COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE Research Analysis of Facilitated Communication Link People with disabilities require the extent of support to perform their daily activities and several forms of assistance can be offered to such an audience. Facilitated communication, which is also known as supported typing, is a form of assistance given to specific audiences such as people diagnosed with cerebral palsy, acquired brain damage, intellectual disability, down syndrome and autism. According to the American Speech Language Hearing Association (2018), a facilitated communication link is considered to be a part of Augmented and Alternative Communication (AAC). However, the organization states that there is no scientific evidence supporting the validity of assisted typing, and such techniques should be discredited. The following sections of the paper will critically analyse the few of the available pieces of literature that promote or rebut the use of facilitated communication in assisting people with disabilities. Review of Literature It is important that autistic learners are provided with specialised support and educating practices to help them acquire knowledge and communication skills effectively. The following sections of the paper will analyse the research papers that originally promoted the implementation of facilitated communication to assist people with autism and will be followed by analysis on few of the rebuttal pieces of research that discredit the use of this technique. A literature review was conducted byFoster (2019) aiming at analysing the efficacy of facilitated communication with a particular patient suffering from autism and requiring complex communications needs. The authors mention that the first use of facilitated communication was by Rosemary Crossely, where she helped 12 children with learning and physical disabilities in Melbourne, Australia in the 1970s. In the United States of America, the technique was primarily promoted by Douglas Biklen. According to the authors, Biklen
COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE as highly inspired by the apparent success of facilitated communication as presented by Rosemary in Australia. Biklen promoted facilitated communication technique with the aim of revealing its hidden capabilities such as promoting the intelligence of a person with special communication needs (Kliewer, Biklen & Petersen, 2015). The subsequent expansion of facilitated communication in general practice of assisting people with special communication needs was well-intended, as this technique overturned the general perception, which was that people with special communication needs were completely disabled (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). Thus, facilitated communication was thought to be a critical link in helping people with autism, and special communication needs to connect with the external world in more sophisticated ways. This type of assistance was primarily aimed for people with severe communication impairments, who were unable to use their hands effectively for communication. An article published inResearchautism.net. (2017) provides a brief description of the key features of facilitated communication as highlighted Biklen. With the help of facilitated communication, physical support is offered to the people, which includes stabilising the arm, isolation of index finger with assistance, pulling back wrist or arm to cease striking a target repetitively and touch on the elbow, shoulder or forearm to help initiate typing by the person. Emotional support includes encouraging the person; however, the facilitator needs to be careful and not provide direction, as influence the decision-making process of the person. For communicative support, the facilitator may offer assistance in clarifying unclear messages, provide feedback, and ensure that the person stays focussed in the interaction. However, several controversies have developed over the past few decades over the feasibility and use of facilitated communication to provide assistance to people with disabilities. According to a position statement provided by theAmerican Speech Language Hearing Association in 1995, the facilitated communication technique should be discredited
COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE as it has no benefit or is backed by scientific evidence of efficacy or credibility (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018). A systematic review was conducted by Hemsley et al. (2018) to find out any relevant evidence supporting the previously stated facts that the messages delivered with the use of facilitated communication were actually authored by the person and were not influenced by the facilitators. The review of literature focused on gathering experimental data pertaining to authorship and messages produced with the help of facilitated communication. The findings from the research study concluded that no clear evidence was found to be reported in the past decade that supported authorship along with the validation of facilitated communication as a reliable and efficient form of communication for people with disabilities. No studies were available that provided evidence supporting the previous perception that messages generated using facilitated communication were authorised by individuals with disabilities. Moreover, a greater count of literature was critical of the use of facilitated communication and suggested against the use of it in clinical practice. According toAuerbach (2015), public schools should refrain from practicing facilitated communication for assisting disabled people. This is due to the sexual abuse complains associated with the technique. The author of the article deems the technique of facilitated communication as ‘unreliable methodology’ and state that facilitators often steal the voices of disabled people. However, another study conducted byBigozzi et al. (2012) contradicts the above mentioned claims. The authors conducted an intervention based study where the parents and educators acted as facilitators for six students, all of whom participated in 8 sessions, 4 with each facilitator. The research findings indicate that the communicative process occurring due to facilitated communication is beneficial, due to the fact that the students authored the same communication with different facilitators, indicating that facilitators did not influence the
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE students. The authors also state that facilitated communication links for autistic child yield accurate descriptions and reliable quantification, justifying its use in the clinical practice. However, the authors mention that caution is necessary while implying the practice where it is considered controversial. Response & Conclusion Facilitated communication for autism has been a controversial topic for decades now, as many researchers along with prime establishments such as the American Speech Language Hearing Association mark this technique as discredited. The debate on authorship continues as contradicting pieces of evidence and literature support or deny the presence of authorship in this technique. However, analysing the information from the above sections of the paper, it can beestablished that facilitated communication can be beneficial and should be used in supervision for better results.
COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Facilitated communication. Auerbach, D. (2015).This Pseudoscience Preys on People With Disabilities and Is Infiltrating Schools.Slate Magazine. Retrieved 18 January 2020, from https://slate.com/technology/2015/11/facilitated-communication-pseudoscience- harms-people-with-disabilities.html Bigozzi, Lucia, Zanobini, Mirella, Tarchi, Christian, Cozzani, Francesca, Camba, Roberta. (2012). Facilitated communication and autistic children: The problem of authorship. LIFE SPAN AND DISABILITY. 15. 55-74. Foster, C. A. (2019). Deej‐a Vu: Documentary revisits facilitated communication pseudoscience.Behavioral Interventions,34(4), 577-586. Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H. C., Lang, R., Paul, D., ... & Ireland, M. (2018). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014–2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability.Autism & Developmental Language Impairments,3, 2396941518821570. Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Petersen, A. (2015). At the end of intellectual disability. Harvard Educational Review, 85(1), 1–28. Lilienfeld, S. O., Marshall, J., Todd, J. T., & Shane, H. C. (2014). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8(2), 62–101. Researchautism.net. (2017).Facilitated Communication and Autism | Key Features - Interventions - Research Autism.Researchautism.net. Retrieved 18 January 2020,
COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE from http://www.researchautism.net/interventions/16/facilitated-communication-and- autism/keyfeatures