks 00:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have had an account for several years now but hadn't signed in the last time here. Click the "QIM" after my entries, that should help. QIM
By the way, you are correct that I should not have reverted your edits so brusquely back when I did, but discussed them here first. I apologize. - DavidWBrooks 00:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Apology accepted. QIM


Objections to Qim's changes Part II

I also want to apalogize for having been so quick with the change, but I had been in a very upset temper, because I found the changes just two minutes after I had finished a long phone call with a friend who works with autistic students and told me that one after the other get taken away their communication aids und other aids (cf. structured and visualized environment) because they get now FC-training and after having been trained to produce those texts they are mistaken for being very intelligent and feeling offended if you expect them to use picture systems or manual signs.

Where I did FC we used picture books and FC. The picture books were for staff that couldn't or wouldn't FC. Before FC came along we weren't able to get our picture book or any other communication program going for the long term. It has to do with the dynamics of the work and nature of communication systems that caused the problem and that FC overcame. There's a big difference between being an academic in the field as opposed to someone who actually does the work. The latter, which includes myself, usually have no say. QIM

I was so upset, because there is so much destroyed, and then I found the changes and got very angry. But of course I should have discussed it before, that is true. And I really regret my sometimes very immature impulsive nature. Maybe it gets better when I am still more older.

Apology accepted. You seem a sincere chap. If you or David want to discuss this more thoroughly I invite you both to my autism discussion group..."Autismlist" at yahoogroups (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/autismlist/?yguid=10837983) QIM

Now to my reasons: DavidWBrooks has mentioned two. Other reasons were, that the added link, that should show that there are independant writers now, did not link to a site about writers using FC but to a site about a boy using the Rapid Prompt Method. No mentioning of FC there.

The "Rapid Prompt Method" is actually one of many styles of FC. Only a person who has done FC would know that. Since FC is relatively new and has been suppressed for most of it's history, these kind of misunderstandings and anomolies exist around the method. It's actually the communicators who determine the style of the method, or should determine it. QIM

Therefore the link is not appropriate.

If you had any familiarity with the method you would know it was appropriate. Or you could just observe a variety of facilitating methods and see that RPM is just one style. QIM

Another reason was the remark about the motor problems of people with autism, that should hinder them to write down their thoughts. As far as I know this claim is unsubstantiated, it is only an ad-hoc-hypothesis by the proponents to explain the alleged success of the method. Two years ago I did search for any evidence for this hypothesis, evidence that is independent of FC. I did not find any empirical support, I found only one study that tried to prove this claim but this study did not have a positive outcome.

Simple observation of at least some autistics shows clearly that they have serious motor problems. I thought there had been some studies on this and I will look into it and get back to you. But we should remember that no theory for autism has any conslusive evidence, even the vaunted ABA which is now a huge industry. I bet you support that. QIM

Beneath, the hypothesis as such is not a very lucky one, because there are FC-writers that can type independently, but in those cases the level of the independent writing corresponds to their other competencies (while the level of the FC-writing is much higher than it is to be expected by their competencies). A good example is the young woman, that has been studied by Twachtman-Cullen: Without FC she types simple words and sentences, with FC she writes in a much more sophisticated manner. Allmuth Bober, 25.11.04, 22:57 (in Germany)

My theory of autism is that all classically diagnosed autistics are symptomatic of genius and not retardation. Savant abilities are the tip of the iceberg so to speak. The physical support of FC allows the autistics to access their genius and knowledge. That's why she types more profoundly with FC. Twatchman-Cullen's book on FC was a blatant hatchet job and should be a model for anyone in the social sciences who wants to jump on popular sentiment to make money and further their careers at the expense of truth and science. QIM

A note on wiki style commentary

A general comment to all: Please don't go back and intersperse your comments into somebody else's previously written comments - that quickly makes it very hard to figure out who has said what, and when. It gets very confusing! Just append your new comments at the bottom of the page - you can cut-and-paste a quote from somebody else to respond to, if necessary - just make sure it's clear to other readers who is saying what. This makes for a long page, I know, but from experience I can say that interspersing comments is a quick route to mass confusion.

QIM, I'm afraid you show the classic signs of somebody holding a non-mainstrain belief (in your case, that most autistics are hidden geniuses) who is determined to use wikipedia as a forum. Sorry, that's not what wikipedia is: it's not an advocacy center for particular beliefs. So I'm going to continue undoing many of your edits when they veer wildly from accepted beliefs supported by reasonable evidence. - DavidWBrooks 20:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


another try

I tried to change the article to a more neutral version. As far as I know (before me are six folders, containing all german, english, french and danish FC-publications, I am writing a book about FC) there is no study where a facilitated person has demonstrated better communitive competence with FC than without, all the hits where persons who had been facilitated although they could write without facilitation as well. Therefore I corrected this passage. I corrected too the part about the Rapid prompt method. Maybe insiders consider it as FC, but as no one knows it (officially it is not FC) I do not think that it should be covered under this label. Maybe we can get a consense in first discussing (with sources) and then changing the article, this would be a great improvement.

QIM's Response

Brook's revision past muster but Almuth needs work. As for Brook's patronizing comments about me pushing an agenda or my "beliefs", give me a break.

Almuth, the three studies in the Journal of Mental Retardation in '96 on Fc has at least one study that PROVES the validated client has a much higher IQ. How can you discount the independent typers as having "allegedly" learned to type through FC? Most of them are going to college for crissakes and getting A's. They were all labeled retarded, many of them until their teens. Man, speaking of folks pushing an agenda here, you win the cake. Your book won't sell. <smile>

BTW Almuth, have you ever gone to an FC conference? Might be a good idea if you are writing a book on it. QIM

External Links section: too many abstracts?

I've just reorganized the collection of external links, (minimally) refactoring away repetetive parenthetical comments.

It appears to me that there is a very large number of abstracts listed in the "Empirical evaluations" section, several clusters of which share the same author(s) and are separated in time by only a year.

Perhaps someone who's closer to the subject than this WikiGnome could attempt to evaluate the abstracts and pare it down some? -- IceKarma 06:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be good. I've got most of the articles in my files, and this is on my "to-do" list. - Jim Butler 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand latest edit

I'm sorry, but I can't quite figure out what this latest edit means:

In the remaining cases there was indeed genuine communication from the facilitated person, but the level of the facilitated communication was not above the level of the unfacilitated communications from the facilitated person.

It seems to say that the assisted communiciation was no better than unassisted communication - which means that the facilitation didn't work at all. Is that what it says? - DavidWBrooks 14:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid

but, yes, that is exactly the outcome of the empirical research. Either the facilitator is cueing or the facilitated output is like the unfacilitated or even worse. Indeed there are some positive studies, but according to the reviews in peer-reviewed journals these studies have methodological flaws (for instance no proper guide against cueing, wrong statistics etc.). Allmuth 22:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)allmuth

Can we reword it slightly then? Something like "In the remaining cases the level of communication was no higher with a facilitator than without one" perhaps? - DavidWBrooks 01:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Just did it. Thanks.

Allmuth 22:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) allmuth

Almuth's contention that facilitated communication is "no higher" than the facilitator and then claiming that there is empiracal evidence supporting that contention is pure malarchy. He's extremely bias in this discussion and a poor contributor to this topic as such. He uses science to promote his prejudices.

I've changed this section numerous times to reflect the truth and he always changes it back to fit his prejudices.

User:QIM


Regarding reviews that are critical of the positive studies

Almuth wrote in the section above: "Indeed there are some positive studies, but according to the reviews in peer-reviewed journals these studies have methodological flaws (for instance no proper guide against cueing, wrong statistics etc.)." Sorry, but those studies whose results were intepreted as positive THEMSELVES appeared in peer-reviewed journals (as have comments expressing disagreement with the conclusions of critical reviewers, for that matter). You can't have it both ways and claim that (a) the positive studies, just by virtue of appearing in a peer-reviewed journal, aren't necessarily valid, yet (b) the critical reviews appeared in peer-reviewed journals and therefore must be valid. Debates and disagreement, as well as misstatements and misrepresentations (whether intentional or not), are common in peer-reviewed literature. Scientists are people too, have their biases, and are capable of making mistakes.

It's disingenuous to assert that the debate on FC is somehow already decided, especially since FC is a procedure and not a pill: i.e., not everyone does FC the same way, and in many cases studies are "over-controlled", i.e. fail to replicate the conditions under which clinical success has been observed (such as familiar and properly-trained facilitators, practice in a familiar and comfortable setting, and accomodation for word-finding difficulty). As Anne Donnellan and Martha Leary put it, one cannot go to a lake, make an attempt to catch fish, and then assert that one's failure to do so proves that there are no fish in the lake. Furthermore, catching just one fish might be an anomaly (maybe it was dropped in the lake from a helicopter, or something), but after a few fish are caught one begins to realize that there are fish in the lake. Then the debate shifts to what kind of fish, and how best to catch them. In the case of FC, the hardline skeptics are refusing to acknowledge the existence of fish that others have caught, and refuse to consider that there might be other ways of catching fish than their own, despite the existence of a growing pile of fish by the side of the lake (not just the positive studies, but the growing number of FC users who are gaining the ability to type independently, and testifying that they were communicating all along -- hello?).

Thus, much of the debate is over the interpretation of data and not the data itself. Studies showing facilitator cueing of the user, and those showing authorship, aren't inconsistent with each other. They reflect different findings under different conditions with different populations. The FC debate exemplifies the fact that human behavior isn't replicable and controllable in the same way that a physics experiment is. - Jim Butler 07:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Anonymoustom

Happened along the article and made some edits-- prolly should have looked at this talk page, though, especially with such a controversial subject. I'll make a few more later today or tomorrow, citing sources for Hale's book and some articles in MOUTH magazine for some of my assertions. Anonymoustom 12:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Anonymoustom, if you have a reference for that "several dozen" figure for independent typists, please provide it. For now I've just changed it to "some". I could name at least half a dozen, and most are in the US; some are referenced in the current version of the article. I've seen other now-independent typists at conferences, and have seen some referenced on web pages and groups, and there must be quite a few outside the US as well since FC has been and is still used in Europe. So "several dozen" seems like a pretty fair estimate. But for now, might as well go with what we can reference, since this is a controversial topic. I strongly believe that a mention of independent typing does merit inclusion in the intro, because it is highly relevant to FC.

DavidWBrooks, I wouldn't assume that just because a majority of scientists are skeptical about something, data supporting that thing don't exist. Some scientists, pretty obviously unfairly, say that arguing for FC's validity based on the emergence of independent typing is just a post-hoc argument (this despite the fact that in such cases, the style and content of what was being typed remained the same throughout the entire process of fading). Also, as Harvard neurologist Martha Herbert pointed out at the recent Autcom conference, in science opinions are very often formed and repeated based not on the actual data gathered in experiments, but on the conclusions published by the experimenters. Reviewers quote others' conclusions, and still others quote the reviewers. (And some hold to an entrenched position no matter what.) A good example of this phenomenon in FC is in those negative studies which didn't follow the most elementary procedures recommended by FC users themselves, such as using familiar facilitators and avoiding stressful situations. Not all studies suggesting cueing are flawed in this way, but some certainly are. Likewise, some of the studies suggesting authorship do not eliminate the possibility of cueing, though some do.

I plan on doing some more comprehensive edits in the future, and will add a section of links to pages of FC users, as well as some comments clarifying study designs. I've been reading the original published studies, positive and negative. For the scientifically literate, this is certainly the way to go in controversial areas rather than relying on media reports, commentary by others, or argument by authority.

I've also changed the wording of the section on allegations of sexual abuse. There is published evidence suggesting that the pattern of such allegations is no different among FC users than among non-disabled people: i.e., sometimes allegations are borne out by physical evidence or confessions, and sometimes not. That all children can be persuaded to make false statements is well-known. While the cases of false allegations by FC users understandably attracted a lot of media attention, I know of no published evidence that such allegations are unique to FC users. I've adjusted the article accordingly. - Jim Butler 07:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's true that "just because a majority of scientists are skeptical about something, data supporting that thing don't exist" but it's also true that a wikipedia article should reflect the reality of the scientific position - it's here to tell people how things stand, not how we think they should stand or will stand once more work is done. The way things stand is that a vast majority of scientists believe FC has been shown by studies to not be a real phenomena. Calling the community "divided" is, IMHO, misleading to the casual reader: The scientific community is divided about string theory, divided about the details of punctuated equilibrium, perhaps divided about the effectiveness of chicken-pox vaccine - but it's not divided about this; the number who believe in FC is tiny, tiny, tiny compared to the whole. - DavidWBrooks 10:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Sigh ... well, I've been involved in articles before where the true believers come in to spread their beliefs, and it's not worth the time to fight them. Have fun, guys - my experience is that you'll soon make this so lopsided that it will draw the attention of other folks and it will eventually get drawn back to reality. - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The article should and does say what most scientists think about FC, but it also should and does include a balanced presentation of known data about FC (like controlled studies and clinical outcomes). Such data should be included whether or not they appear to be consistent with the present scientific consensus. The fact that some FC users have gone on to become independent typists is a pretty major deal, as even you acknowledge. Why you want to exclude that information from the introduction, or cast doubt upon it when it is in fact well-documented and referenced in the article, I have no idea. The debate benefits from valid criticism, but that requires a certain knowledge base, e.g. reading and understanding controlled studies and other literature, and of course meeting some of the actual people whose lives we're talking about here. I've noticed that a lot of people don't bother to do these things before forming and disseminating their opinions about FC. Have you? - Jim Butler 04:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)