Markus Scholz and Jan Markus Stegkemper
Abstract
Facilitated Communication (FC) has ever since been a controversial subject of discussion. But scientific research on the method declined over the years. Nevertheless, recent publication activities are bringing the topic back on the agenda. The goal of the presented study is to identify published studies dealing with FC and to analyze taken research approaches towards the method and their longitudinal development. Therefore, a content analysis of 90 publications was carried out. Results show prevailing but over time varying approaches towards FC. Within dominant strategies (e.g. validation using message passing) certain aspects (e.g. facilitated use of pictorial symbols) are often not examined. Furthermore, we have identified only few studies focusing on prevalence. Based on our outcomes, possible implications for future research are discussed.
A never ending story?
Facilitated Communication (FC), developed by Rosemary Crossley in the late 1970s, has been controversially discussed ever since. Over the years two factions of researchers, professionals and parents were emerging, either they were outright for or against the method. Still the discussion is reignited on a regular basis (ISAAC, 2014), but as Mostert states scientific research on the method declined over the years (2012, p. 20). Nevertheless, recent publication activities are bringing the topic back on the agenda.
FC research a short review
Since the 1990s a lot of studies have been conducted, mostly dealing with the validation of the method. Published reviews show that those studies mostly utilized message-passing as a method to prove whether FC is working or not (see Köhler & Scholz, 2014, p. 133). At the end of the 1990s, the scientific interest seemed to decline (see Mostert, 2010, p. 39) and other approaches to validate FC were used (Bober, 2011, p. 419).
Research Questions
Based on the literature review during a previous study we found that there are very different scientific approaches towards FC and that these seem to vary and change dynamically over time (Köhler & Scholz, 2014, p. 136). These lead us to the following questions:
1. How many studies have been published in the context of FC since 1990?
2. What kinds of methods and approaches are used?
3. How did the application of different approaches develop over time?
4. What kind of symbols are utilized for communication in the studies (written text, pictorial symbols, concrete objects, etc.)?
Data collection
The databases ERIC and FIS Bildung were used to retrieve all publications published between 1990 and 2014. This initial data collection was conducted by our student assistant. Search terms were “Facilitated Communication” and the German equivalent “Gestützte Kommunikation”. We identified 160 articles in ERIC and another 66 articles in FIS Bildung. All bibliographic information including abstracts was gathered and publications using the term “Facilitated Communication” in a different understanding (not meaning the method of Crossley) were excluded.
We then utilized research reviews (Bober, 2010; Biermann, 1999; Green, 1994; Mostert, 2001; 2010; Probst, 2005) to supplement the initial database search , which added another 36 publications.
Afterwards we identified all empirical studies using a two rater validation based on a broad understanding of the term study:
1. Research interest: there is a research question or interest mentioned
2. Sample: an object of investigation is mentioned
3. Method/design: there is a description or documentation of a (methodological) procedure
4. Outcomes/results: some kinds of results or outcomes are mentioned
All publications were successively coded by two raters. Afterwards intercoder agreement was measured in percent (95.2%). To ensure a clear sample, we conducted a discursive clarification of all differently rated segments until we reached full agreement. In the end, 90 publications identified as primary studies were used for our analysis (see references).
Analysis
All studies were categorized in a deductive, concept-driven coding process (Gibbs, 2007, p. 44-45) using MAXQDA. Our previous sorting (Köhler & Scholz, 2014) was utilized as coding schedule. To ensure a clear assignment of codes a corresponding coding manual was written (Bryman, 2012, p. 298-299). Variables in MAXQDA were used to record the year and type of each publication and the location in which a study was conducted. This enabled us to count and visualize different scientific approaches taken towards FC on a timeline and to discuss how these approaches quantitatively varied.
To determine how many studies were conducted we had to distinguish between the publications and the study itself. If there was at least one similar author, we compared the reported samples, to identify multiple publications of the same outcomes. Only the study itself was counted.
We used the same procedure mentioned above, to ensure the reliability of our categorization.
Additional data-driven analysis
In a second step, we jointly revisited all pre-sorted studies in an inductive, more data-driven way (Gibbs, 2007, p. 45) to define sub-categories. The categories and sub-categories were then used to develop a visualization of taken research approaches.
Outcomes
We could identify a total of 90 studies focusing FC (see references). Most were published as journal articles (76.7%), followed by book sections (14.4%), web pages (5.6%) and full books (3.3%). Most studies were conducted in the United States (52.2%) (see table I).
Table 1
Countries of origin of studies (n=90)
Country of Origin |
USA |
Germany |
Australia |
Canada |
Finland |
|
47(52.2%) |
16(17.8%) |
7(7.8%) |
6(6.7%) |
4(4.4%) |
Country of Origin |
UK |
Italy |
Japan |
Denmark |
|
|
4(4.4%) |
4(4.4%) |
1(1.1%) |
1(1.1%) |