Facilitated communication

Facilitated communication (FC) is a method intended to help people with severe neurological impairment to use communication aids with their hands.

In the 1970s, Rosemary Crossley, who worked as an aide in an institution for individuals with multiple disabilities, began working with a woman who had cerebral palsy. She encouraged the woman to communicate by using Ms. Crossley as her facilitator. This was the beginning of the use of Facilitated Communication for people with disabilities, including ASDs.

Advocates of Facilitated Communication believe that autistics have the mental capacity required for communication, but lack the physical capacity to do so. Therefore, they say that if a facilitator supports the autistic’s arm or hand, they are able to type or use other types of boards to communicate. The immediate aim of FC is to allow the user to make choices and to communicate in a way that has been impossible in the past. The ultimate goal of the method is to enable the person to use an augmentative communication device independently.

In 1986, Ms. Crossley founded the DEAL Communication Center in Melbourne, Australia. The Center’s objective is to “assist people without or with dysfunctional speaking abilities to find alternative means of communication.” The prevalent theory at the Center is that autism is not a social or communication disorder, but a physical deficit that prevents communication.

A qualitative study conducted by Biklen in 1990 asserted that 90% of children with autism would be able to communicate using Facilitated Communication and that once they were able to communicate, they would display normal to high intelligence levels. However, other research studies have not been able to duplicate these findings.
People who question the validity of Facilitated Communication, wonder whose thoughts are really being communicated – the facilitator’s or the autistic’s. Is there really any way of knowing whose thoughts are coming through? Even Biklen concurs that the facilitator may be responsible for influencing the communicator.


Research conducted by Wheeler et al. in 1993 reviewed the responses of 12 autistics who used a facilitator. The responses were typed in response to pictures the communicators were familiar with. The conclusion of the research was that there wasn’t just some level of influence, but that the communication was entirely controlled by the facilitators.

Another question brought up by skeptics is how the physical contact made between the facilitator and the communicator enables communication. In 1997, a study conducted by Kezuka used a mechanical device to support the arm rather than a facilitator. The research showed that people who used a mechanical arm were not able to respond to questions without their human facilitator. Proponents of Facilitated Communication contend that the physical contact provides emotional support and forges a bond that gives the individual the confidence to communicate.

Yet, despite the controversies surrounding Facilitated Communication, it has been used in intelligence tests.

Individuals who had previously been tested as severely mentally impaired and later used facilitators tested in the normal range and, based on the testing using a facilitator, have been placed into regular classroom settings. And, Facilitated Communication has also been used within the legal system to provide testimony in criminal, domestic, and custody cases.

In fact, Facilitated Communication has been used as evidence to remove disabled people from homes and to fire staff accused of abuse.
Facilitated Communication has become widely popular since it first came on the scene.
It’s only recently that people have begun to question whether or not the treatment method holds any real scientific value.

Facilitated communication
Alternative autism treatments
Autism Checklist
A Comprehensive Resource Revealing the Latest Autistic Discoveries