Final work

5 Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad Treatment

The Effects of Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad

Treatment of a child with Autism

Nhazanu Yekeh Pessima

Graduate School College of Education, Endicott College

AUT 574-AT02-FA23 EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE

Professor: David Rosenberg

January 14, 2024

Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad Treatment

Place in Table of Content

The Effects of Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad

Treatment of a child with Autism

Introduction

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurological and development disorder that affects how people communicate, conduct themselves, and interact with each other. It comes in different degrees of difficulty. Individuals with ASD show many different symptoms, making this disorder a difficult one to understand. ASD starts at a young age, which makes it hard for individuals to communicate, get along with others, and handle challenging situations in life. Each individual presents with a range of strengths and weaknesses, making ASD presents uniquely.

Facilitated Communication (FC) started in the late 20th century.( Can you talk abput some available treatment option ) It is a way to help people who have trouble communicating, especially those with ASD). FC is a process where someone helps a person's hand or arm so they can point at letters or signs on board, making it easier for them to talk and send messages. First, people thought FC was a big step (Frantz et al., 2020), and that it would give voice to those not seen as able to express complicated thoughts. This paper will examine how FC affects children with ASD. It will also look at where FC started, how it works, and the disagreement associated with it. By synthesizing this information, it will also look at the broader effects of using such trendy treatments in the field of helping people with ASD

Understanding Autism Spectrum Disorder

Individual with ASD have a difficult time talking and understanding others. (cite)These problems can be very different.(What problem). Individuals go from being unable to speak to having difficulty using language well in social situations. They may find body language ( interpret better) harder, too, along with reading facial expressions (Schlosser et al., 2019). Some individual with ASD might talk little and use hand movements or other communication methods instead. Being unable to talk well can be annoying (who said annoying), feeling alone in society, and having problems learning how things work.(This has to be Cited)

FC started in the 1970s, Rosemary Crossley from Australia introduced it to help persons with autism and other disabilities, communicate better. In the 1990s, Professor Doug Biklen from Syracuse University pushed for using this method with individuals with ASD. FC was viewed as a new way to open the minds and intelligent ideas of people who were once unable to have deep conversations.

The idea behind FC is that autistic individuals can understand language and think well, but their physical actions or senses are not in order. This stops them from communicating in the usual way like others do. FC says it goes around these concerns by helping the person's hand or arm directly. Their device allows them to write messages on a keyboard and point to symbols and letters. (Cite pls)

Even though parents and other well-wishers were initially excited, FC soon started showing a significant negative difference. The main complaint from scientists is whether the message is authentic. (Cite) Many studies done by scientists like Howard Shane and James Todd ( Please site them in APA format, all the names) show strong proof that helpers, not autistic individuals, often send out messages (Paynter et al., 2019). This discovery brought out some concerns about ethics, including hiding the honest opinion of someone with autism. Some companies and people who know about autism and speech deficits say that FC is not suitable for communication. It also do not have solid proof; it could hurt the authentic self-expression of individuals using this way of communication.

Case Studies: Examining the Experiences of Children with Autism and FC

Studies about FC have given us many results, it shows that this method may need to be revised. At first, some studies done by FC supporters had good results, showing that individuals with ASD could communicate challenging ideas using FC. However, later studies have made these claims questionable, especially those that use scientific methods. A critical survey by McKee and Gomez (2020) was conducted using an experiment with messages being passed around found that the answers could be correct if the experiment had all the information. These and similar studies raised big worries about whether the messages made through FC were accurate.

Different studies on FC have had many questionable research methods. First studies often did not have control groups and used a lot of personal stories. These were based on guessing or feelings rather than facts. Later studies used more challenging plans, including controlled testing situations and hidden processes. These well done (What made them well done? and cite) studies usually showed that the level of accuracy of FC demolish or was gone entirely when the helper( Who are the helpers) did not know what details were being shared before. The differences in methods used and results from these studies show the difficulties of studying interventions like FC. It is hard because there is a big chance that the person leading it might affect what happens during research.

The study of FC shows a mixed picture of what is found. While some stories say good things, more science-based experiments mostly disagree with these results. One big problem in many studies, especially the early ones that pushed FC, is that there were no protections against facilitators influencing things. This is a major mistake because the helper's hidden signals or purposeful direction could change the outcome. Furthermore, the current studies often do not use standard methods to check communication progress accurately. Due to problems in how studies are done, researchers worry about whether FC is reliable. (Please cite) So, more and more people are getting careful about using FC for therapy or learning because they want methods with solid evidence to back them up.

           Using FC with individual who cannot communicate brings up deep moral issues. The main problem is that the individual right to speak freely alone might have disruption. Individuals who cannot communicate often cannot express their thoughts and needs alone. So, they may need to be addressed or understood if others help communicate for them. This situation is morally wrong as it can cause decisions or statements that do not truly show what someone thinks.

It is crucial to figure out who wrote the messages in FC, as it is a big moral problem. Sometimes, people who help with the talk process may not affect it, which makes us wonder if the messages are genuine or incorrect. This impact can go from slight hints to direct control, causing a situation where the person with ASD voice does not come through. Instead, it gets changed or even entirely created by the one helping them out. Such events take away the individual freedom and can cause misunderstandings or wrong presentations.

FC lags behind evidence-based communication activities when looking at the ethics. Methods that use facts, like special communication tools called AAC devices, make communication. easier. These help users communicate better because you can tell what is coming in and going out of the ones that are using them. The AAC devices help autistic individuals communicate more by themselves, respecting their freedom and making it easier to give them they request. On the other hand, FC needs help from facilitators, which makes it hard to know who created something. This delicate situation could accidentally affect things negatively and is not as right or fair as compared with different ways of communicating without using such support.

Ethical Considerations in the Use of Facilitated Communication

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is an integral part of methods used to help kids with ASD. Unlike Facilitated Communication (FC), AAC uses many different tools and methods (Simmons et al., 2021). These can be simple, like using sign language or pictures on a board, all the way up to high-tech items, such as apps that help you speak. These tools are made to help or replace communicating for people with speech problems, primarily those who cannot talk or speak a little.

Studies have shown that AAC techniques significantly improve communication skills in autistic kids. They help improve language, make starting and talking easier, and support being more sociable. Studies have regularly shown that kids using AAC can improve communication and understanding language skills (Twachtman-Cullen, 2019). These tools help kids talk about what they need, like, and think better. This makes their lives happier overall.

Instead of FC, AAC has solid, real-world proof. AAC solutions are proven to work by using robust research studies as proof. In terms of ethics, AAC values individual freedom to speak for themselves. It allows them to communicate without anyone first understanding it, unlike with FC. The difference makes AAC a better and more supported choice in terms of morals and science for kids with ASD.

Communication to parents and experts shows a complicated view of how FC affects families. Some moms and dads share good times, often saying that FC has helped them better understand their kid's feelings (Sanders, 2019). However, experts, especially in speech and language therapy, show doubt because there is insufficient scientific proof.

Many experts question if FC works well. They worry about who made it and whether it is accurate or not. The ethical downsides, like the chance of tricking and misleading a person's voice, are at the heart of their complaints (Cihon et al., 2020). On the other hand, some parents hold onto good stories. These are often based on a solid wish for progress in communicating with their child.

Parents ' beliefs and expectations are fundamental in choosing communication aids. Parents often want their kids to be able to talk. So, they might try FC even though some people say it is not excellent or controversial. People might choose this because of their own experiences, how FC is shown in news and movies, or needing to learn about better options based on research like AAC. The disagreement between parents and experts shows the need for more understanding about scientifically backed and suitable behavior methods in communicating to children with ASD.

Recommendations for professionals working with children with autism.

Professionals who work with children who have ASD need to focus on treatments shown by science. It is essential to know and use the latest research in everyday life. Regular training and learning in ways that use strong evidence are essential. Professionals should also encourage honest talk with families, giving precise details about the good and bad parts of ways to help people communicate.

Educators need to push for using methods that have been shown to work when helping individual with autism. Money and resources should go to methods that have shown they work (Woodfield & Freedman, 2021). Rules must be made to help choose ways of communicating, ensuring they are backed by science and meet standards. Schools should also help share facts about ways to handle autism with both experts, parents and society.

There is always a need for more studies on ASD treatments. This study should check how well current solutions work and investigate new methods. We should focus on making solutions that work well and protect individual freedom to express themselves. More studies will also help to disprove false beliefs and wrong information about ASD treatments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has looked at the challenging parts of FC and other ways to help people with ASD. It underlines how important it is to use facts we know from research and think ethically. It underlined the importance of experts using evidence-based practices and encouraged ongoing study in this area. A fair and proven method of speech devices is critical. This method ensures that these devices accurately deal with communication problems but also keep in mind the individual freedom and right to say what matters.

What will happen to Facilitate Communication in the future needs to be clarified. Its controversial nature and lack of proof make it likely not to be used much in treating autism. We should pay more attention to using methods based on scientific proof and good morals. This will help people with autism get the best results possible for them.

References

Cihon, J. H., Milne, C. M., Ferguson, J. L., Leaf, J. B., & Leaf, R. (2020). Fad treatments in autism intervention.  Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,  55(4), 466–475.

Frantz, R., Hansen, S. G., Erturk, B., Machalicek, W., Squires, J., & Raulston, T. J. (2019). Play to teach: Coaching paraeducators to facilitate communication in the preschool classroom.  American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,  124(6), 497–510.

McKee, A., & Gomez, A. S. (2020). The voices of types: Examining the educational experiences of individuals who use facilitated communication.

Paynter, J., Luskin-Saxby, S., Keen, D., Fordyce, K., Frost, G., Imms, C., ... & Ecker, U. (2019). Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—Real-world Autism treatment myth debunking.  PloS one,  14(1), e0210746.

Sanders, M. (2019). Barry Levison's Autism Insights.  Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology,  23(2), 7–10.

Schlosser, R. W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H., Todd, J., Lang, R., Lilienfeld, S. O., ... & Odom, S. (2019). Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence.  Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,  6, 403-412.

Simmons, W. P., Boynton, J., & Landman, T. (2021). Facilitated communication, neurodiversity, and human rights.  Human Rights Quarterly,  43(1), 138–167.

Twachtman-Cullen, D. (2019).  A passion to believe: Autism and the facilitated communication phenomenon. Routledge.

Woodfield, C. L., & Freedman, J. E. (2021). Barriers to knowing and being known: Constructions of (in) competence in research.  Philosophical Inquiry in Education,  28(2), 177–195.

Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities

Outline for Final Paper

Nhazanu Yekeh Pessima

Graduate School College of Education, Endicott College

AUT 574-AT02-FA23 EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

Professor: David Rosenberg

December 22, 2023

The Effects of Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad Treatment on a child with Autism

OUTLINE

I. Introduction

A. Brief overview of autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

B. Introduction to Facilitated Communication (FC) as a fad treatment

C. Thesis statement: Examining the effects of FC on children with autism and its implications for their communication development

II. Understanding Autism Spectrum Disorder

A. Definition and characteristics of ASD

B. Communication challenges faced by individuals with autism

C. Importance of effective communication interventions for children with autism

III. Facilitated Communication: Origins and Controversies

A. Historical background of FC and its emergence as a treatment for autism

B. Theoretical foundations and principles behind FC

C. Controversies surrounding FC, including skepticism and criticism from the scientific community

IV. Case Studies: Examining the Experiences of Children with Autism and FC

A. Selection of case studies highlighting the use of FC in different settings

B. Presentation of positive outcomes reported by proponents of FC

C. Analysis of potential confounding variables and methodological flaws in these studies

V. Empirical Evidence: Research on Facilitated Communication

A. Overview of key research studies on FC and autism

B. Analysis of methodological approaches and study designs

C. Presentation of conflicting findings and limitations of existing research

VI. Ethical Considerations in the Use of Facilitated Communication

A. Ethical concerns related to the use of FC with non-verbal individuals

B. Exploration of issues such as authorship and potential for unintentional manipulation

C. Comparison of FC with evidence-based communication interventions in terms of ethical considerations

VII. Alternative Communication Interventions for Children with Autism

A. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) as evidence-based alternatives

B. Overview of AAC methods and their effectiveness

C. Comparison of FC with AAC in terms of empirical support and ethical considerations

VIII. Parental and Professional Perspectives on Facilitated Communication

A. Interviews with parents and professionals who have used or encountered FC

B. Examination of their perspectives on the efficacy and ethical implications of FC

C. Consideration of how parental beliefs may impact the choice of communication interventions for their children

IX. Implications for Practice and Policy

A. Recommendations for professionals working with children with autism

B. Considerations for policymakers and educational institutions

C. The need for evidence-based practices and continued research in the field of autism intervention

X. Conclusion

A. Summary of key findings and arguments presented in the article

B. Call for a balanced and evidence-based approach to communication interventions for children with autism

C. Final thoughts on the future of facilitated communication and its role in the broader context of autism treatment

5 Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad Treatment

The Effects of Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad

Treatment of a child with Autism

Nhazanu Yekeh Pessima

Graduate School College of Education, Endicott College

AUT 574-AT02-FA23 EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE

Professor: David Rosenberg

January 14, 2024

Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad Treatment

Place in Table of Content

The Effects of Facilitated Communication as one of the Fad

Treatment of a child with Autism

Introduction

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurological and development disorder that affects how people communicate, conduct themselves, and interact with each other. It comes in different degrees of difficulty. Individuals with ASD show many different symptoms, making this disorder a difficult one to understand. ASD starts at a young age, which makes it hard for individuals to communicate, get along with others, and handle challenging situations in life. Each individual presents with a range of strengths and weaknesses, making ASD presents uniquely.

Facilitated Communication (FC) started in the late 20th century.( Can you talk abput some available treatment option ) It is a way to help people who have trouble communicating, especially those with ASD). FC is a process where someone helps a person's hand or arm so they can point at letters or signs on board, making it easier for them to talk and send messages. First, people thought FC was a big step (Frantz et al., 2020), and that it would give voice to those not seen as able to express complicated thoughts. This paper will examine how FC affects children with ASD. It will also look at where FC started, how it works, and the disagreement associated with it. By synthesizing this information, it will also look at the broader effects of using such trendy treatments in the field of helping people with ASD

Understanding Autism Spectrum Disorder

Individual with ASD have a difficult time talking and understanding others. (cite)These problems can be very different.(What problem). Individuals go from being unable to speak to having difficulty using language well in social situations. They may find body language ( interpret better) harder, too, along with reading facial expressions (Schlosser et al., 2019). Some individual with ASD might talk little and use hand movements or other communication methods instead. Being unable to talk well can be annoying (who said annoying), feeling alone in society, and having problems learning how things work.(This has to be Cited)

FC started in the 1970s, Rosemary Crossley from Australia introduced it to help persons with autism and other disabilities, communicate better. In the 1990s, Professor Doug Biklen from Syracuse University pushed for using this method with individuals with ASD. FC was viewed as a new way to open the minds and intelligent ideas of people who were once unable to have deep conversations.

The idea behind FC is that autistic individuals can understand language and think well, but their physical actions or senses are not in order. This stops them from communicating in the usual way like others do. FC says it goes around these concerns by helping the person's hand or arm directly. Their device allows them to write messages on a keyboard and point to symbols and letters. (Cite pls)

Even though parents and other well-wishers were initially excited, FC soon started showing a significant negative difference. The main complaint from scientists is whether the message is authentic. (Cite) Many studies done by scientists like Howard Shane and James Todd ( Please site them in APA format, all the names) show strong proof that helpers, not autistic individuals, often send out messages (Paynter et al., 2019). This discovery brought out some concerns about ethics, including hiding the honest opinion of someone with autism. Some companies and people who know about autism and speech deficits say that FC is not suitable for communication. It also do not have solid proof; it could hurt the authentic self-expression of individuals using this way of communication.

Case Studies: Examining the Experiences of Children with Autism and FC

Studies about FC have given us many results, it shows that this method may need to be revised. At first, some studies done by FC supporters had good results, showing that individuals with ASD could communicate challenging ideas using FC. However, later studies have made these claims questionable, especially those that use scientific methods. A critical survey by McKee and Gomez (2020) was conducted using an experiment with messages being passed around found that the answers could be correct if the experiment had all the information. These and similar studies raised big worries about whether the messages made through FC were accurate.

Different studies on FC have had many questionable research methods. First studies often did not have control groups and used a lot of personal stories. These were based on guessing or feelings rather than facts. Later studies used more challenging plans, including controlled testing situations and hidden processes. These well done (What made them well done? and cite) studies usually showed that the level of accuracy of FC demolish or was gone entirely when the helper( Who are the helpers) did not know what details were being shared before. The differences in methods used and results from these studies show the difficulties of studying interventions like FC. It is hard because there is a big chance that the person leading it might affect what happens during research.

The study of FC shows a mixed picture of what is found. While some stories say good things, more science-based experiments mostly disagree with these results. One big problem in many studies, especially the early ones that pushed FC, is that there were no protections against facilitators influencing things. This is a major mistake because the helper's hidden signals or purposeful direction could change the outcome. Furthermore, the current studies often do not use standard methods to check communication progress accurately. Due to problems in how studies are done, researchers worry about whether FC is reliable. (Please cite) So, more and more people are getting careful about using FC for therapy or learning because they want methods with solid evidence to back them up.

           Using FC with individual who cannot communicate brings up deep moral issues. The main problem is that the individual right to speak freely alone might have disruption. Individuals who cannot communicate often cannot express their thoughts and needs alone. So, they may need to be addressed or understood if others help communicate for them. This situation is morally wrong as it can cause decisions or statements that do not truly show what someone thinks.

It is crucial to figure out who wrote the messages in FC, as it is a big moral problem. Sometimes, people who help with the talk process may not affect it, which makes us wonder if the messages are genuine or incorrect. This impact can go from slight hints to direct control, causing a situation where the person with ASD voice does not come through. Instead, it gets changed or even entirely created by the one helping them out. Such events take away the individual freedom and can cause misunderstandings or wrong presentations.

FC lags behind evidence-based communication activities when looking at the ethics. Methods that use facts, like special communication tools called AAC devices, make communication. easier. These help users communicate better because you can tell what is coming in and going out of the ones that are using them. The AAC devices help autistic individuals communicate more by themselves, respecting their freedom and making it easier to give them they request. On the other hand, FC needs help from facilitators, which makes it hard to know who created something. This delicate situation could accidentally affect things negatively and is not as right or fair as compared with different ways of communicating without using such support.

Ethical Considerations in the Use of Facilitated Communication

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is an integral part of methods used to help kids with ASD. Unlike Facilitated Communication (FC), AAC uses many different tools and methods (Simmons et al., 2021). These can be simple, like using sign language or pictures on a board, all the way up to high-tech items, such as apps that help you speak. These tools are made to help or replace communicating for people with speech problems, primarily those who cannot talk or speak a little.

Studies have shown that AAC techniques significantly improve communication skills in autistic kids. They help improve language, make starting and talking easier, and support being more sociable. Studies have regularly shown that kids using AAC can improve communication and understanding language skills (Twachtman-Cullen, 2019). These tools help kids talk about what they need, like, and think better. This makes their lives happier overall.

Instead of FC, AAC has solid, real-world proof. AAC solutions are proven to work by using robust research studies as proof. In terms of ethics, AAC values individual freedom to speak for themselves. It allows them to communicate without anyone first understanding it, unlike with FC. The difference makes AAC a better and more supported choice in terms of morals and science for kids with ASD.

Communication to parents and experts shows a complicated view of how FC affects families. Some moms and dads share good times, often saying that FC has helped them better understand their kid's feelings (Sanders, 2019). However, experts, especially in speech and language therapy, show doubt because there is insufficient scientific proof.

Many experts question if FC works well. They worry about who made it and whether it is accurate or not. The ethical downsides, like the chance of tricking and misleading a person's voice, are at the heart of their complaints (Cihon et al., 2020). On the other hand, some parents hold onto good stories. These are often based on a solid wish for progress in communicating with their child.

Parents ' beliefs and expectations are fundamental in choosing communication aids. Parents often want their kids to be able to talk. So, they might try FC even though some people say it is not excellent or controversial. People might choose this because of their own experiences, how FC is shown in news and movies, or needing to learn about better options based on research like AAC. The disagreement between parents and experts shows the need for more understanding about scientifically backed and suitable behavior methods in communicating to children with ASD.

Recommendations for professionals working with children with autism.

Professionals who work with children who have ASD need to focus on treatments shown by science. It is essential to know and use the latest research in everyday life. Regular training and learning in ways that use strong evidence are essential. Professionals should also encourage honest talk with families, giving precise details about the good and bad parts of ways to help people communicate.

Educators need to push for using methods that have been shown to work when helping individual with autism. Money and resources should go to methods that have shown they work (Woodfield & Freedman, 2021). Rules must be made to help choose ways of communicating, ensuring they are backed by science and meet standards. Schools should also help share facts about ways to handle autism with both experts, parents and society.

There is always a need for more studies on ASD treatments. This study should check how well current solutions work and investigate new methods. We should focus on making solutions that work well and protect individual freedom to express themselves. More studies will also help to disprove false beliefs and wrong information about ASD treatments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has looked at the challenging parts of FC and other ways to help people with ASD. It underlines how important it is to use facts we know from research and think ethically. It underlined the importance of experts using evidence-based practices and encouraged ongoing study in this area. A fair and proven method of speech devices is critical. This method ensures that these devices accurately deal with communication problems but also keep in mind the individual freedom and right to say what matters.

What will happen to Facilitate Communication in the future needs to be clarified. Its controversial nature and lack of proof make it likely not to be used much in treating autism. We should pay more attention to using methods based on scientific proof and good morals. This will help people with autism get the best results possible for them.

References

Cihon, J. H., Milne, C. M., Ferguson, J. L., Leaf, J. B., & Leaf, R. (2020). Fad treatments in autism intervention.  Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,  55(4), 466–475.

Frantz, R., Hansen, S. G., Erturk, B., Machalicek, W., Squires, J., & Raulston, T. J. (2019). Play to teach: Coaching paraeducators to facilitate communication in the preschool classroom.  American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,  124(6), 497–510.

McKee, A., & Gomez, A. S. (2020). The voices of types: Examining the educational experiences of individuals who use facilitated communication.

Paynter, J., Luskin-Saxby, S., Keen, D., Fordyce, K., Frost, G., Imms, C., ... & Ecker, U. (2019). Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—Real-world Autism treatment myth debunking.  PloS one,  14(1), e0210746.

Sanders, M. (2019). Barry Levison's Autism Insights.  Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology,  23(2), 7–10.

Schlosser, R. W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H., Todd, J., Lang, R., Lilienfeld, S. O., ... & Odom, S. (2019). Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence.  Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,  6, 403-412.

Simmons, W. P., Boynton, J., & Landman, T. (2021). Facilitated communication, neurodiversity, and human rights.  Human Rights Quarterly,  43(1), 138–167.

Twachtman-Cullen, D. (2019).  A passion to believe: Autism and the facilitated communication phenomenon. Routledge.

Woodfield, C. L., & Freedman, J. E. (2021). Barriers to knowing and being known: Constructions of (in) competence in research.  Philosophical Inquiry in Education,  28(2), 177–195.