Isparklaria, You don't know the history of Faciliated Communication (FC). Therapists have been using prompting systems to teach people communication skills for decades, that is, you help the person use the device and slowly fad back as much as possible.
The FC's just packaged this training system, wrapped it in jargon, and sold it along with a lot of hype. Many therapists and researchers get annoyed when desperate parents and equally desperate clients get snooped because advertising gimmicks--with FC, dolphin therapy, etc. Most of the pseudo-treatments are harmless (only wasting time) especially when done in conjunction with more effective ones. Does FC work sometimes? Sure because fading prompts works to teach communication skills. FC is just a re-packaged prompting system wrapped in an aura of mystique AND the hype/mystique/deception sets it up for abuse by putting words in the client's mouth, giving parents/ clients unfilfulled hope, and sometimes neglecting to engage in effective training. This is pure speculation, however, people such as Gupta might like FC because of the hype, which helps with media ratings. Whether or not FC is beneficial to the client (and population served) should be the ultimate criteria. Jason On Jan 9, 12:30 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > Jason, > > So you admit that FC works some of the time. That is what more recent > studies seem to indicate. It seems like the only problem with it has > to do with the nature of the training method. It could be true that no > method used other than FC, to train people on augmentive communcation > systems would worked for certain people. If that is true than FC is > something special. If not than it probably isn't unless there is some > other benefit. The downside is the deception and self deceptions > possible in obtaining results. But it seems like they have figured out > how detect this main problem, so what's the problem and why is it > discredited instead of just discredting the individuals who use it > frauduantly? Why are they attacking Gupta over it? The only thing that > I can figure is that the honest skeptics of FC like to make judgements > and stick to them to the point of not even examining new evidence from > credible sources. As far as the other Skeptics, I don't know their > motivation is. > > On Jan 9, 11:04 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Isparklaria, > > > There is not anything special about "Facilitated Communication". We > > train people on augmentative communication systems all the time. It > > is just teaching people to use technology (or techniques) to > > communicate. Some people learn to use the technology/technique and > > some people don't; some a litte; some a lot. > > > Now having someone literally holding someone's hand while using the > > communication equipment and the majority of careful studies indicate > > that the hand-holder is frequently doing the communicating is > > concerning. Augmentative communication systems are supposed to > > increase the person's abilities to communicate to the world--not set > > up a situation where world thinks that the person said whatever the > > hand-holder wants him or her to say. The person is sort of like the > > hand-holder's puppet. > > > On another note: The fact that these researchers are affilitate with > > Harvard is irrelevant. There are a number of researchers (Gina Green > > is one) who've done work with Harvard or even taught at Harvard, > > Columbia, etc. I even work with a Harvard graduate at my current > > job. The data and research is more important than the school > > affilitation. > > > Jason > > > On Jan 9, 9:25 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
