Facilitated Communication A House Divided

The value and utility of Facilitated Communication (FC), currently referred to as “supported typing,” has been one of the most highly contested issues for TASH. TASH members come from diverse geographic, socio-economic, academic, and cultural backgrounds, with varying opinions and perspectives, and it is not unexpected that they would disagree about different issues (e.g., classroom vs. community-based instruction). Nevertheless, it is safe to say that a unique and exemplary quality of TASH is that its members are in agreement with the primary goals of the TASH mission—to achieve full equality, inclusion, and meaningful quality of life outcomes for people with significant disabilities, and the members are united in their commitment to supporting individuals in achieving these outcomes. That said, divisions in TASH exist and may only serve to divide and prevent or stall decisions or policies that can benefit people with support needs. One continuing division that has only served to separate TASH members is FC. Despite sharing a common agenda, many TASH members continue to disagree about the use of FC and subsequently question the legitimacy of their opponents’ positions—an undesirable situation for any organization. As a matter of historical perspective, a special issue about FC was published in JASH (former name of Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities [RPSD]) in 1994 (see Halle, Chadsey-Rusch, & Reichle, 1994). In this special issue, both proponents and opponents of FC were invited to discuss the benefits and limitations of this practice. Halle et al. believed that it was necessary to “explore the controversy in a “reasoned and balanced fashion” (p. 149). Because of several current concerns of TASH members, it was felt that a second special issue was necessary. Based on a number of empirical investigations that have disproved the validity of FC, most of which were conducted in the 1990s (Green & Shane, 1994; Simpson & Myles, 1995; Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, & Schwartz, 1993), many TASH members believe that FC has little value or efficacy and its use should neither be encouraged nor supported. Such investigations suggested that FC does not produce consistent, reliable, and predictable outcomes; has failed to suggest functional relations among or between variables; and does not allow for systematic replication. As such, FC does not stand up to rigorous, scientific criteria to confirm its validity and trustworthiness. It is no surprise that critics of FC reference quantitative research (e.g., research that seeks to understand causal or functional relations based on controlled experimental studies) to debunk FC. However, a good number of TASH members believe that the effectiveness of FC has been adequately demonstrated in the research literature (Broderick & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001; Cardinal & Falvey, 2014; Sheehan & Matuozzi, 1996) and may be of great value in helping individuals, who have had great difficulty communicating their needs, wishes, and experiences, to finally have a voice. These proponents suggest that FC is indeed a useful and effective communication practice, and has been shown to allow some individuals in some situations to have an effective means of communication. Likewise, it is no surprise that proponents of FC reference qualitative research (i.e., understanding phenomena based on the context in which it occurs and the points of view of participants) to support their claims.