Is facilitated communication (FC) an evidence-based practice?
Facilitated communication (FC) is a technique that aims to help individuals with communication impairments, such as autism, to express themselves through written language with the assistance of a facilitator who physically supports their hand or arm during typing or writing.
However, FC has been widely criticized as lacking evidence for its effectiveness, and several studies have shown that it is not a reliable method of communication. Some of the main criticisms of FC include:
Lack of scientific evidence: Despite more than 30 years of research, there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of FC. The studies that have been conducted on FC have found that the messages produced by the individuals are largely influenced by the facilitator rather than the individual themselves.
Inability to replicate results: The results of FC studies have been inconsistent and have not been replicated by independent researchers, suggesting that the technique may not be reliable.
Potential for facilitator bias: The physical support provided by the facilitator may influence the messages produced, leading to facilitator bias rather than true communication from the individual.
Ethical concerns: The use of FC may raise ethical concerns, particularly when it is used to make decisions about the individual's treatment or quality of life.
Legal implications: The use of FC in legal proceedings, such as criminal trials or custody cases, has been challenged due to concerns about the reliability of the technique.
In conclusion, FC is not considered to be an evidence-based practice in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and has been widely criticized for lacking scientific support and reliability. ABA practitioners should rely on validated methods of communication assessment and intervention to help individuals with communication impairments.