Okay that looks like one reasonble unbiased study. Here are the problems though, it is only one study with a mere seven people and it was with mentaly retarded, not autism. This study does make me lean more against FC. But I cannot say that it is anywhere near enough to make may say the it is all bunk. Can FC be faked, yes. Is it all fake, I don't know.
Here some information from Wiki that seems unbiased and rather negative about FC after reading this I am more sure that almost all FC is bogus. I will try to do some more chacking later on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication#Research In the majority of controlled studies, practitioners were unintentionally cueing the facilitated person as to which letter to hit, so the resulting letter strings did not represent the thoughts of the students but the expectations of the facilitators. However, some studies did report positive or mixed results, i.e., valid authorship by FC users,[13][14][15] and much debate ensued among scholars and clinicians.[16] In the opinions of proponents of the method,[17] positive results were generally seen in more naturalistic settings, and negative results in more controlled settings. FC proponents argue that in most of the negative studies, the laboratory setting was itself the confounding variable: i.e., communication is inherently very difficult for autistic people, so they can't necessarily be expected to replicate their successes under unfamiliar or even hostile conditions (e.g., those in which continuance of access to FC was contingent upon passing or failing the test). However, not all negative findings were obtained in clinical settings only; some tests were smoothly embedded in familiar surroundings and daily activities[18][19] in which participants sometimes did not even know they were tested. In their 1997 book, Contested Words Contested Science, Biklen and Cardinal (and others) attempt to shed light on why some controlled studies support FC while others do not.[20][21] Critics of FC question why people who can give speeches in public and go to college cannot answer a series of simple questions under controlled conditions.[citation needed] Critics also argue that positive results are typically obtained using "qualitative research methods" in which standard experimental controls for bias and subjectivity are weak or non-existent.[citation needed] Proponents argue that FC users have indeed passed controlled tests, often under duress, and as a condition for having access to basic human rights such as educational services and even freedom from institutionalization (e.g., McDonald, 1993;[22] Crossley and McDonald, 1984;[3] and Dwyer, 1996[23][24]). Harvard University psychologist Daniel Wegner has argued that facilitated communication is a striking example of the ideomotor effect,[25] the well-known phenomenon whereby individuals' expectations exert unconscious influence over their motor actions.[26] [27] Even FC users and proponents do acknowledge the possibility of facilitators at times "guiding" users, consciously or unconsciously. [12] Other theorists (Donnellan and Leary, 1995) argue that autism is in significant part characterized by dyspraxia (a movement disorder), and that there exists a synchronistic "dance" to communication in all mammalian social interaction which accounts for the mixed results in validation studies.[28][29] Still, the most significant concern with FC was, and remains, that of authorship: the question of who is really doing the typing. Numerous controlled studies have unambiguously established that facilitator influence does occur. FC users and proponents acknowledge this phenomenon; Sue Rubin, an FC user initially diagnosed as mentally retarded but who now attends college and types without physical support (see below), has described her own experience with facilitator influence.[30] FC proponents point out that the fact that cueing occurs under certain conditions with certain FC users does not necessarily mean that it always occurs with all FC users.[12] A few controlled studies since 1995 reported instances of genuine authorship by FC users. [31] [32] These studies, and the emergence of independent typing in some FC users, demonstrates in the opinion of proponents that at least in some cases FC is valid but that given the experimental evidence, it is impossible to say just how rare or how common such cases are. Stephen von Tetzchner, the author of another leading textbook on Augmentative and Alternative Communication has done theoretical research about facilitated communication.[33] In his opinion "The existing evidence clearly demonstrates that facilitating techniques usually led to automatic writing, displaying the thoughts and the attitudes of the facilitators."[34] Stephen N. Calculator (1999) says: "Whereas the use of FC proliferated in the United States and elsewhere following initial optimistic reports by Biklen (1990, 1993), Crossley (1992, 1994), and others, this fervor has not been matched by efforts to validate the approach or its theoretical bases. Investigators applying qualitative methods have had their outcomes of success for FC challenged by others in the scientific community who question the appropriateness of such methods in studying FC use. Meanwhile, experimental investigators have focused primarily on questioning and disproving the efficacy of this method. ... Caught in the scientific impasse are individuals with severe communication impairments who may or may not benefit from this approach. They and their families continue to be bombarded with contradictory information, philosophies, and recommendations regarding this method."[35] Mark Mostert (2001) says: "Previous reviews of Facilitated Communication (FC) studies have clearly established that proponents' claims are largely unsubstantiated and that using FC as an intervention for communicatively impaired or noncommunicative individuals is not recommended."[36] In March 2007, Scott Lilienfeld included facilitated communication on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients, published in the APS journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. [37] On Jan 8, 11:40 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Article on facilitated Communication...also check out the people cited > in the original post. > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279809 > > On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jason, > > > Though I'm not a big fan of Sanjay Gupta, I don't know a thing about > > faciltated communcation. Would you please include a link form some > > credible scientific sources that claim it is no good. > > > Thank You. > > > On Jan 8, 10:43 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > This above message is from Gina Green, Ph.D., BCBA .... > > > > On Jan 8, 7:56 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Here some information emailed from some work colleagues. > > > > > Jason > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 6:46 PM > > > > > Subject: URGENT - Fwd: Surgeon General > > > > > Colleagues, > > > > > Please see info below from Hank Schlinger and Jim Todd, and take a few > > > > minutes to email the Obama team if you share my opposition to their > > > > nominating as Surgeon General a media personality who has repeatedly > > > > demonstrated his blatant disregard for sound science and his active > > > > promotion of pseudoscience. Please also pass this on to others who > > > > might be concerned. > > > > > ___________________ > > > > > Read the information below from Jim Todd and then please take a moment > > > > and go to the Obama website below and ask the Team NOT to consider > > > > Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General. If enough people oppose this > > > > possible nomination, maybe they will drop his name from consideration. > > > > (see my comments to President Elect Obama below) > > > > >http://change.gov/page/content/contact/ > > > > > "CNN reports that Sanjay Gupta, who has actively promoted facilitated > > > > communication as a valid and useful communication method, is being > > > > considered for United States Surgeon General. > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/gupta.surgeon.general/index.html > > > > > Here are some links to Gupta's promotion of FC. > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/10/giving-autism...... > > > > > As far as developmental disabilities are concerned, Gupta seems not to > > > > understand the depth of his ignorance. Real people suffer real harm > > > > because of his advocacy of autism pseudoscience and his promotion of > > > > ersatz experts over real scientists." > > > > > Dear Obama Transition Team, > > > > > I am writing to express my strong opposition to Dr. Sajnay Gupta for > > > > U.S. Surgeon general. > > > > > Dr. Gupta has actively promoted facilitated communication (FC) as a > > > > valid communication method for people with autism. FC has been > > > > thoroughly discredited scientifically, a fact which Dr. Gupta refuses > > > > to accept, opting instead for anecdotes and personal observation as > > > > evidence of its validity. > > > > > The job of Surgeon General of the United States is too important to be > > > > offered to someone who has consistently promoted a pseudoscientific > > > > technique that has harmed so many children and their families. > > > > > Thank you.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
