Читать книгу Introduction to Abnormal Child and Adolescent Psychology - Robert Weis - Страница 116

Fourteen-year-old Aislinn Wendrow had severe autism, could not speak, and had limited self-care skills. Her parents, Julian and Tali, tried dozens of treatments to improve Aislinn’s functioning, but none had much effect. Then, in middle school, Aislinn tried facilitated communication and it changed her life. Suddenly, Aislinn was able to communicate with her family, complete grade-level schoolwork, and write stories and poetry.

One day, however, Aislinn typed a message claiming that her father had sexually abused her. Although her parents denied the accusation and no evidence of abuse was found, police removed Aislinn and her brother from their home, arrested their father, and prohibited their mother from contacting them.

Was Aislinn really typing the messages or might the messages be the product of her facilitator? Aislinn’s facilitator claimed that she did not influence Aislinn’s typing in any way. However, some psychologists wondered whether the facilitator might be unknowingly guiding Aislinn’s hand, much like people playing with a Ouija board.

©iStockphoto.com/tolgart

During the trial, facilitated communication was put to the test. The judge asked Aislinn’s facilitator to leave the room. Then, the judge asked Aislinn several easy questions: Do you have a brother or a sister? Am I a boy or a girl? What color sweater am I wearing? When the facilitator returned, Aislinn responded using facilitated communication. The results of the test were consistent and startling. On every trial, when the facilitator could not hear the question, Aislinn’s answers were nonsensical.

Facilitated communication is an example of a pseudoscientific treatment that is not falsifiable. Facilitated communication was developed in the 1980s as a treatment for children with severe autism. Many of these children were nonverbal and could not communicate with others. Proponents of facilitated communication believed that these children had normal cognitive skills, but their neurological problems limited their ability to talk. By using a keyboard, these children could learn to type messages while a trained “facilitator” supported their hand, wrist, or arm. When first introduced, facilitated communication was viewed as a miracle cure. For the first time in their lives, many of these children were able to share their thoughts and feelings, participate in school, and even tell their parents, “I love you” (Foxx & Mulick, 2016).

Facilitated communication also had problems, however. Consider Aislinn, a girl who revealed some of the shortcomings of this “miracle cure.”

Aislinn’s inability to answer questions in court discredited the practice of facilitated communication. Nevertheless, supporters of facilitated communication remained steadfast in their beliefs. When Aislinn and her facilitator were asked why Aislinn could not answer such easy questions, they typed, “I AM AFRAID.” Supporters argued that facilitated communication worked—but only when participants were not being scrutinized or evaluated by others. Based on this reasoning, facilitated communication was not falsifiable—it could not be proven wrong. If Aislinn typed the wrong answers, it was because the test situation was faulty, not the technique itself.

All charges against Aislinn’s father were dropped and her family received more than $5.75 million in compensation. Although scientific evidence has discredited the practice of facilitated communication, it continues to be offered under new names like “supported typing” and “rapid prompting” across the United States (Hemsley et al., 2019; Lilienfeld, Marshall, Todd, & Shane, 2015).