Jason, Are you saying that these studies that show that FC works in some cases are bogus? If you are saying that then please tell me why you are saying these studies are bogus. Are you saying that Dr. Weiss and Dr. Nisbet, the two men who made this list of studies, some of which were negative and some of which were positive got it wrong by including positive studies?
Cardinal, D. N., Hanson, D. & Wakeham, J. (1996). Investigation of authorship in facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34, 231-242. "We examined whether facilitated communication users, under controlled conditions, could transmit rudimentary information to a na•ve facilitator. Forty-three students across 10 classrooms were shown a single randomly selected word with their facilitator out of the room. The facilitator then entered the room and asked the student to type the word, which was recorded exactly as typed and later evaluated; approximately 3,800 attempts were conducted over a 6-week period" (231). "There were two main findings of the study. First, under controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass information to a facilitator when that facilitator is not aware of the information, and second, the measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive practice of the test protocol. This latter result could partially account for the inability of several past studies to verify facilitated communication-user originated input" (238). Sheehan, C. & Matuozzi, R. (1996). Investigation of the validity of facilitated communication through the disclosure of unknown information. Mental Retardation, 34, 94-107. "Three individuals (8, 10, and 24 years old with diagnoses of autism and mental retardation) participated in a message-passing format to determine whether they could disclose information previously unknown to their facilitators. Results showed valid facilitated communication from each participant" (94). "The data from the current study lead us to caution that a phenomena as complex as facilitated communication eludes a cursory exploration. Each participant was able to disclose information accurately and deftly at times and was wholly inadequate in his or her attempts at other times...The developing picture of an individual's validity profile replete with the patterns of required support, inconsistency, language impairment, and strides towards independence may well be the only reasonable evaluation of a validity confidence level" (104). Weiss, M.J.S., Wagner, S.H., & Bauman, M.L. (1996). A validated case study of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34 (4), 220-230. The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retardation, and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid facilitated communication was described. In three independent trials, short stories were presented to him, followed by validation test procedures with an uninformed facilitator providing physical support to the subject's arm. In trials 1 and 3, several specific answers were provided that clearly indicated that the young man, not the uniformed facilitator, was the source of the information. Moreover, some responses seemed to imply that the subject was employing simple inferential and abstract reasoning. The case study adds to the small, but growing number of demonstrations that facilitated communication can sometimes be a valid method of communication for at least some individuals with developmental disabilities. Dr. Michael J. Weiss and Dr. Jan Nisbet contributed to this report. Dr. Weiss is a developmental psychologist at Giant Steps School in Connecticut, a private school for children diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities, and also is an adjunct professor in psychology at Fairfield University. He has been a faculty member at the Schools of Medicine at McGill and Harvard Universities and a staff psychologist at the Children's Hospitals in Montreal and Boston. Weiss has worked in private practice and has published numerous articles, chapters, and abstracts related to infancy, children and families, and developmental disabilities. Dr. Nisbet is director of the Institute on Disability and a tenured associate professor in the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire. She has conducted research and writing for the past 20 years on topics related to school restructuring and reform, transition from school to adult life, supported employment, self- determination, inclusive adult lives and aging On Jan 9, 9:09 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> wrote: > I definitely agree with this statement, "In my opinion anecdotal > evidence has some value, but only when the facts are reliable." Some > treatments used are based anecdotal stories if research isn't > available. However, when research exists, therapists are supposed to > go with the research findings and not the money trails. > > The key question is whether the facilitator or the person who is being > taught is controlling the movement of his or hand to communicate. > When this was investigated, it became obvious that when the > facilitator and learner were shown different objects, the object named > was what the facilitator saw, that is, the facilitator and not the > learner was communicating. There are a series of studies that were > noted in an earlier post. > > FC is a big money therapy because children who've never spoke a single > word miraculously begin communicating Shakespeare through FC (that is > not a joke). That gets parents excited and lets money flow. If it > works, it works and should be supported. However, a treatment should > be supported by experiment data supporting its effective and not a > Ph.D.s or FC organization (a form of argument by authority that > ignores the data). Professionals are supposed to advice consumers on > the effective the treatments, be empathetic but not promote false > hopes--at least that is what I was taught. > > Jason > > On Jan 9, 7:00 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In my opinion this NY times article, which I have verifed form other > > source, is the one and only good reason I know of that Gupta should > > not be Surgeon General. Gupta got it less than perfect, but essentiall > > right on the FC thing. Here though, he is verifiably wrong. > > > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-g... > > > The trouble with Sanjay Gupta > > So apparently Obama plans to appoint CNN’s Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon > > General. I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do > > remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to > > like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore > > “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the > > allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong. > > > What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would > > call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets > > smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It’s sort > > of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real > > time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered > > less “serious” than people who waited until it was fashionable to > > reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it’s a small > > thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that > > always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially > > acceptable way. > > > Update: Many commenters don’t seem to get the point. Gupta didn’t say > > “Michael Moore is an annoying blowhard”; he didn’t say “We question > > his interpretation of the evidence”; he said he “fudged the facts”. In > > other words, he accused Moore of lying. That’s a very strong > > accusation, which had better be backed by solid evidence. Instead, we > > had CNN misreading a number from Moore; CNN objecting to Moore using a > > projected health care spending number for 2007 instead of an actual > > number for 2005 (and the projection was right, by the way); CNN > > accusing Moore of not showing a number that was in fact right there in > > the movie. And Gupta did not apologize, except for the misread number. > > > On Jan 9, 6:46 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jason, > > > > I didn't get fired up at all. I had to repost my last message with the > > > qualifier “I like you,” which I do, because I didn't want you to get > > > angry. Although getting fired up may lead someone to do more research > > > to support their point, it may also make it harder to take in evidence > > > that is against their view. It is true that I like you and you are my > > > friend. Even though I often get fired up, I actually enjoy it when my > > > opinions are challenged. I am almost 100 percent sure that I am > > > similar to all others and have blind spots, even now after find and > > > fixing so many of them. Of course I don't know because by definition I > > > don't “see” my mental blind spots. After re-rereading and rethinking > > > this, I conceded that you are pretty much correct on the anecdotal > > > evidence thing. I haven’t checked to see if there is any credibility > > > to the stories. In my opinion anecdotal evidence has some value, but > > > only when the facts are reliable. > > > > Scientific studies have much value but can also be wrong for a number > > > of reasons. Below are some short summaries of reasonable sounding > > > studies that claim the FC can work. These are on a CNN web page that > > > is accessed by a link on another CNN page that is one of the stories > > > that supposedly shows that Gupta actively promotes or promoted FC. The > > > most that can be said in that regard, in those articles, is that in > > > one, one of Gupta’s correspondents does seem to actively promote FC. > > > But Gupta never does promote it and in my opinion gives a balanced > > > presentation overall. On the web page where the below summaries are > > > found, there are others that don’t support FC. I didn’t bother to post > > > them because you already agree with those. Here is the link followed > > > by a some of the summaries of scientific studies that got favorable > > > results for FC. Please explain to me why these are all wrong. > > > >http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/shows/autism.world/fc/studie... > > > Cardinal, D. N., Hanson, D. & Wakeham, J. (1996). Investigation of > > > authorship in facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34, > > > 231-242. > > > "We examined whether facilitated communication users, under controlled > > > conditions, could transmit rudimentary information to a na•ve > > > facilitator. Forty-three students across 10 classrooms were shown a > > > single randomly selected word with their facilitator out of the room. > > > The facilitator then entered the room and asked the student to type > > > the word, which was recorded exactly as typed and later evaluated; > > > approximately 3,800 attempts were conducted over a 6-week > > > period" (231). > > > "There were two main findings of the study. First, under controlled > > > conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass information > > > to a facilitator when that facilitator is not aware of the > > > information, and second, the measurement of facilitated communication > > > under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive > > > practice of the test protocol. This latter result could partially > > > account for the inability of several past studies to verify > > > facilitated communication-user originated input" (238). > > > Sheehan, C. & Matuozzi, R. (1996). Investigation of the validity of > > > facilitated communication through the disclosure of unknown > > > information. Mental Retardation, 34, 94-107. > > > "Three individuals (8, 10, and 24 years old with diagnoses of autism > > > and mental retardation) participated in a message-passing format to > > > determine whether they could disclose information previously unknown > > > to their facilitators. Results showed valid facilitated communication > > > from each participant" (94). > > > "The data from the current study lead us to caution that a phenomena > > > as complex as facilitated communication eludes a cursory exploration. > > > Each participant was able to disclose information accurately and > > > deftly at times and was wholly inadequate in his or her attempts at > > > other times...The developing picture of an individual's validity > > > profile replete with the patterns of required support, inconsistency, > > > language impairment, and strides towards independence may well be the > > > only reasonable evaluation of a validity confidence level" (104). > > > Weiss, M.J.S., Wagner, S.H., & Bauman, M.L. (1996). A validated case > > > study of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34 (4), > > > 220-230. > > > The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retardation, > > > and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid facilitated > > > communication was described. In three independent trials, short > > > stories were presented to him, followed by validation test procedures > > > with an uninformed facilitator providing physical support to the > > > subject's arm. In trials 1 and 3, several specific answers were > > > provided that clearly indicated that the young man, not the uniformed > > > facilitator, was the source of the information. Moreover, some > > > responses seemed to imply that the subject was employing simple > > > inferential and abstract reasoning. The case study adds to the small, > > > but growing number of demonstrations that facilitated communication > > > can sometimes be a valid method of communication for at least some > > > individuals with developmental disabilities. > > > Dr. Michael J. Weiss and Dr. Jan Nisbet contributed to this report. > > > Dr. Weiss is a developmental psychologist at Giant Steps School in > > > Connecticut, a private school for children diagnosed with autism and > > > other developmental disabilities, and also is an adjunct professor in > > > psychology at Fairfield University. He has been a faculty member at > > > the Schools of Medicine at McGill and Harvard Universities and a staff > > > psychologist at the Children's Hospitals in Montreal and Boston. Weiss > > > has worked in private practice and has published numerous articles, > > > chapters, and abstracts related to infancy, children and families, and > > > developmental disabilities. > > > Dr. Nisbet is director of the Institute on Disability and- Hide quoted > > > text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
