The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Does Linguistic Analysis Confirm the Validity of Facilitated Communication?
Open accessAbstract
Facilitated communication (FC) has been interpreted as an ideomotor phenomenon, in which one person physically supports another person’s hand and unconsciously affects the content of the writing. Despite the strong experimental evidence against the authenticity of FC output, several studies claim to support its validity based on idiosyncrasies found in the texts produced. A review of these studies showed that, because of the logical circularity of the reasoning proposed in the studies, no decisive evidence that validated FC was presented. In addition, the idiosyncrasies found were better explained as by-products of the unusual writing process itself. Finally, the studies did not fulfill the quality standards proposed by the FC field itself.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
FC research that suffers from myside bias is designed-consciously or not-to invalidate FC by adopting purely deterministic paradigms and experimental designs with a singular focus on the ability of participants to pass messages.
“Facilitated communication research that suffers from myside bias is designed—consciously or not—to invalidate FC by adopting purely deterministic paradigms and experimental designs with a singular focus on the ability of participants to pass messages (Eberlin et al., 1993; Wheeler et al., 1993; Green, 1994; Simpson and Myles, 1995; Bebko et al., 1996; Saloviita, 2018; Vyse et al., 2019).”
From Perspective: Presuming Autistic Communication Competence and Reframing Facilitated Communication (2022) · cites this paper as Saloviita, 2018
In the section discussing validation methods (page not provided), Saloviita describes message-passing tests as a way to establish either the validity or invalidity of FC, not as tests designed to invalidate it. The Discussion also examines FC-field recommendations and linguistic evidence, contrary to the claim of a singular focus on message passing. The paper does not characterize this research as suffering from myside bias. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Alatalo T., 1999, Olen ja saan sanoa
- Carpenter W. B. (1852, March). On the influence of suggestion in modifying and directing muscular movement, independently of volition. Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Retrieved from http://www.sgipt.org/medppp/psymot/carp1852.htm
- Kiiskinen J., 2000, Helsingin Sanomat Kuukausiliite, 53
- Mazerolle P., 2012, Facilitated communication & augmented and alternative communication: A review
- Probst P., 2005, Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 53, 93
- 10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<374:AIFCAR>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- Scopesi A., 2003, Rivista di Psycolinguistica Applicata, 2, 83
- Tuzzi A., 2004, Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles, 7, 1097
- Wheeler D. L., 1993, Mental Retardation, 31, 49
- Zanobini M., 2001, Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 3, 395
Metadata
- Authors
- Saloviita, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Jyväskylä (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Saloviita, Timo
- ORCID
- Saloviita, Timo
- Venue
- Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-05-02
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-99
- ISSN
- 0887-1566 (ISSN-L)
- 1088-3576
- 1538-4829
- OpenAlex
- W2342968104
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- facilitated communication, circular reasoning, writing process, autism spectrum disorder
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
