Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part I: Calculator & Singer
My intent this week was to follow up my last blog post with a review of Alicia A. Broderick and Christi Kasa-Hendrickson’s case study called “Say Just One Word at First”: The Emergence of Reliable Speech in a Student Labeled with Autism, but a paragraph in that article sidetracked me temporarily:
“Over the past decade, research on the method has centered primarily around the issue of validating authorship in FC. This question stems jointly from the supported nature of the method itself (i.e., the provision by a facilitator of physical, emotional, and other supports in order to type) and the often presumed lack of competence of individuals communicating via the method (i.e., individuals with labels of autism, mental retardation, Down syndrome, and other developmental disabilities.” (p. 14, emphasis mine)
The authors cite Calculator & Singer, 1992; Green & Shane, 1994; Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995; and Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, & Schwartz, 1993 to back up their claim.
Jamie being facilitated by his mother, Sheree, who pushes and pulls at his shoulders. Burke is featured in Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson’s case study where they claim his typing is “independent” and “free from physical touch. (Image from “Inside the Edge,” 2002).
The idea that critics of FC are against people with disabilities is a common theme in FC literature. But, over the years, I’ve met some of the critics Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson cite and I find it difficult to believe their claim that these professionals “often presume lack of competence of individuals via the method.” In fact, I find this assertion quite offensive.
In this series, I will review each of the articles Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson singled out before circling back to review theirs. I decided to do this for two reasons:
I am curious to understand just what the researchers said—in their own words--about their clients in relation to FC use; and
I think it will help put the Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson article in perspective when I finally do review it.
Calculator, Stephen N. and Singer, Karen M. (1992, November). Letter to the editor: Preliminary validation of facilitated communication. Topics in Language Disorders. Vol 13 (1); ix-xvi.
I was surprised to see this article cited. By their own report, Stephen Calculator and Karen Singer were open to FC use, at least initially. You’d think they’d be considered allies.
I want to point out, that by including the article, I am not defending Calculator and Singer’s pro-FC stance. Rather, I am interested in their article in relation to the comments above made by Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson.
And, while I could not find additional information regarding Singer, Calculator’s pro-FC stance lasted long after reliably controlled studies had shown it to be invalid.
A 1994 study conducted by Adrienne Perry, James Bebko, and Susan E. Bryson, failed to replicate the Calculator & Singer’s (1992) study, but this did not appear to be a deterrent. In that instance, none of the students showed dramatic improvement with FC use and, in some cases, the students appeared to perform slightly worse with FC than they did independently.
In addition, Calculator maintained what appeared to be a combination of active and passive support for FC even after the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA), of which he was a licensed member, had publicly opposed its use in 1995. Later, it did appear that his concerns about facilitator influence caused him to distance himself from FC. See my notes (below) for further discussion on this topic.
At the time the “Preliminary Validation of FC” was published, Calculator was a Professor of Communication Disorders at the University of New Hampshire-Durham. Calculator held a PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, as well as a Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology (CCC-SLP).
Singer was a graduate student in the Communication Disorders program at the University of New Hampshire-Durham.
A message of gratitude to those who participated in the study gives us a glimpse of how they felt about their clients:
We extend our utmost appreciation and respect to the students, their families, and school personnel who participated in this investigation. Gratitude is also extended to Steven Bornstein (Department of Communication Disorders, University of New Hampshire-Durham) for his technical assistance on this project.
This does not sound like a message from people who “presumed lack of competence” in individuals with disabilities, as suggested by Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, but rather people who cared about the individuals with whom they interacted.
Facilitating at the wrist as shown in a 1991 Syracuse University training video. (Syracuse University, 1991).
In fact, in setting up a study of FC with five “successfully” facilitated students, Calculator and Singer wrote:
Our motivation was not to discount the efficacy of facilitated communication, since we have witnessed its impact repeatedly on students in New Hampshire (NH). At the same time, we have been involved with students whose accomplishments with facilitated communication have been met with equal degrees of rejoicing and skepticism. (p. x)
Calculator and Singer, it seemed, were trying to do what was best for their students. FC had only been introduced to the US two years prior to their study (1990) and, absent of the online resources we have today, people were still trying to figure out its validity.
Through their research into FC Calculator and Singer discovered that:
Pro-FC literature, namely Seminars in Speech and Language by Douglas Biklen (1992), omitted studies conducted in Australia that provided evidence of facilitator control over FC-generated messages. In fact, educators were encouraged not to test for competence and told that using blinded test protocols would “introduce skepticism” into an otherwise positive experience for their students.
Educators skeptical of FC and those who had adopted it in NH were confronted with inconsistencies and contradictions in purported student skill levels. The educators struggled with how best to determine appropriate goals for their students.
In addition, Calculator and Singer understood the link between FC and a well-documented phenomenon called the ideomotor effect that allowed facilitators to influence letter selection without apparent conscious awareness that they were doing so. They wrote:
Whether we talk about a Ouija board effect, self-fulfilling prophecies, the Clever Hans phenomena, or social communicative variables, questions regarding who is communicating when facilitated communication is used persist.
"The Boston planchette ... first made in Boston in 1860 ... For sale by G.W. Cottrell, 36 Cornhill, Boston." (Public Domain Image)
Given that FC was not an empirically proven technique, Calculator and Singer proceeded responsibly by setting up a study to “validate the impact of facilitated communication on uncovering students’ underlying communication skills.” After all, they had a professional and ethical obligation to “gather accurate diagnostic information as a basis for designing appropriate educational programs.”
Proponents make the claim that testing is, by its nature, antagonistic, but Calculator and Singer seemed particularly sensitive to creating a positive testing environment. They chose people for their study who had been using FC for a minimum of three months prior. Each student required facilitation at the wrist. They were paired with facilitators who asserted that their clients were able to “answer questions and converse by spelling words, phrases, and sentences.” The parents of all five students were “very eager to participate.” They wanted to convince skeptical school personnel that FC messages were valid.
But, in the end, the test results for the five students were mixed (largely due to poor controls during testing). According to the authors, three students displayed “marked improvements” when facilitation was provided, and two students displayed no significant differences with or without facilitation.
I found no indication in the article that Calculator and Singer doubted that individuals with disabilities could communicate by typing. Rather than reject FC outright, it seems they took an agnostic view for the moment.
Their study had, after all, been a “preliminary validation” of FC and, in their conclusion to the article, the authors discussed developing “additional protocols” for use with individuals with profound disabilities. They also wanted to develop “informal procedures” to be used to assess children’s communication skills when “the facilitator’s participation in student output is limited to motor assistance.”
The “offense,” then, that seemed to land them on the Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson critic list appears to be that Calculator and Singer had the intellectual curiosity and the critical thinking skills to begin investigating FC in a measured and controlled way. And, while the soundness of their study may be up for debate (and left for another day), this is hardly proof that Calculator and Singer “presumed lack of competence” of individuals being subjected to FC.
Next time, I will be reviewing Green and Shane’s article “Science, Reason and Facilitated Communication.”
Note: In 2013, Calculator told me in a private email that he had purposefully distanced himself from FC. In short, he had concerns about facilitator influence and was unable to replicate the early FC successes.
Here are two additional articles he wrote:
Calculator, S; Hatch, E (1995). "Validation of facilitated communication: A case study and beyond". American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 4 (1): 49–58.
This article discusses a false allegation of abuse case and attempts to validate the authorship of messages obtained during FC-generated typing sessions. The results of the assessment failed to support facilitator assertions that the client possessed the necessary communication skills to author the messages. Charges against the father were subsequently dismissed.
Calculator, Stephen (October 1999). "Look Who's Pointing Now: Cautions Related to the Clinical Use of Facilitated Communication". Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 30 (4): 408–414.
This article cautions speech-language pathologists who are considering FC and focuses on three factors relating to its use:
Insufficient evidence to support claims that FC overrides apraxia, word finding, and social-emotional challenges in individuals being subjected to its use.
Absence of criteria for initiating, maintaining, modifying, and terminating FC.
Discrepancies between qualitative and experimental investigations.
He wrote:
Given the indisputable evidence of facilitators unwittingly influencing message construction, and the lack of substantiation of communicators authoring messages independently, I would encourage all clinicians to initiate experimentally controlled assessments concurrent with the introduction of this method. Further testing of this type must then continue as part of the communication program. Lack or absence of longitudinal experimental validation should prompt considerations of : (a) modifying FC instruction; (b) increasing reliance on independent forms of AAC, concurrent with FC instruction; or (c) terminating FC. Such decisions may need to be made regardless of qualitative observations and anecdotal reports that suggest that individuals are using FC effectively. The latter forms of evidence must be interpreted with reservation, and even skepticism, given the likelihood of facilitator influence.
Note: Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson cited these specific studies in their article Say Just One Word at First”: The Emergence of Reliable Speech in a Student Labeled with Autism as “proof” that critics “presume lack of competence” in individuals being subjected to FC:
Calculator, Stephen N. and Singer, Karen M. (1992, November). Letter to the editor: Preliminary validation of facilitated communication. Topics in Language Disorders. Vol 13 (1); ix-xvi.
Green, Gina; Shane, Howard C. (Fall, 1994). Science, Reason, and Facilitated Communication. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, vol. 19(3), 151-72.
Jacobson, J.W., Mulick, J.A., Schwartz, A.A. (1995, September). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50 (9), 750-765.
Wheeler, D.L., Jacobson, J.W., Paglieri, R.A., and Schwartz, A.A. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation. Vol 31 (1), 49-60.
You can read all the blog posts in this series at these links (I’ll make them “live” as they are published over the next few weeks).
Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part I: Calculator and Singer
Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part II: Green and Shane
Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part III: Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz
Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part IV: Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, and Schwartz
Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part V: Review of Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson
Do Critics of FC “Presume Lack of Competence”? Part VI: In Sum, No.