The DOI matches its Crossref record.
ISAAC Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Open accessAbstract
The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) works to improve the lives of children and adults who use AAC…ISAAC's mission is to promote the best possible commun...
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
9 Own interpretation · 7 No basis given · 2 Not checked yet
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An analysis of three additional authorship studies, more recent than the systematic reviews, bolsters the conclusion of previous systematic reviews, in # (3), even further;”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews of numerous controlled (3) authorship studies provide evidence that the messages are authored by facilitators rather than persons with a disability.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several allegations of sexual abuse have been communicated via FC,”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“as documented in one systematic review, the overwhelming majority of communicative messages were influenced by facilitator control.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as it has been shown to prevent individuals without sufficient spoken language from using their own 'voice.'”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is also some evidence that the message construction by facilitators may occur without awareness of producing such a construction;”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The weight of evidence does not support FC and therefore it cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The main disputed issue regarding FC is whether the output originates from the facilitated person or the facilitator.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given their anecdotal nature, these reports cannot be taken as irrefutable evidence against authorship;”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The reports from stakeholders about FC's positive and negative impacts are anecdotal in nature.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recent studies providing descriptive analyses of the output generated via FC draw inferences about authorship that are inappropriate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For persons with limited or no functional speech, the use of FC risks the loss of valuable assessment and intervention efforts, time, and resources that might otherwise have been expended to implement AAC systems and strategies that are empirically validated and do not leave doubt about authorship.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 3
- It may state two separate claims as one. 2
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple reports from various stakeholders (e.g., parents, professionals) assert negative impacts and harms of FC on their lives.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There has also been evidence by courts against the possible truth of many allegations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple reports from various stakeholders (e.g., former FC users, parents, professionals) describe that FC has had a positive impact on their lives.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ISAAC does not support FC as a valid form of AAC, a valid means for people to access AAC, or a valid means to communicate important life decisions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The main disputed issue regarding FC is whether the output originates from the facilitated person or the facilitator.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the inordinate evidence for facilitator influence (see #3), the inferences that are made in these descriptive studies are methodologically unsound and should not be used to guide practice or future research; and”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The main disputed issue regarding FC is whether the output originates from the facilitated person or the facilitator.
“The main issue that is being disputed is whether the output produced when persons with disabilities are being facilitated is expressing their communicative intentions, or whether the source of the output is that of the facilitators.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ISAAC members have been increasingly concerned about the continued use of FC despite concerns about its validity.
“Members of ISAAC have been increasingly concerned about the continued use of Facilitated Communication (FC) despite concerns about the validity of FC, that is, whether the messages constructed with facilitation originate from the person to whom they are attributed or by the facilitator.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The reports from stakeholders about FC's positive and negative impacts are anecdotal in nature.
“Given their anecdotal nature, these reports cannot be taken as irrefutable evidence for supporting a demonstration of authorship;”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ganz, J. B. (2015) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.3109/07434618.2015.1047532 · Cited by 176
Perspective: Presuming Autistic Communication Competence and Reframing Facilitated Communication
Heyworth, M., Chan, T., & Lawson, W. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864991 · Cited by 103
“…we have a duty of care to acknowledge and listen to the voices of FC/RPM users who have become independent of physical support and who have irrefutably demonstrated cognitive and communicative competence (e.g., Kedar, 2012, 2018; Higashida, 2013; Mukhopadhyay, 2021; Rubin, 2021; Sequenzia, 2021).”
BackgroundFacilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P., & von Tetzchner, S. (2014) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.971490 · Cited by 93
Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H. C., Lang, R., Paul, D., Banajee, M., & Ireland, M. (2018) · Autism & Developmental Language Impairments · doi:10.1177/2396941518821570 · Cited by 63
Stolen voices: Facilitated communication is an abuse of human rights
Chan, J. B., & Nankervis, K. L. (2014) · Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention · doi:10.1080/17489539.2014.1001549 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Venue
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-11-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 357-358
- ISSN
- 0743-4618 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-3848
- OpenAlex
- W919581677
- Semantic Scholar
- b2627a3fcfbef9cd4a599bcf6423b4c89395acee
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 11.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
- Keywords
- facilitated communication, position statement
- MeSH terms
- Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Communication Disorders, Humans, Societies, Scientific, Evidence-Based Practice
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ISAAC Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/07434618.2014.971492
- The paper
- ISAAC Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. (2014). Augmentative and Alternative Communication. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.971492
