Skip to main content

Home/ Autism Teachers/ Group items tagged communication boards

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Tero Toivanen

facilitated communication - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com - 0 views

skepdic.com/facilcom.html

skepdic facilitated communication autism FC

shared by Tero Toivanen on 26 Mar 09 - Cached
  • The American Psychological Association has issued a position paper on FC, stating that "Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation" and describing FC as "a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."
  • Frontline Program on facilitated communication:
    • Tero Toivanen
      Tero Toivanen on 26 Mar 09
       
      Here is the video about Facilitated Communication (FC). If you have something to do with FC, I think you should watch it.
  • Parents are grateful to discover that their child is not hopelessly retarded but is either normal or above normal in intelligence. FC allows their children to demonstrate their intelligence; it provides them with a vehicle heretofore denied them.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Facilitated Communication therapy began in Australia with Rosemary Crossley. The center for FC in the United States is Syracuse University, which houses the Facilitated Communication Institute (FCI) in their School of Education.
  • A very damaging, detailed criticism was presented on PBS's "Frontline", October 19, 1993. The program was repeated December 17, 1996, and added that since the first showing, Syracuse University has claimed to have done three studies which verify the reality and effectiveness of FC, while thirty other studies done elsewhere have concluded just the opposite.
  • Furthermore, FC clients routinely use a flat board or keyboard, over which the facilitator holds their pointing finger. Even the most expert typist could not routinely hit correct letters without some reference as a starting point.
  • Facilitators routinely look at the keyboard; clients do not. The messages' basic coherence indicates that they most probably are produced by someone who is looking at the keyboard.
  • Anyone familiar with Helen Keller, Stephen Hawking or Christy Brown knows that blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or physical or neurological disorders, do not necessarily affect the intellect. There is no necessary connection between a physical handicap and a mental handicap. We also know that such people often require an assistant to facilitate their communication. But what facilitators do to help the likes of a Hawking or a Brown is a far cry from what those in the facilitated communication business are doing.
  • But the vast majority of FC clients apparently are mentally retarded or autistic. Their facilitators appear to be reporting their own thoughts, not their patient's thoughts. Interestingly, the facilitators are genuinely shocked when they discover that they are not really communicating their patient's thoughts. Their reaction is similar to that of dowsers and others with "special powers" who, when tested under controlled conditions, find they don't have any special powers at all.
  • It is interesting that the parents and other loved ones who have been bonding with the patient for years are unable to be facilitators with their own children.
  • And when the kind strangers and their patients are put to the test, they generally fail. We are told that is because the conditions made them nervous. These ad hoc excuses sound familiar; they sound like the complaints of parapsychologists.
  • Skeptics think the evidence is in and FC is a delusion for the most part. It is also a dangerous delusion. Critics have noted a similarity between FC therapy and repressed memory therapy: patients are accusing their parents and others of having sexually abused them. Facilitators are taught that something like 13% of their clients have been sexually abused. This information may unconsciously influence their work.
  • Tero Toivanen on 26 Mar 09
     
    You find here a very about Important Video about Facilitated Communication (FC). The American Psychological Association has issued a position paper on FC, stating that "Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation" and describing FC as "a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."
Tero Toivanen

NeuroLogica Blog » Facilitated Communication Persists Despite Scientific Crit... - 0 views

theness.com/...s-despite-scientific-criticism

FC Facilitated Communication supported typing autism communication

shared by Tero Toivanen on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique for allegedly aiding those with communication impairment, such as some people with autism, to communicate through typing or pointing at a letter board. The idea is that some children have greater cognitive ability than is apparent through their verbal skills, but they lack the motor skills to type or write. The facilitator in FC is trained to hold and support their client’s hand, to help stabilize it, so that they can type out their thoughts.
  • FC was enthusiastically embraced by the special education community in the late 1980s and early 1990s but problems quickly emerged, namely the question of authorship – who is doing the communicating, the client or the facilitator?
  • The scientific evidence came down clearly on one side of that debate – it is the facilitator who is the author of the communication, not the client.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • A 2001 review by Mostert came to the same conclusion – that the evidence supports the conclusion that the facilitators are the authors of communication in FC.
  • The strategy here is obvious – studies that directly and objectively confront the key question, who is authoring the writing in FC, gave an answer proponents did not like. They therefore shifted to indirect inference which is more amenable to judgement and qualitative analysis so that the desired results can be manufactured.
  • FC continues to exist on the fringe of legitimate science, but continues to fool journalists, patient advocates, and even physicians.
  • It is sad that FC continues to survive despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is not a legitimate method of communication, but rather an elaborate exercise in self-deception.  It is a useful example of how powerful and subtle self-deception can be, and also of the ways in which scientific evidence can be manipulated to generate a desired outcome.
Tero Toivanen

Why parents swear by ineffective treatments for autism. - By Sydney Spiesel - Slate Mag... - 0 views

www.slate.com/2215076

autism ineffective treatments treatment

shared by Tero Toivanen on 02 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Since most of the ways we diagnose autism are based on behavior, we can't rely on biological, structural, or chemical findings to determine if a treatment is working. We primarily measure success based on a patient's change, or lack thereof, in behavior.
  • The behavioral changes produced by the few effective treatments make life in social settings (including the home) possible, but we have no idea whether they have any effect on the underlying cause (or causes) of autism or whether they even make severely affected patients feel better.
  • One method intended to help, "facilitated communication," is based on the idea that a sensitive facilitator will hold the hand of a patient over a kind of Ouija board. She will then help the patient respond to questions by sensing his intention and helping guide his hand to spell out answers. Rigorous studies have shown that the spelled-out answers come from the unconscious (or, worse, the conscious) mind of the facilitator. Nonetheless, the practice is still in use, and I know parents who are utterly convinced that it is valid and useful. Frankly, something important did happen when facilitated communication was introduced to my patients: They improved, they brightened, they became more social and more interactive, and they seemed, somehow, happier, even though facilitated communication didn't actually translate their thoughts into words. I'll come back to "why" in a minute.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The techniques of sensory integrative treatment include rubbing or brushing skin (using graded and tactile stimulation), balance exercises, exposure to soft music, and the use of weighted clothes, among other things. Does it work? Most of the research has been of very poor quality, but, in virtually all of the recent studies, sensory integration doesn't seem to be any more beneficial than any other treatment.
  • It looks as if environmental alteration, especially if coupled with increased attention and perhaps expectation, often leads to change in human behavior. It's called the "Hawthorne effect."
  • People respond—mostly favorably—to positive attention and interaction. The question we need to ask about all the treatments available for autism is whether they actively shape and change brain development and thus treat the underlying condition, as many proponents believe, or whether the benefits (if they are present at all) are simply another example of the Hawthorne effect.
  • Perhaps my patients who became more alive and more interactive after facilitated communication was introduced changed because their families and caretakers were taking them more seriously as people who might have an inner life—people worthy of attention and interaction.
  • Tero Toivanen on 02 Apr 09
     
    People respond-mostly favorably-to positive attention and interaction. The question we need to ask about all the treatments available for autism is whether they actively shape and change brain development and thus treat the underlying condition, as many proponents believe, or whether the benefits (if they are present at all) are simply another example of the Hawthorne effect.
Tero Toivanen

Autism Information - Autism Information You Need To Know - 1 views

autism.about.com/...formation-You-Need-To-Know.htm

autism information you spectrum disorders research facts disorder causes diagnosis diagnoses treatment special education special needs SPED

shared by Tero Toivanen on 16 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • There are plenty of myths about autism spectrum disorders out there.
  • But even those of use who are well-grounded in autism basics may be surprised by some of these facts, which are emerging from recent research.
  • We do know what causes autism -- but only in about 20% of cases.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • Quite a few children who are diagnosed with autism at a very young age are no longer diagnosable with autism by the time they’re school-aged.
  • Whatever the reasons, many children who are diagnosed with autism as toddlers will not be diagnosable by the time they're in fifth grade.
  • Early intervention (diagnosis and treatment prior to age three) is very helpful indeed, but there is no “window of opportunity” that slams shut at a certain age. Thus, even children who are diagnosed later or receive less early intervention may do quite well in the long run.
  • Early intervention does, however, provide a now-or-never opportunity to allow non-verbal children to develop some kind of useful tool for communication (picture cards, signs, or even spelling boards).
  • There is no official “cure” for autism. In fact, researchers like Dr. Susan Levy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia argue that even when a young child is no longer diagnosable on the autism spectrum, he is probably still autistic.
  • Late talking is not an indication of a poor prognosis.
  • Children with autism may or may not be visual thinkers. Thus, school programs designed with visual thinking in mind may or may not be appropriate for any individual child with autism.
  • After many years of research, we still don’t know which treatments are most effective for which children -- or whether one treatment is more effective than another. Behavioral interventions are the best-researched treatments for autism, but even top scientists acknowledge that developmental interventions may or may not be equally useful for any given child. Meanwhile, only two drugs -- Risperdal and Abilify -- have been approved for use with children on the autism spectrum, and neither addresses “core” issues of autism (social/communication deficits).
  • Tero Toivanen on 16 Mar 11
     
    Important facts and information about autism.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page