Evaluating the impact of facilitated communication on the communicative competence of fourteen students with autism.
Facilitated communication produced zero independent typing in 14 autistic students after ten weeks, echoing later studies that also found no effect.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Duker et al. (1996) tried facilitated communication with 14 autistic students. The team gave ten weeks of FC lessons. They hoped kids would type real messages on their own.
No control group was used. The only measure was whether typed words came from the student or the aide.
What they found
After every lesson, the researchers saw the same result. Zero students typed anything useful without the helper moving their hand.
The study joins a long list showing FC simply does not work.
How this fits with other research
Wilkinson et al. (1998) ran a close cousin study. They added a plastic hand brace to stop aide influence. Still, no child typed alone. Together, the two papers form a clean replication: FC fails even when you tweak the setup.
Gerow et al. (2018) and Jongsun et al. (2019) paint a brighter picture, but for a different method. Their reviews show parent-led Functional Communication Training cuts problem behavior and boosts real communication. FC is not FCT; FC relies on another person’s touch, while FCT teaches the child to request with pictures, signs, or speech.
LEStagnone et al. (2025) also saw gains, yet they coached parents online instead of using FC. The positive results came after parents learned to prompt and reward real initiations.
Why it matters
If a family asks about FC, you now have two solid studies to show it offers no benefit. Shift the plan to FCT or simple AAC like PECS. Start with a mand trial: place a favorite item in sight but out of reach, wait three seconds, then prompt a picture exchange or single sign. Reinforce immediately. You will teach true independence, not helper-guided keystrokes.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap any FC trial for FCT with PECS or speech-generating devices and measure unprompted requests.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate facilitated communication (FC) as an augmentative or alternative communication system for 14 students attending the Eden Institute in Princeton, NJ. All participants had an independent diagnosis of autism and standardized testing revealed significant deficits in adaptive behavior across all developmental domains. A pretest-posttest design was utilized to (a) determine if any of the participants were immediately capable of communicating through FC (b) if necessary, instruct the participants in the use FC, and (c) determine if this instruction had any impact on their ability to use FC. At the end of 10 weeks of instruction, no participants were able to produce functional, typed communication. Findings are consistent with other quantitative studies that find no support for the cause-effect relationship proposed by FC proponents.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1996 · doi:10.1007/BF02276234