The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Facilitated communication is contraindicated as a treatment choice; a meta-analysis is still to be done1
Abstract
(1) What peer-reviewed, controlled studies on the validity of facilitated communication (FC) have been conducted and what are their characteristics? (2) Can a ‘facilitator effect’ or ‘facilitator c...
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Among the more recent systematic reviews, the review relied primarily on Probst (2005) because it has been appraised in a synopsis and was deemed a high-quality systematic review.
“Among the more recent systematic reviews (Mostert, 2010;Probst, 2005;Wehrenfennig & Surian, 2008), we relied primarily on Probst (2005) because it has been appraised in a synopsis and was deemed as a highquality systematic review (Schlosser & Wendt, 2008).”
From Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review (2014) · cites this paper as Schlosser & Wendt, 2008
One synopsis by Schlosser and Wendt (2008) was identified which provided an appraisal of a systematic review by Probst (2005).
“One synopsis by Schlosser and Wendt (2008) was identifi ed which provided an appraisal of a systematic review by Probst (2005).”
From Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review (2014) · cites this paper as Schlosser and Wendt (2008)
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern University (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schlosser, Ralf W.
- Venue
- Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 81-83
- ISSN
- 1748-9539 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-9547
- OpenAlex
- W2069837171
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- facilitated communication, controlled studies, augmentative and alternative communication, meta-analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
