Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Saloviita et al. (2014), results indicated strong facilitator influence on message construction and did not validate FC as a communication method for students or facilitators.

“Results indicated strong facilitator infl uence on message construction and did not validate FC as communication method for students or facilitators.”

• cites Saloviita et al., 2014 sourceSupported

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Saloviita et al. (2014), two participants who could type independently were able to complete some tasks correctly when independent, but were consistently wrong when facilitated by a facilitator blind to the task.

“Two participants who could type independently were able to complete some tasks correctly when independent, but were consistently wrong when facilitated by a facilitator blind to the task.”

• cites Saloviita et al., 2014 sourceSupported

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Saloviita et al. (2014), test-retest and inter-rater agreement were high.

“Test-retest (whether responses were correct or not) and inter-rater agreement were high.”

• cites Saloviita et al., 2014 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

All primary studies included in Probst (2005) were also included in three systematic reviews published in English: Felce (1994), Jacobson et al. (1995), and Mostert (2001).

“It is important to note that while Probst ( 2005) is a German language publication, all of the primary studies included in Probst (2005) were also included in three systematic reviews published in English: Felce (1994), Jacobson et al. (1995), andMostert (2001).”

• cites Felce (1994) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Jacobson et al. (1995) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mostert (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Schiavo et al. (2005), answers were more appropriate in the non-blind condition, but about half of the answers were acceptable in the blind condition.

“Results indicated that the answers were more appropriate in the non-blind condition, but also about half of the answers were acceptable in the blind condition.”

• cites Schiavo et al., 2005Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The outcomes of Olney (2001) support the assumption of facilitator influence and are consistent with other experimental studies.

“The outcomes do support the assumption of facilitator infl uence and thus are consistent with other experimental studies.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Schiavo et al. (2005) was included in Wehrenfennig and Surian (2008) in their narrative analysis, but not the tabular summary of studies.

“The study was included in Wehrenfennig and Surian (2008) in their narrative analysis, but not the tabular summary of studies.”

• cites Wehrenfennig and Surian (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

A search in other sources for synopses of systematic reviews failed to yield other synopses.

“A search in other sources for synopses of systematic reviews (i.e., Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; EBP Compendium) failed to yield other synopses.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Perini et al. (2010a) concluded that the study failed to provide empirical evidence of the validity and effectiveness of FC.

“From these results, the authors concluded that the study failed to provide empirical evidence of the validity and effectiveness of FC.”

• cites Perini et al., 2010aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In total, 334 documents were excluded entirely because they did not focus on FC, mention of FC was made only in a tangential manner, or the documents were not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

“In total, 334 documents were excluded entirely because they did not focus on FC, mention of FC was made only in a tangential manner, or the documents were not published in a peer-reviewed journal.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Perini et al. (2010a) found no empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of FC.

“The authors found no empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of FC and recommended further research of both FC and the behavioral approach.”

• cites Perini et al., 2010aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Olney (2001), while some participants were literate and were the authors of the letter completing task, the outcomes for these participants were not better with FC than without.

“While some of the participants were literate and were the authors of the letter completing task, the outcomes for these participants were not better with FC than without.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Olney (2001) was an experimental study that included nine participants aged 16-42 years (M = 28.5, SD = 7.3).

“This experimental study included nine participants, aged 16 -42 years ( M ϭ 28.5, SD ϭ 7.3).”

• cites Olney, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

It may state two separate claims as one.

Three systematic reviews and four individual studies met level one criteria.

“Three systematic reviews and four individual studies met level one criteria”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Many level four reports included assertions of positive changes in the lives of people using FC and their families, while others included claims of negative impacts of FC on the lives of individuals using FC and their families.

“Many of these reports included assertions of positive changes in the lives of people using FC and their families; others included claims of negative impacts of FC on the lives of individuals using FC and their families.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Level four evidence comprised reports that included perspectives of individuals from various stakeholder groups regarding FC.

“As noted, level four evidence comprised reports that included perspectives of individuals from various stakeholder groups (e.g., former FC users, parents/family members of FC users, teachers, speech language therapists/pathologists) regarding FC.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The search strategy consisted of database searches, ancestry searches, and contacting individual authors.

“This strategy consisted of database searches, ancestry searches, and contacting individual authors.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

A multi-faceted search strategy was employed to identify potentially relevant published synopses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and studies.

“A multi-faceted search strategy was employed to identify potentially relevant published synopses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and studies.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Materials in languages other than English, German, French or Italian were not included in this review.

“Materials in languages other than English, German, French or Italian were not included in this review.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Disagreements between the two coders were resolved through consensus.

“Any disagreements between the two coders were resolved through consensus (Schlosser et al., 2007).”

• cites Schlosser et al., 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In order to determine the author of messages, an experimental design was required.

“In order to determine the author of messages, an experimental design was required.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Approximately 60% of written documents were independently coded by a second member of the Committee.

“Approximately 60% of written documents were independently coded by a second member of the Committee (Schlosser, Wendt, & Sigafoos, 2007).”

• cites Schlosser, Wendt, & Sigafoos, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Per analysis of Probst (2005), 23 studies met the criteria for level one analysis and included a blinded FC condition with a nonblinded FC condition as a comparison.

“Per analysis of the Probst (2005) systematic review, 23 studies (all dated in the years 1993 -1998) met the criteria for level one analysis and included a blinded FC condition with a nonblinded FC condition as a comparison”

• cites Probst (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The first author and Chair of the Committee coded all potential written documents found through the search or submitted to the ISAAC office for inclusion.

“The fi rst author and Chair of the Committee coded all potential written documents found through the search or submitted to the ISAAC offi ce for inclusion.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Level one evidence has the potential to appropriately inform conclusions regarding authorship, and hence, the validity of FC.

“Level one evidence has the potential to appropriately inform conclusions regarding authorship, and hence, the validity of FC.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

No attempt was made to systematically search for non-English documents.

“However, there was no attempt to systematically search for non-English documents, which would have required the searching of databases that operate in non-English speaking countries.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Further requirements were the inclusion of conditions (e.g., blinded facilitator, non-blinded facilitator, facilitated, not facilitated) that were established a priori and manipulated while assessing the impact of each condition on the output that was generated.

“Further requirements were the inclusion of conditions (e.g., blinded facilitator, non-blinded facilitator, facilitated, not facilitated) that were established a priori and manipulated while assessing the impact of each condition on the output that was generated.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The inclusion of articles across all four levels of analysis was restricted to those that appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

“Given that the committee included researchers and scholars from both qualitative and quantitative traditions in which peer-reviewed articles enjoy the highest regard, the inclusion of articles, across all four levels of analysis, was restricted to those that appeared in peerreviewed journals.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship.

“Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Based on his analysis and synthesis of 23 studies, Probst (2005) concluded that there was overwhelming evidence for facilitator control in FC.

“Based on his analysis and synthesis of 23 studies, Probst (2005) concluded that there was overwhelming evidence for facilitator control in FC.”

• cites Probst (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The internal validity of Olney (2001) was fundamentally flawed by lack of pretesting, lack of control for unspecific factors that may confound the independent variable with participant training and assessment implementation variables, and selective consideration of outcomes in favor of the FC-is-valid-claim.

“The internal validity of this study was fundamentally fl awed, in particular by (a) lack of pretesting, (b) lack of control for unspecifi c factors that may confound the independent variable (blind-nonblind) with participant training and assessment implementation variables, and (c) selective consideration of outcomes in favor of the FC-is-valid-claim.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

This preference for appraisals has been based on the premise that not all reviews are equal in terms of quality of methods to address trustworthiness.

“This preference for appraisals has been based on the premise that not all reviews are equal in terms of quality of methods to address trustworthiness (Schlosser, Wendt, & Sigafoos, 2007).”

• cites Schlosser, Wendt, & Sigafoos, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The review by Mostert (2012) did not follow systematic review guidelines closely but included a review of previous reviews of FC and drew broader conclusions from more recently generated evidence of the pro-FC movement; no additional studies were reviewed.

“The review by Mostert (2012), although not following systematic review guidelines closely, did include a review of previous reviews of FC and drew broader conclusions from the more recently generated evidence of the pro-FC movement; no additional studies were reviewed.”

• cites Mostert (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The accompanying position statement has been based on the evidence found in the review of literature, and not on the personal opinions of the individuals on the committee.

“Thus, the accompanying position statement has been based on the evidence found in the review of literature, and not on the personal opinions of the individuals on the committee.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The Committee developed an inclusion checklist.

“The Committee developed an inclusion checklist (see Appendix B to be found at online http://informahealth-care.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07434618.2014.971490).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

A democratic process was adopted by the committee throughout the review process.

“A democratic process was adopted by the committee throughout the review process.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Schiavo et al. (2005), it was unclear who determined the correctness of a response, and there were no controls to minimize false point assignments, such as no inter-rater agreement.

“It was unclear who determined the correctness of a response; that is, there were no controls in place to minimize the possibility of false point assignments (e.g., no inter-rater agreement of any kind).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Mostert (2010) added four more recent studies relative to Probst (2005), but none were deemed to include control procedures necessary for level one evidence.

“Mostert ( 2010) added four more recent studies relative to the review by Probst ( 2005), but none were deemed to include any control procedures, which were necessary for level one evidence.”

• cites Mostert (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Probst (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Studies without a non-blinded condition are not as rigorous and therefore not as convincing methodologically.

“Specifi cally, we relied on the body of studies that included a facilitator-blinded and a facilitator-non-blinded condition as studies without a non-blinded condition are not as rigorous and therefore convincing methodologically.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Systematic reviews are preferred sources of evidence because they provide systematic aggregated evidence to minimize error that may arise from relying on any one individual study.

“Systematic reviews have been shown to be preferred sources of evidence because they provide systematic aggregated evidence to minimize error that may arise from relying on any one individual study.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The internal validity of Perini et al. (2010a) was compromised by incomplete facilitator control (the facilitator was only visually, not acoustically, blinded), incomplete description of the dependent variable, and incomplete presentation of results.

“The internal validity of this study was compromised by the following: (a) incomplete facilitator control: due to unexpected technical problems, the facilitator was only visually, but not acoustically blinded, (b) incomplete description of the dependent variable, which comprised three different tasks formats, and (c) incomplete presentation of results.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Schiavo et al. (2005), it was not reported how tasks were assigned to participants, whether facilitators knew the item pool, whether one or more facilitators were the same for more than one participant, or whether facilitators knew each other.

“It was not reported (a) how the tasks were assigned to the participants, (b) whether the facilitators knew the item pool, (c) whether one or more facilitators were the same for more than one participant, or (d) whether the facilitators knew each other.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Members of committee were able to reach consensus on most issues; on matters for which the committee could not reach agreement, members voted by e-mail.

“Members of committee were able to reach consensus on most issues.On matters for which the committee could not reach agreement, members voted by e-mail.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Level two evidence provides quantitative descriptive data enabling analysis of the output generated when individuals are being facilitated using FC.

“Level two evidence provides quantitative descriptive data enabling analysis of the output generated when individuals are being facilitated using FC.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Limitations of Saloviita et al. (2014) included that one researcher collected all the data, facilitators were trusted to close their eyes rather than be blindfolded or patched, and occasionally the facilitator of a participant differed across tasks.

“Limitations of the study included that one researcher collected all the data, the facilitators were trusted to close their eyes rather than be blindfolded or patched, and occasionally the facilitator of a participant differed across tasks.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In light of the overwhelming level one evidence for facilitator control, the assumption that level two participants were authors is tenuous at best and ethically unjustifiable at worst.

“In light of the overwhelming level one evidence for facilitator control, this appears a tenuous assumption at best and an ethically unjustifi able one at worst.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Many authors of level two studies have made inferences about the abilities of individuals who use FC and indirectly asserted the validity of FC by analyzing message output without first blind testing to gauge facilitator influence.

“By analyzing the characteristics of the message output, without fi rst blind testing to gauge any facilitator infl uence, many authors of these studies have made inferences about the abilities of individuals who use FC and indirectly asserted the validity of FC.”