The technique involves providing an alphabet board, or keyboard. The facilitator holds or gently touches the disabled persons arm or hand during this process and attempts to help them move their hand and amplify their gestures. In addition to providing physical support needed for typing or pointing, the facilitator provides verbal prompts and moral support. In addition to human touch assistance, the facilitators belief in their communication partners ability to communicate seems to be a key component of the technique. There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that facilitators, not the person with the communication disability, are the source of all or most messages obtained through FC, by guiding the arm of the patient towards answers they expect to see or that form intelligible language. Alternatively, the facilitator may hold the alphabet board and move it to the disabled persons finger. Studies asking about things the facilitator cannot know for example showing the patient but not the facilitator an object have confirmed this, showing that a facilitator is generally unable to help the patient sign out the answer to a question where they do not know what the answer should be. Numerous cases have been reported by investigators in which disabled persons were claimed by facilitators to be engaged in signing a coherent message while the disabled persons eyes were closed, or they were looking away from or showing no particular interest in the letter board. Some facilitators have countered that FC cannot be clearly disproven by this method, since a testing environment might feel confrontational and alienating to the subject. Because the scientific consensus is that FC is a pseudoscience which causes great risk and emotional distress to people with communication disabilities, their families, and their caregivers, in 2. Sweden banned the use of FC in special needs schools. OvervieweditFacilitated communication is promoted as a means to assist people with severe communication disabilities in pointing to letters on an alphabet board, keyboard or other device so that they can communicate independently. It also appears in the literature as supported typing,6 progressive kinesthetic feedback,7 and written output communication enhancement. It is somewhat related to the Rapid Prompting Method RPM,8 also known as informative pointing,7 which has no evidence of efficacy. The person with disabilities, who is often not able to rely on speech to communicate, is referred to as the communication partner. The caregiver, educator or other provider offering physical support to the person with disabilities is called the facilitator. The facilitator holds or gently touches the communication partners elbow, wrist, hand, sleeve or other parts of the body1. Pad. 7The Canon Communicator, a small, portable, lightweight device that printed a tape of letters when activated, was popular with early FC users. Competent Communicator Manual Speech 100 Words' title='Competent Communicator Manual Speech 100 Words' />There is a growing awareness of the importance of literacy in AAC supported by an ever increasing amount of presentations, reference materials and publications see. The U. S. government recently revamped its password recommendations, abandoning its endorsement of picking a favorite phrase and replacing a couple characters with. Entertaining-Speaker.jpg' alt='Competent Communicator Manual Speech 100 Cerritos' title='Competent Communicator Manual Speech 100 Cerritos' />However, two companies, Crestwood Co. Glendale, Wisconsin and Abovo Co. Chicopee, Massachusetts, would later be charged by the Federal Trade Commission for making false and unsubstantiated claims that the device could enable people with autism and other disabilities to communicate using FC. The companies settled and stopped mentioning FC in their advertising campaigns. Proponents of FC claim that motor issues e. Paraphrase the eight principles of verbal messages and use their skills components in your own communication. Although this claim is unsubstantiated many people with autism have no difficulty pointing to or picking up objects independently, but do exhibit severe communication difficulties characteristic of the disorder,7 proponents argue that physical support and touch are necessary components of communicating through FC. Candidates for FC, presumably, lack confidence in their abilities1. The role of the facilitator is depicted by proponents as integral to helping the person with disabilities point to letters by holding his or her finger or hand, reducing or eliminating uncontrollable arm movements shaking or flapping, avoiding mistakes in typing, controlling the initiation of movement,1. As well as physical support in typing, the facilitator provides verbal prompts and moral support. Along with human touch, the facilitators belief in their communication partners ability to communicate is seen to be a key component of the technique. HistoryeditThe FC movement may be traced back to the 1. Denmark where it failed to take hold because of lack of scientific evidence. FC experienced a period of rapid growth and popularity in Australia in the 1. Rosemary Crossley. Arthur Schawlow, a Nobel laureate whose son was autistic,3. Douglas Biklen, then a special education professor from Syracuse University1. It was never the official position of the FCC that it was a DDoS attack, Gigi Sohn, former counselor to thenChairman Tom Wheeler, told Gizmodo. Competent Communicator Manual Speech 100 Final ExamCrossleys work in Australia,1. FC in the United States in the late 1. FC has also received attention in many other parts of the world Canada, Germany, Austria, Finland, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Asia. Early adopters of the technique praised FC for its apparent simplicity. FC was promoted as a teaching strategy3. As early as 1. 99. FCs efficacy, but indicated that any success reported by proponents of the technique was due to facilitator influence. Many researchers attribute facilitator influence, for the most part, to non conscious movements. It is thought that facilitators are genuinely unaware that they, not their client or family member, are controlling the communications. In 1. 99. 4, the American Psychological Association APA,3. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry AACAP,4. American Speech Language Hearing Association ASHA,1. International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication ISAAC4. FC, citing lack of scientific evidence. The APA also recommended that information obtained via FC should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or make diagnostic or treatment decisions. In recognition of continued scientific evidence against the technique, other organizations joined suit, passing their own resolutions advising their membership to avoid the technique. A British government report concluded in 1. It would be hard to justify further research on this. By 2. 00. 1 Mark P.