Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication

Abstract

Objective: This article briefly reviews the history and damage caused by facilitated communication (FC) and highlights the parallels between FC and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). Background: FC involves a therapist (or facilitator) supporting the hand of a person with autism while a message is typed on a letter board. FC is widely acknowledged to be a pseudoscientific, unsafe, and unethical treatment for people with autism. RPM is a more recent intervention for people with autism that involves the facilitator holding and moving the letter board while the individual with autism moves their own hand. Those who espouse the perceived benefits of FC and RPM make strikingly similar claims of hidden intelligence and extraordinary communication abilities in people with autism following treatment. Conclusion: Clients, proponents, and practitioners of RPM should demand scientific validation of RPM in order to ensure the safety of people with disabilities that are involved with RPM.

The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example

“…For example, FC is now often called "supported typing," "progressive kinesthetic feedback" (Giese, 2008), or "written output communication enhancement". This technique was developed by Soma Mukhopadhyay for her son Tito, who was diagnosed with autism, and was introduced to the United States in 2001 (Tostanoski, Lang, Raulston, Carnett, & Davis, 2014). For example, rapid prompting, sometimes called informative pointing (Todd, 2012), is a minor modification of FC that similarly appears to operate by means of the ideomotor effect.…”

“…For example, rapid prompting, sometimes called informative pointing (Todd, 2012), is a minor modification of FC that similarly appears to operate by means of the ideomotor effect. There is presently no scientific support for this method (Tostanoski et al, 2014). In rapid prompting, as opposed to traditional FC, the facilitator subtly moves the keyboard or letter board as the individual types without apparent physical assistance (Raulston et al, 2013).…”

“…In 2008, the ICI received a $500,000 grant from the John P. Hussman Foundation to pursue research, training, and dissemination of FC (Hagen, 2012), with nearly a third of the award allocated "to support the training of family members in the use of augmentative and alternative communication strategies" (Syracuse University Giving, 2008). A fourth recommended group, Helping Autism Through Learning and Outreach (HALO), disseminates rapid prompting, a technique that, as noted earlier, appears to be a minor variant of FC (Tostanoski et al, 2014). Moreover, a commentary article in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience (Berger, 2013) listed the ICI, along with (a) "Bodyspeaks," a group that promotes FC and similar communication techniques and (b) Whitter Area Parents' Association for the Developmentally Handicapped (WAPADH), a California-based organization that endorses FC, as three of six recommended resources for individuals seeking information about autism.…”

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

“…It might interest Wikipedia TM editors, and others proclaiming that FC is a controversial technique, to know that the literature on FC now reflects consensus rather than controversy in revealing facilitator influence over messages delivered by FC (see Heizen, Lilienfield, & Nolan, 2014;Saloviita, Leppä nen, & Ojalammi, 2014;Schlosser et al, 2014;Tostanoski, Lang, Raulston, Carnett, & Davis, 2014;Travers et al, 2014).…”

Fad, Pseudoscientific, and Controversial Interventions

“…Journal articles (e.g., Mudford et al, 2000 ;Simpson & Myles, 1995 ;Todd, 2012 ;Tostanoski, Lang, Raulston, Carnett, & Davis, 2014 ;Travers, Tincani, & Lang, 2014 ) textbooks (e.g., Foxx & Mulick, 2016 ), and popular print (e.g., Offi t, 2010 ) have dealt with a variety of unsubstantiated claims regarding various treatments. Despite advances in understanding ASD etiology, early identifi cation, and treatment, many unfounded beliefs and pseudoscientifi c interventions continue to proliferate.…”