Controversy concerning facilitatedcommunication primarily stems from its lack of scientific validity orreliability. Evidence in empiricalstudies suggests that the facilitatoris influencing the communication, either intentionally or unwittingly(Prior & Cummins, 1992). Criticss contend that facilitated communication is based on the strong emotionaldesires of parents who desperately want to communicate with their verballyimpaired children or facilitators who want to be of service.
Underlying the controversial nature of facilitated communication is thebelief that the communicator is not really capable of producing the complexmessages that are ellicited. Some communications reflect an ability to read,write and spell beyond what one would expect for the age or experience of thecommunicator. Its use with individuals previously identified as mentallyretarded is challenged for its validity.
Research on the side of facilitated communication has been primarilyanecdotal in nature. Observations still not explained are that facilitationdoes not work for all nor by all. One facilitator may work for a student butnot another. When experimental study by the Intellectual Disability ReviewPanel (in Australia) was proposed, access to students was denied, with theexplanation that such testing would be seen as a threat to the supportive natureof the technique. Other approved testing was performed with students of theinstitute's (DEAL's) choicewith no evidence that the communicators were autistic or unable to communicateindependently (Cummins & Prior,1992).
As a result of some facilitated communications, sensitive information suchas allegations of child abuseor mistreatment has been revealed. Such charges can be devastating to a family,causing emotional and financial hardship. Thelegal implicationsresulting from this questionable form of communication are thus an issue to bedealt with.
The American Psychological Association (APA), in August of 1994, took thestand that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved procedurewith no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy. Their decisionwas based on the fact that scientifically based studies have shown that this isnot valid for those with profound developmental disabilities(Frazier, 1995). Furthermore,the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) has drafted a positionstatement declaring that facilitated communication "has no scientificvalidity or reliability"(Frazier,1995).