Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:29:51.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whose words are these? Statements derived from Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method undermine the credibility of Jaswal & Akhtar's social motivation hypotheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2019

Stuart Vyse Open the ORCID record for Stuart Vyse [Opens in a new window] ,
Bronwyn Hemsley ,
Russell Lang ,
Scott O. Lilienfeld ,
Mark P. Mostert ,
Henry D. Schlinger Jr. ,
Howard C. Shane ,
Mark Sherry  and
James T. Todd
Stuart Vyse
Affiliation:
Independent scholar. [email protected]://stuartvyse.com
Bronwyn Hemsley
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia. [email protected]
Russell Lang
Affiliation:
Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666-4684. [email protected]://cares.education.txstate.edu
Scott O. Lilienfeld
Affiliation:
Emory-Melbourne University, Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322. [email protected]://psychology.emory.edu/home/people/faculty/lilienfeld-scott.html
Mark P. Mostert
Affiliation:
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA 23454. [email protected]
Henry D. Schlinger Jr.
Affiliation:
California State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032. [email protected]://www.calstatela.edu/academic/psych/hschlin.html
Howard C. Shane
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's Hospital Center for Communication Enhancement, Boston Children's Hospital, Waltham, MA 02453. [email protected]
Mark Sherry
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606. [email protected]
James T. Todd
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jaswal & Akhtar provide several quotes ostensibly from people with autism but obtained via the discredited techniques of Facilitated Communication and the Rapid Prompting Method, and they do not acknowledge the use of these techniques. As a result, their argument is substantially less convincing than they assert, and the article lacks transparency.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e113
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2018a) Facilitated communication [position statement]. Available at: https://www.asha.org/policy/PS2018-00352/.Google Scholar
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2018b) Rapid prompting method [position statement]. Available at: https://www.asha.org/policy/PS2018-00351/Google Scholar
Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan. (2018) Resolutions and statements by scientific, professional, medical, governmental, and support organizations against the use of facilitated communication. Available at: http://www.baam.emich.edu/baam-fc-resolutions-compilation.html.Google Scholar
Chen, G. M., Yoder, K. J., Ganzel, B. L., Goodwin, M. S. & Belmonte, M. K. (2012) Harnessing repetitive behaviours to engage attention and learning in a novel therapy for autism: An exploratory analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 3:12.Google Scholar
Fein, D. & Kamio, Y. (2014) Commentary on The Reason I Jump by Naoki Higashida. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 35(8):539–42. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000098.Google Scholar
Higashida, N. (2013) The reason I jump. Random House.Google Scholar
Kedar, T. (2012) Ido in Autismland. Sharon Kedar.Google Scholar
Lang, R., Harbison, A., Travers, J. & Todd, J. (2014) The only study investigating the rapid prompting method has serious methodological flaws but data suggest the most likely outcome is prompt dependency. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention 8:40–48.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O., Marshall, J., Todd, J. T. & Shane, H. C. (2014) The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention 8(2):62–101.Google Scholar
Mostert, M. P. (2001) Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31(3):287–313. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010795219886.Google Scholar
Mostert, M. P. (2010) Facilitated communication and its legitimacy – Twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality 18(1):31–41. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903462524.Google Scholar
Rentenbach, B. & Prislovsky, L. (2012) I might be you: An exploration of autism and connection. Mule & Muse.Google Scholar
Rubin, S. (2005) A conversation with Leo Kanner. In: Autism and the myth of the person alone, ed. Biklen, D., pp. 82–109. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P. & von Tetzchner, S. (2014) Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 30(4):359–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.971490.Google Scholar
Tostanoski, A., Lang, R., Raulston, T., Carnett, A. & Davis, T. (2014) Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 17:219–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2012.749952.Google Scholar
Wurzburg, G. (2004) Autism is a world [documentary]. CNN.Google Scholar