Facilitated communication: an experimental evaluation.
Facilitated communication failed every blinded test; the facilitator, not the child, writes the message.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested facilitated communication with a simple trick. They showed a picture to the child but kept the facilitator from seeing it.
If FC were real, the child could type the answer. The test ran with several kids and several facilitators.
All sessions were videotaped so judges could score every response later.
What they found
Typed answers matched chance. The kids did no better than guessing.
Switching facilitators did not help. The messages still came out wrong.
The authors concluded that the facilitator, not the child, controlled the keyboard.
How this fits with other research
Allan et al. (1994) ran the same year and got the same result. They used picture naming instead of hidden pictures, yet only one of seven students passed.
Kezuka (1997) went further. Force sensors on the keyboard showed the adult’s hand pushing, not the child’s. This explains why the words stop when the adult looks away.
Plant et al. (2007) remind us that many children with autism do have real language gaps. FC looks tempting, but the gaps remain even after the typing stops.
Why it matters
If a family asks for FC, show them these studies. Offer supported typing trials where the facilitator does not touch the child. When the words vanish, the case is closed. Spend your time on picture exchange, speech-generating devices, or sign language—tools with data behind them.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a simple information-passing probe: show the child a picture, block the facilitator’s view, and see if correct words still appear.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Nineteen participants in a day treatment program for the developmentally disabled participated in this validation study of facilitated communication (FC). Subjects and facilitators had been involved in FC and judged competent by supervisors of the FC project at the facility. An information-passing design was used requiring short-term recall of one randomly selected stimulus card at a time. Cards varied by the shape, the color of that shape, and the number of that shape used on each card. Results failed to validate facilitated communication for the group as a whole, any individual facilitator, or any of the subjects. The closeness of the results to chance expectations from an experiment designed to validate only the most elemental claims of FC suggests that extraordinary caution be accorded any claims of communication that are the sole product of FC.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1994 · doi:10.1007/BF02172232