Facilitated communicators' performance on a task of receptive language.
Facilitated communication does not improve PPVT-R scores for autistic or cognitively-impaired clients.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave autistic kids and kids with severe cognitive delays a standard picture-vocabulary test. Half took the test with a facilitator guiding their hand. Facilitators could not see the test book, so they could not cue answers.
The goal was to see if the extra support raised receptive-language scores.
What they found
Scores stayed flat. Facilitated communication added zero points on the PPVT-R. Input style made no difference either.
How this fits with other research
Danielsson et al. (2011) saw a similar drop when assistants helped teens with ID recall words. Memory got worse, not better.
Matson et al. (2004) showed that who gives the test changes the results in functional analyses. Together these papers warn that helper presence can mask true ability.
No neighbor papers show gains from facilitated communication, so the negative finding here is consistent.
Why it matters
If you use or see facilitated communication in your setting, this study gives clear evidence: it does not boost receptive-language scores. Rely on direct, unaided responses when you need valid test data. Pick tools the client can use alone or with minimal prompts.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run your next language assessment without hand-over-hand support and record the raw score.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Most controlled studies of facilitated communication (FC) have not validated it. One task, however, on which positive effects of FC have been demonstrated without facilitator influence is the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-R (PPVT-R). The present study investigated if the use of FC could be validated for either a group of subjects with autism or a group with severe to profound cognitive impairments, on the PPVT-R when facilitators were effectively screened from all visual and auditory stimuli. Additionally, the effect of mode of input-auditory or visual-on subjects' performance was investigated. Results did not validate the use of FC for the administration of the PPVT-R nor did they show any notable advantage of one mode of input over another.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1996 · doi:10.1007/BF02172272