Social media and social marketing in relation to facilitated communication: Harnessing the affordances of social media for knowledge translation

Hemsley, Bronwyn; Dann, Stephen

doi:10.1080/17489539.2015.1023988

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and financial security; hacking; impersonation; identity theft; cyber bullying), due to (a) the person's communication impairment (e.g., comprehension difficulties; Hemsley et al, 2015), (b) behaviors associated with the person's disability (e.g., increased acquiescence, limited ability to weigh the consequences of a range of actions; Lough & Fisher, 2016), (c) low levels of literacy (Sturm et al, 2006), and (d) reliance on third parties (family, friends) for access to the Internet, social media, and security controls (Stendahl & Balandin, 2015;Raghavendra et al, 2012). Hemsley and Dann (2014) also noted that potential harms in social media can include exposure to unreliable information, and that certain protections are needed to fortify individuals with communication disabilities and their families against misinformation (incorrect information) and disinformation (deliberately deceptive information) in social media.…”

Section: Key Focus Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

A call for innovative social media research in the field of augmentative and alternative communication

Hemsley

Balandin

Palmer

et al. 2017

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) social media research is relatively new, and is built on a foundation of research on use of the Internet and social media by people with communication disabilities. Although the field is expanding to include a range of people who use AAC, there are limitations and gaps in research that will need to be addressed in order to keep pace with the rapid evolution of social media connectivity in assistive communication technologies. In this paper, we consider the aims, scope, and methodologies of AAC social media research, with a focus on social network sites. Lack of detailed attention to specific social network sites and little use of social media data limits the extent to which findings can be confirmed. Increased use of social media data across a range of platforms, including Instagram and YouTube, would provide important insights into the lives of people who use AAC and the ways in which they and their supporters use social media. New directions for AAC social media research are presented in line with those discussed at the social media research symposium at the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication in Toronto, Canada, on August 12, 2016.

show abstract

Section: Key Focus Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

A call for innovative social media research in the field of augmentative and alternative communication

Hemsley

Balandin

Palmer

et al. 2017

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, 15 papers (dated 2014–2016) met the criteria for being level four papers: Agran (2014), Cardinal and Falvey (2014), Chan and Nankervis (2014), Hemsley and Dann (2014), Lilienfeld et al. (2014), Mirenda (2014), Mostert (2014, 2015), Sherry (2016), Singer, Horner, Dunlap, and Wang (2014), Tostanoski, Lang, Raulston, Carnett, and Davis (2014), Travers and Ayres (2015), Travers, Tincani, and Lang (2014), Trembath, Paynter, Keen, and Ecker (2015), and Wombles (2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, since 2014 there is (a) a substantial growth body of peer-reviewed literature that is critical of FC and warns against its use ( n = 14, Agran, 2014; Chan & Nankervis, 2014; Hemsley & Dann, 2014; Lilienfeld et al., 2014; Mirenda, 2014; Mostert, 2014, 2015; Sherry, 2016; Singer et al., 2014; Tostanoski et al., 2014; Travers & Ayres, 2015; Travers et al., 2014; Trembath et al., 2015; Wombles, 2014); and (b) scant peer- reviewed literature that is supportive of FC ( n = 1, Cardinal & Falvey, 2014). Level four papers comprised 15 reports that included perspectives of individuals from various stakeholder groups regarding FC (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014–2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability

Hemsley

Bryant

Schlosser

et al. 2018

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique that involves a person with a disability pointing to letters, pictures, or objects on a keyboard or on a communication board, typically with physical support from a “facilitator”. Proponents claim that FC reveals previously undetected literacy and communication skills in people with communication disability. However, systematic reviews conducted up to 2014 reveal no evidence that the messages generated using FC are authored by the person with a disability. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature on FC published between 2014 and 2018 to inform the 2018 update of the 1995 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Position Statement on FC. Method A systematic search was undertaken to locate articles about FC in English published in the peer reviewed literature since 2014; and to classify these according to the study design for analysis. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were classified according to four categories of evidence: (a) quantitative experimental data pertaining to authorship, (b) quantitative descriptive data on messages produced using FC, (c) qualitative data, or (d) commentary material on FC. Main contribution In total, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were no new empirical studies and no new descriptive quantitative studies addressing the authorship of messages delivered using FC. Three new qualitative studies qualified for inclusion; these did not first establish authorship. Of the 15 new commentary papers on FC located, 14 were critical and one was non-critical. The results could be used to inform the development or update of current position statements on FC held locally, nationally, and globally. Conclusion There are no new studies on authorship and there remains no evidence that FC is a valid form of communication for individuals with severe communication disabilities. There continue to be no studies available demonstrating that individuals with communication disabilities are the authors of the messages generated using FC. Furthermore, there is substantial peer-reviewed literature that is critical of FC and warns against its use. Implications FC continues to be contested in high profile court cases and its use promoted in school settings and workshops at university campuses in the US. Our empty systematic review will influence both clinical practice and future clinical guidance; most immediately the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Position Statement on FC and any future guidance issued by the 19 associations worldwide with positions against FC.

show abstract

“…Todd (2012, p. On the basis of literature on RPM to date, and the findings of this summary and commentary appraisal, further research that exposes students with ASD to RPM is not justified. However, further research on pseudoscientific treatments in ASD could include RPM in scans of social network sites (e.g., of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) to detect how information, misinformation, and disinformation (e.g., Nguyen, Yan, & Thai (2013) about RPM is produced and disseminated in online forums and how this compares with or relates to information produced about FC (e.g., FC, see Hemsley & Dann, 2015).…”

Section: ); (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence does not support the use of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) as an intervention for students with autism spectrum disorder and further primary research is not justified

Social media and social marketing in relation to facilitated communication: Harnessing the affordances of social media for knowledge translation

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

A call for innovative social media research in the field of augmentative and alternative communication

A call for innovative social media research in the field of augmentative and alternative communication

Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014–2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability

Evidence does not support the use of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) as an intervention for students with autism spectrum disorder and further primary research is not justified

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About