Aspies For Freedom

I have known Sue Rubin since 1992. I am very skeptical that her communication is authentic.

The necessary control was established in a number of ways. In some studies, facilitators were simply asked to look at their partner and not the letter display, or were actually screened from the letter display. These kinds of tests were suggested by the observation that many facilitators focus intently on the letters while their partners look at the letters infrequently, if at all. Others presented visual stimuli like pictures, objects, or printed materials only to the FC user while the facilitator was screened from seeing them. Alternatively, spoken questions were presented only to the FC user while their facilitator wore earplugs or headphones playing masking noise. Several evaluations used a procedure described as "message passing:" FC users were engaged in some familiar activities in the absence of facilitators, who then used FC to solicit descriptions of the activities. A couple of evaluations involved independent facilitators, unfamiliar with the FC user, who solicited information that was presumably unknown to the facilitator (e.g., the FC user's favorite food, a recent event in their life, names of family members, etc.).

The Results
The most telling evaluations used double-blind procedures, in which facilitators and their partners saw or heard different items on some trials, and the same item on other trials. Neither could tell what information their partner was receiving. Responses that corresponded to information presented to the facilitator and not to their partner provided direct evidence that facilitators were controlling those FC productions. Multiple tasks and control procedures were used by several investigators. Facilitators in all evaluations had been trained by leading proponents of FC, or by others who had had such training. They seemed representative of the general population of facilitators, including parents, paraprofessionals, teachers, speech pathologists, and other human service workers. The sample of FC users in these evaluations also appeared representative, comprising a total of 194 children and adults with autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and related disorders.

None of these controlled evaluations produced compelling evidence that FC enabled individuals with disabilities to demonstrate unexpected literacy and communication skills, free of the facilitator's influence. Many messages were produced over numerous trials and sessions, but the vast majority were accurate and appropriate to context only when the facilitator knew what was to be produced. The strong inference is that facilitators authored most messages, although most reported that they were unaware of doing so. Sixteen evaluations found no evidence whatsoever of valid productions. A total of 23 individuals with various disabilities in nine different evaluations made accurate responses on some occasions when their facilitators did not know the answers, but most of those productions were commensurate with or less advanced than the individuals' documented skills without FC. That is, they were primarily single words and an occasional short phrase, produced on some trials by individuals whose vocal or signed communication exceeded that level, some of whom had documented reading skills before they were introduced to FC. For most of these individuals, there was clear evidence that on many other trials their facilitators controlled the productions. The controlled evaluations also demonstrated that most facilitators simply could not tell when and how much they were cueing their partners, emphasizing the importance of systematic, controlled observations for identifying the source of "facilitated" messages. The legal, ethical, and practical implications of these findings are obvious and serious. Together with the legal cases and critical media reports, they have made it a little more acceptable to voice skepticism about FC.

A research committee was formed, and great care was taken in planning a research study design on which everyone agreed. Facilitators would be "blind" to the photographs that the students would see, and the interactions and environment was designed to keep the student as comfortable as possible. The results were shattering.

After three months, running hundreds of trials with 12 students and 9 facilitators, there was not one single correct response. There was overwhelming evidence of facilitator influence, albeit unconscious. Facilitators were devastated, as expected because of their emotional investment in the technique; however, after a period of time, they came to their own conclusions about FC. Reaction to the results of the published study had also been "intense and overwhelming." Correspondence came from all over the world: families who were torn apart because of abuse allegations; fathers who were in jail because of allegations; mothers whose children had been placed in foster care; and professional staff who had been "ostracized" for not believing.

According to Doug Wheeler, since his study, there have been some 25 other studies that confirm O.D. Heck's findings. There has not been any objective evidence to confirm that facilitated communication is a legitimate technique for communication. [Complete article]

I have seen Sue numerous times and it has never looked authentic. The mom hovers constantly over her. You  can't actually see what she types. Mom tells you from a safe distance. If it is authentic, it needs better public demonstration.

                                Jerry Newport

Its an unusual set of circumstances, if there is anyway that Sue could contact us I would be very pleased to have her viewpoint.
I know that before I talked/typed online and used it as way of communicating to others, (this was from a year ago) I found it extremely difficult to know my feelings and talk about it, having used typing to express myself has made the way I think easier to examine and I am much more aware of my feelings now.