Facilitated communication since 1995: a review of published studies.

Mostert (2001) looked at every paper on Facilitated Communication published after 1995. The team used strict systematic-review rules to find credible evidence that FC helps people communicate.

They checked study quality, participant details, and outcome measures. Any paper that let a facilitator guide the client's hand was included.

The review found zero sound studies showing FC works. Every paper had fatal flaws like facilitator influence or missing controls.

In short, the evidence for Facilitated Communication since 1995 is still empty.

Bathelt et al. (2019) and O'Brien et al. (2024) paint a brighter picture for aided AAC. Their reviews cover high-tech apps and speech devices that show real promise, the opposite of FC's blank record.

Urrea et al. (2024) and Ohan et al. (2015) add that tech tools can teach vocabulary to kids with ASD, but results are mixed. These papers do not clash with Mostert (2001); they simply moved the field toward tools that pass scientific tests.

Early et al. (2012) give a practical framework for picking those tested AAC apps, filling the gap FC left open.

If a family asks about Facilitated Communication, you now have a clear answer: no evidence since 1995. Shift the plan to an evidence-based AAC system instead. Run a quick mand modality preference assessment, choose high-tech or low-tech that the learner can operate independently, and take data from day one. Leave the facilitator's hand out of it.