Facilitated Communication and its Variants: Evidence in Context
In the field of communication assessment and intervention, Facilitated Communication (FC) and its derivatives, such as the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C), have been particularly contentious and polarizing. These methods claim to assist individuals with severe communication impairments, often due to autism or other developmental disabilities, in expressing themselves through typing or pointing to letters with the aid of a facilitator. Proponents assert that these techniques unlock hidden potential, providing a channel for complex thought and expression otherwise buried beneath the limitations of impaired motor skills or speech. The efficacy and authenticity of these methods, however, is not supported by empirical evidence, and multiple studies have identified the facilitator's unconscious guidance as the true source of the output. The divide often goes beyond academic disagreement, infiltrating legal, ethical, and social realms as families, professionals, and policymakers grapple with the implications. This Article Collection from Evidence-based Communication Assessment and Intervention contextualizes the evidence on these techniques from multiple angles—scientific rigor, ethical considerations, and firsthand accounts. By assembling a collection of articles, case studies, and perspectives from professionals across various disciplines, we provide an evidence-based perspective that critically scrutinizes the validity, applications, and implications of FC and its variants.