Talk:Facilitated communication/Archive 2

message: Last April I have seen two of the three so-called independent typists, that are referred to in the text. J. Burke, does not type independently, but with physical support. He is verbal and he is able to read aloud the text, after he had typet it together with his facilitator. That is not exactly what you would imagine under the label "independant writer." The other, Sue Rubin, is only able to type when her mother supports her physically or moves the keyboard in front of her. 
Allmuth 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this from Allmuth: "The other, Sue Rubin, is only able to type when her mother supports her physically or moves the keyboard in front of her."  This statement is a false one for several reasons.  Sometimes Sue types with physical support, and is much faster that way, but she very often types without anyone touching her.  In "Autism Is A World", she is shown typing without physical support, and with someone other than her mother holding the keyboard in front of her.  And the person holding the keyboard doesn't move it in front of her, either.  That's obvious both from the video and from meeting Sue (I sat beside her and we conversed for awhile at the Autcom conference in September 2005).  Sue very deliberately and laboriously selected the keys, and her assistant didn't move the keyboard. Sue has also been observed doing this by respected doctors like Margaret Bauman of Harvard, also featured in the video. -Jim Butler 07:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent typists 

message: I met Jamie Burke too. I agree that he types "with physical support" in the sense that he types best if his mother puts her hand on his shoulder to encourage him, or holds his lightwriter in front of him. 
I think it is inaccurate to say he is a "so-called independent typist" and assert that he does not type independently. In my view it is far more accurate to say that he does type independently. My credentials? 
I am a Professor in the physics department at the university of cambridge, and am always a firm sceptic about "minority" views (such as homeopathy, water memory, etc). But I think, friend Allmuth, that you are misrepresenting Jamie Burke's genuine abilities. He communicates. I have conversed with him: I spoke to him. He typed back his responses and read them to me. 
I also witnessed Jamie Burke having direct verbal conversations with his mother. He often speaks directly to her now, rather than doing the typing-then-reading it routine.
131.111.48.116 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Oh yes he does" 

message: As you see, you did your observations, I did mine, and we saw different realities. To decide about the nature of the phenomena, we need an evaluation under controlled conditions. As far as I know Mister Burke has not been tested.
You are right in the obervation that he can speak. I heard him talk too. But he reported (typing) that the "high quality words" only appear when he is facilitated by his mother and afterwards reads aloud the text he has produced with her help.
Allmuth 15:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  observations 

message: I think the independent typing section is good now. Well done.
Even if 99% of "FC" were wishful thinking and hokum, the skeptics should not be allowed to tar with the same brush the genuine 1% where FC has worked and transformed lives.  I edited the opening paragraph of the article to remove the assertion that "the majority of scientists are skeptical". I think that assertion was too woolly. What are they sceptical about? If they are sceptical about a particular case of FC they saw on the TV, fair enough. I don't think any responsible scientist would ever say "I believe every single claim of FC is hokum". 
131.111.48.116 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David; excellent points.  For awhile, the "majority view" seemed to be that FC wasn't valid at all (based on the negative message-passing studies that showed cueing), and that was reflected in some of the "position statements" that came out from organizations like ASHA.  But the emergence of independent typing, and studies since 1995 (e.g., Weiss, Cardinal), have changed things, Mostert's misapprehensions (2001) notwithstanding.  I'm not sure there is a single "majority view" these days, but maybe it could be said that the majority of informed views (as opposed to those that parrot outdated concensus statements) cluster around something like: "FC sometimes is valid, but proceed cautiously given that cueing can occur".  The debate has shifted to how often is "sometimes", and IMO unraveling that will depend on doing new studies informed by intelligent analysis of existing studies and by what we are learning about autism and dyspraxia in general.  But yes, hardline dismissal of all FC is not consistent with the evidence, and appears to be more of a fringe view. -Jim Butler 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job on the independent typing! 

message: this is mostly about the sources, but I also belive that this page is attempting heavily biased towards FC. it does note cite many studies that have found FC to be lacking, and the trend of the page is to lay out the skeptical argument in a sentance and then spend a paragraph responding. Also, since Fc apears to lack much(if any) coroberating evidence, the article spends alot of time citing anticdotes or appeals to emotion. I will be glad to elaborate, but these things need fiing first and formost.
Introdcution
However, recent controlled studies have shown authentic instances of FC, and a few FC users can now communicate without any physical support at all.(Unattributed)
History
in 1979 one of Crossley's students, Anne McDonald, left the hospital after successfully fighting an action for Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of Victoria(unattributed)
Link 1: appears to be  an Obituaray and is thus not a verifyable source. DOes not mention: "His son was later able to type with just a hand on his shoulder, via gradual "fading" of physical suppot" that was attributed to this source
3rd paragraph and the assertions therin are not attributed to any source.
Concerns, Research
FC proponents responded with criticisms of negative bias(what is negetive bias? The wikipedia link dosen't define the term. is it finding that FC is not legit? That's not "negative", that's a "conclusion". 
Link 5 Is a personal homepage(and a rant) and not a verifyable source(http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealcc/FrontA.htm)
not all such allegations were proven true.(unattributed, and weasly use of lanuage)
general, positive results were seen in more naturalistic settings, and negative results in more clinical settings.(Unattributed)
FC proponents argue that in most of the negative studies, the laboratory setting could itself be the confounding variable: i.e., communication is inherently very difficult for autistic people, so they can't necessarily be expected to replicate their successes under unfamiliar or even hostile conditions (e.g., those in which continuance of access to FC was contingent upon passing or failing the test).(Unattributed)
Sue Rubin, an FC user initially diagnosed as mentally retarded but who now attends college and types without physical support (see below), has described her own experience with facilitator influence(since she has never typed without a facilitator ,This should at the very least say allegedly discribed. it should probably be deleted. you may ask if I Can  find a source that questions the if Sue Rubin has the abilites that are claimed of her? yep: http://www.baam.emich.edu/baamnewsarchive/BAAMbnaautismmovie.htm . You can argue that this source should not be included. You may be right. But it is at least as attributable as the SUe Rubin article, and should be mentioned as a rebutle if the sentances stands(which it shouldn't))
By the late 1990's, FC had been discredited in the eyes of most scientists and professional organizations; it retained acceptance in some treatment centers in North America, Europe and Australia.(Unattributed)
Independant typeing
FC user Alberto Frugone has eloquently described the emotional and physical hurdles involved in working toward independence(This makes an emotional judgement.((eloquently). it does not belong here. plus, the ciatation is unverifable, as it is a personal webpage)
Link 16 is not a verifiable source(http://www.breaking-the-barriers.org/stories_jamie.htm)
Link 17 is a personal homepage and not a verifyable source(http://hometown.aol.com/sharisajoy/myhomepage/profile.html)
Link 18 is an anecdote and not an acceptable soruce(http://soeweb.syr.edu/thefci/9-1hen.htm)
link 19 is a personal homepage and not a verifyable source(http://www.sue-rubin.org/)
Link 22 is a personal homepage and not a veryfiable source(http://www.geocities.com/acujames/frugone1.htm)
The facilitated communication digest is probably not an acceptable source((Bauman 1993,8,13,20,21)except for the FC training standerds.
I can't be sure though, I suspect this should be solved by a 3rd party. Regradless, the Aleged stories written by FC users should not be used 
as primary sources, regardless of where they come from.  
as an aside, I anticipate the argument that elsewhere on wikipedia people an be attributed as the authours of works without people questioning wheather they were in fact written by  the author. However, I beleive that since the primary question FC is authorship, then questioning the authorship of any document written via facilitated communication is a vaild question, unless there is a attributable source who verifies that the attributed author produced or is capable of producing independent Writing. No such source exists in this article, for Sue Rubin or anyone else.  "71.135.102.35 12:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pov problems"  

message: >      Besides, Beukelman and Mirenda qualify as an independent, third-party source for the independnent typists.
not unless they give any reason for their belief. As far as I know neither of them has done research about that subject. Only to claim that there are independent writers is not a valid argument.
     
::::* Falsely asserting the absence of a third-party source for independent typists (Beukelman and Mirenda)
If someone only claims that something is the case without giving reason why this is, than this is not a source, it is only an opinion. By the way, why only speaking of Beukelman and Mirenda and not mentioning that almost all other leading scientists in AAC do not believe that FC is a valid technique, for instance von Tetzcher and Lloyd. Nor do the scientists that research autism, cf. Frith or Howlin.  
Allmuth 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how Beukelman and Mirenda verified that claim.  Perhaps the way many such claims are verified:  by reliable eyewitness accounts?  In any case, remember that as Wikipedians our concern is with verifiability, not "truth", and I'd argue that Beukelman and Mirenda do qualify as a neutral secondary source.  Graduate-level texts like theirs are reviewed and fact-checked, and they are not FC partisans. -Jim Butler 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On the quality of that text, again: Graduate-level texts like theirs are reviewed and fact-checked, and the authors are not FC partisans.  The citation wasn't meant to be representative of what AAC experts say, but rather as an appropriate quote for the "Independent Typing" section, hence its inclusion there.  Are there AAC people who deny the phenomenon of independent typing, or do most of them simply ignore it?  I surmise the latter. -Jim Butler 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beukelman and Mirenda 

message: "anxit" should have been "anxiety" 
Allmuth 14:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my last edit 

message: Hi Kevin!  Do you have a reference for this statement you inserted:
:"The phrase "independent typing" is defined by supporters of FC to include the facilitor holding the keyboard or placing a hand on the shoulder of the typist."
To the best of my knowledge, FC trainers and proponents consistently define independent typing as the previous version of the article had it:  typing without physical support, i.e. without anyone touching the user.  The caveats about other supports, like holding the keyboard, can stay but the article needs to be factual.  I can reference this from the FCI and will change it unless you can point to something I've been overlooking.  -Jim Butler 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just changed this along with some other edits to the section; please revert if you have a contrary reference.  I put in a peer-reviewed article about Jamie that mentions his typing, so there are all verifiable now.  Also removed the sentence that says "Critics say these cases have not been independently and objectively verified" because (a) no reference is given and (b) verifiable sources are now cited.  Allmuth and others, I'm not averse to putting it back if it's clear that this really is a criticism that more than a couple of people are making. -Jim Butler 09:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesterday I put the criticism back anyway because I'm pretty sure a citation exists somewhere.  A number of things in the article still need references, mainly presentations of critics' and proponents' POV's.  I don't think these things are disputed by Wikipedia editors who are relatively familiar with FC; they just need references.  So I think it's better to leave them in, flag them (I'll get around to that) and dig up the references over time. -Jim Butler 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Independent Typing 

message: Hi Jim!
Have you really read this article? If you like, I'll send you a copy. In my opinion it does not qualify as a source for the claim that there are independent writers. It is a case description, stating that Mr. Burk has been trained in FC for long years and that he is able to read, that is to decode written text into speech. That is not the claim that should be supported.
Therefore the reference is misleading. Reliable source: yes (on the level of anecdotical evidence, it is not a study in the proper sense), reference for the existence of independent writers (in the sense of the FC-paradigma): No
By the way: I preferred the summary before your edit. It was much more neutral. The debate about the independent writers belongs in the research/concerns section. Unfortunately I am away the next weeks, but after my return I will take my FC-Files out of the cellar and try to rewrite the research section in a more structured and balanced way. 
Allmuth 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, happy travels.  Yes I've read it as well as Weiss.  I appreciate your recent entries on this page and will add my replies an another day (bedtime!).  I look forward to collaborating more on your return, e.g., I think the studies where other forms of independent AAC worked as well or better than FC are worth putting in.  FCers also encourage independence and multiple modalities.  The more independent the better.  cheers, -Jim Butler 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001 

message: my observations:
After much training, a small proportion of FC-users are capable of typing with only visual or auditory contact to the facilitator, especially if reduced selection sets (e.g. yes/no cards, use of the space key, use of the delete key) are used. Years of training are necessary to achieve this level of competency. In some of these cases, the hand of the facilitator "shadows" the hand of the facilitated person.In other cases, the facilitator sits beneath the individual who scans with his index finger over the keyboard and gives a verbal prompt, for example Push! when the finger is above the "right" key.
my conclusion: it is not clear what "the existence of independent writers" really mean with regard of the validity of FC. It is disputable. Therefor it belongs in the research/concerns section, not in the summary. The latter would suggest that the existence of those people would be kind of proof of the validity of the method (the Beukelman/Mirenda-fallacy) 
Allmuth 09:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Message-passing is really quite easy to test and so should message-passing independently.  I've seen it with my kid; it's part of everyday life:  "tell Daddy what you saw at the zoo today".  It's easy to set up controls:  just don't have anyone else who knows the message-to-be-passed in the room with the naive facilitator.  Anne McDonald reportedly had to message-pass in this way for the judge at her hearing determining whether she could leave the institution.  Users like Sharisa Joy report doing this all the time to prove themselves to educators and so on.  Scientists can conduct experiments on the fly.  Direct observation and/or reports from people considered reliable is one way for acceptance to spread even without peer-review, perhaps even to people like Beukelman and Mirenda!  I don't know if that's how they or someone they trust verified it or not but it wouldn't be implausible.  Anyway, more later. -Jim Butler 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is an independent writer? 

message: Unfortunately this phrase has been reedited into the summary again. In my opinion this is misleading. The question is not, if people can communicate while being facilitated. The question is, if they can better communicate while being facilitated than while not being facilitated. This has to been shown. For example: In one of the controlled studies a person is able to identify some numbers while facilitated. In the baseline (condition without facilitating) she is also able to do this. The proponents interpret this as authentic communication (yes) and as a proof for the validity of the method (no).
Allmuth 09:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even valid commincation is something that shows it's not all automatic writing.  However, Weiss and others were done on people who pretty much only FC'd, right?  Didn't you mention recently that Jamie reportedly communicates better with someone touching him?  You can take that as influence, or you can take it as FC "working", right? -Jim Butler 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment to last edit: "a smaller number of controlled studies have shown authentic instances of FC" 

message: I cited the original Autism Network International newsletter in which the Frugone piece appeared and from which the online copy was scanned and formatted.  Full disclosure: the site on which it's hosted is my own.  This isn't "original research", just a copying of a printed document to the Web; it wasn't done at the time with citing on Wikipedia in mind, and simply reflects my ongoing interest in FC.  My thoughts on the value of Frugone as a primary source are above under "Dispute over citations". -Jim Butler 10:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frugone cite 

message: I just double-checked the Response to Frontline to which editor 71.135.102.35 objected on the grounds that it was unverifiable and self-published, and guess what, it's not on Chris Borthwick's site as I'd assumed -- it's actually on DEAL's site , which uses the same host (home.vicnet.net.au) as Borthwick does .  DEAL is of course where Rosemary Crossley developed FC (aka FCT) as it is now known and practiced around the world, so their site is about as verifiable and primary as a source can possibly be for FC advocacy. (Borthwick has collaborated with Crossley on FC and related issues, and is well-known as an FC proponent and is cited as such on the FCI's page , so his self-published stuff is also fine in that regard.) -Jim Butler 05:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Frontline (Borthwick et. al.)