Brief report: A case study assessing the validity of facilitated communication

Fad, Pseudoscientific, and Controversial Interventions

“…The dramatic results accompanied claims consistent with pseudoscience (i.e., miraculous, revolutionary, breakthrough treatment method) (Berger, 1991 ), but only were supported with testimonials disguised as qualitative research (Biklen, 1990 ;. Researchers immediately responded and failed to validate claims made about FC (Hudson, Melita, & Arnold, 1993 ;Szempruch & Jacobson, 1993 ;Wheeler et al, 1993 ). Subsequently, study after study failed to demonstrate any authenticity of FC (Mostert, 2001 ;Simpson & Myles, 1995 ).…”

Critical Issues in Causation and Treatment of Autism: Why Fads Continue to Flourish

“…In spite of overwhelming legal verdicts depicting FC claims of abuse as having no credibility (Prieto v. County of Orange, 1997), the lives and reputations of loving and caring parents were destroyed. Further, scientifically based studies found that the typed language output that was attributed to individuals with disabilities was really the voice of the paraprofessional or professional who provided the facilitated assistance Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 12:44 12 October 2014 (Bligh & Kupperman, 1993;Eberline et al, 1993;Hudson, Melita, & Arnold, 1993;Klewe, 1993).…”

Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review

“…In the peer-reviewed journal literature, and per analysis of , six studies (all dated within the period 1993 -1995) involved controlled FC conditions, and rendered conclusions about the validity of accusations of sexual abuse made through FC: Bligh and Kupperman (1994); Calculator and Hatch (1995); Hudson, Melita, and Arnold (1993);Heckler (1994); Shane and Kearns (1994);and Siegel (1995).…”

“…Per analysis of the systematic review, 23 studies (all dated in the years 1993 -1998) met the criteria for level one analysis and included a blinded FC condition with a nonblinded FC condition as a comparison (Bebko, Perry, & Bryson, 1996;Bligh & Kupperman, 1993;Braman, Brady, Linehan, & Williams, 1995;Cabay, 1994;Calculator & Hatch, 1995;Eberlin, McConnachie, Ibel, & Volpe, 1993;Hirshoren & Gregory, 1995;Hudson & Arnold, 1993;Kerrin, Murdock, Sharpton, & Jones, 1998;Kezuka, 1997;Klewe, 1993;Konstantareas & Gravelle, 1998;Montee, Miltenberger, & Wittrock, 1995;Moore, Donovan, & Hudson, 1993a;Myles & Simpson, 1994;Myles, Simpson, & Smith, 1996;Oswald, 1994;Shane & Kearns, 1994;Simon et al, 1994;Simpson & Myles, 1995b;Smith, Haas, & Belcher, 1994;Vasquez, 1994;and Vasquez, 1995). In addition to studies included in Probst ' s (2005) Schiavo, Tressoldi, and Martinez (2005).…”