A case study: follow-up assessment of facilitated communication.
Facilitated communication failed a simple validity check, while PECS gave 100 percent accurate communication for the same student.
01Research in Context
What this study did
One student with autism used facilitated communication for months. Six months later the team checked if the typed words were really his.
They ran simple probes. Sometimes the helper saw the picture, sometimes the student did. If the student truly typed, answers would stay correct no matter who saw the picture.
What they found
The student only answered correctly when the helper saw the picture. When only the student saw it, answers were wrong or missing.
PECS cards were then tried. The student picked every picture correctly, giving 100 percent accurate communication without help.
How this fits with other research
Foster (2019) later called FC pseudoscience and warned BCBAs to debunk it. The 1996 case already showed why: the words came from the helper, not the student.
Palikara et al. (2022) found that school plans rarely hold the child’s real voice. Like FC, papers can look authentic while hiding who is truly speaking.
Pai Khot et al. (2023) showed picture-based tools work. Their visual tooth-brushing program succeeded, matching this study’s success with PECS cards.
Why it matters
If a family asks about FC, show them this six-month check. Use blind probes to test any new method. Swap unproven typing for picture cards or other AAC with data behind it. Your session data will protect the learner’s true voice and keep you on solid ethical ground.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Run a blind probe on any AAC you doubt: helper and learner see different info and compare answers.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A 6-month follow-up of an individual reported to engage in validated facilitated communication (FC) is presented. Three main issues are addressed: the current status of the individual's FC use, the effect of food reinforcers on his communicative ability, and a comparison of FC to the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). Results indicated that the individual did not engage in any validated FC, that performance was equivalent on food and nonfood trials, and that PECS was the preferred mode of communication, yielding 100% accuracy in a message-passing, object identification task. Implications of these findings are discussed in the context of an individual's right to communicate by objectively validated methods.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1996 · doi:10.1007/BF02276232